11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case? SCOTUS?

[WorldWatcher]

Gay lifestyle marriage isn't legal in most states. Only three or four? Five maybe? The rest it is illegal regardless of illegal lower circuit court defiance (contempt) of the Supreme's 2013 Windsor "states' choice" ruling..

"New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States
and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples
should have the right to marry and so live with pride in
themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all
other married persons."

Again you are wrong, Windsor itself recognized that during the process of writing the decision there were 12 States where SSCM was legal. Later that day it became 13 after they issued the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling.

Even for just the 12 pre-Hollingsworth States, some achieved SSCM through ballot action, some through legislative action, and some through Judicial action. ALL were recognized as valid.


>>>>

It made no ruling of merit on Prop 8. Don't be dishonest. It was a procedural ruling.

I didn't say it was a ruling on the merits or procedural, I said they issued a ruling on the same day that took the number of states to 13.

That is true. The SCOTUS in the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling vacated the 9th Circuit Decision but allowed the Federal District Court decision to remain the ruling on the matter. That ruling, on the merits, was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and therefore SSCM became legal again in California.

I point out through your flimsly attempt at deflection. You said "Only three or four? Five maybe?" as the number of States where SSCM was legal. On that day the answer was 13 - some achieved through the ballot, some achieved through the legislature, and some acheived through Judicial action.

You were wrong...

............................Again...

................................................Well actually it's - still.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, children are a compelling reason. Sorry. For the love of God, accept that children thrive best in homes where they have a mother AND a father.
...

Even if that were absolutely true beyond any reasonable doubt,

that in no way justifies banning by force of law the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best homes for raising a child.

No, but they can be put to the back of the line. Gay couples are demanding affirmative action, meaning they want to get in line ahead of optimal homes.

Prove it.

Because I am saying you are just full of shit.

Just bigoted bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

Having been able to follow the children of quite a few gay couples to adulthood my observation is that the children of same sex couples suffer from the same kind of emotional and social dysfunctions as any child raised in a single parent household.

I've seen none of that. My experience has been that the children grow up well adjusted and healthy. In fact, I've observed noticeably greater rates of such outcomes with same sex couples than with hetero couples.

When trying to glean the reason why, the best I was able to come up with is that there are no shotgun weddings among same sex couples. All children are born on purpose. Giving the parents a chance to ensure financial stability and emotional maturity to a much greater degree than many hetero couples are granted when the stick turns up blue.

I've observed that children growing up with same sex "parents" are wildly dysfunctional and often become serial killers.

Really- feel free to tell us about the serial killers you have personally known.

Because that just sounds like the usual BS- but the great thing about serial killers is that they are all easy to find on Google- so tell us about them- names and how you knew them.

Because I am calling BS

 

[Silhouette]

I didn't say it was a ruling on the merits or procedural, I said they issued a ruling on the same day that took the number of states to 13.

That is true. The SCOTUS in the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling vacated the 9th Circuit Decision but allowed the Federal District Court decision to remain the ruling on the matter. That ruling, on the merits, was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and therefore SSCM became legal again in California.

Hey dummy...don't want to burst your bubble, but if Windsor Avered that the choice was up to the states' "unquestioned authority", reaffirmed in potency by Stating at the end of Windsor that gay marraige was only legal in "some states" (not all 50), then, all the states that allowed or refused to allow gay marriage had their choice and power to do so reaffirmed.

That was the MERITOUS decision that SCOTUS made that day.

The NON-MERITOUS decision was to vacate the Prop 8 case due to a procedural flaw. So in order to weigh the Prop 8 decision on the proper scale, one would not turn to the lower court decision on a state's particular right to affirm or deny gay marriage. One would turn to the HIGHEST Court's MERITOUS decision on that specific point of law.

So in case you are a little slow, that means that they at once vacated the Prop 8 case AND affirmed that Prop 8 was the law by trumping the lower court's previous decision on Prop 8 by their Affirmations in Windsor.

No lower court can tell SCOTUS what's what on a specific question of law. In Prop 8's case, the specific question was and is: "can California legally deny gay marriage". Windsor said "yes, all states can affirm or deny gay marriage".

So.....OVERRULED...and CHECKMATE pal. Prop 8 is law and so are all the other state-enacted bans on gay marriage until SCOTUS and SCOTUS ONLY says otherwise...

 

[WorldWatcher]

I didn't say it was a ruling on the merits or procedural, I said they issued a ruling on the same day that took the number of states to 13.

That is true. The SCOTUS in the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling vacated the 9th Circuit Decision but allowed the Federal District Court decision to remain the ruling on the matter. That ruling, on the merits, was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and therefore SSCM became legal again in California.

Hey dummy...don't want to burst your bubble,

So now you are so frustrated you are reduced to name-calling.

That's telling.

but if Windsor Avered that the choice was up to the states' "unquestioned authority",

It didn't. Your "unquestioned authority" in quotes appears in only one place in the decision and you are dishonestly trying to make it say something it is not. The full quote is:

"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954) . The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare con-gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Depart-ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528–535 (1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ ‘[d]iscriminations of an un-usual character’ ” especially require careful considera-tion. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."​

There is no doubt that States have the power to sanction same-sex Civil Marriage and if they do so the federal government must recognize those legal Civil Marriages.

And as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court points out, someone that knows a hell of a lot more about the law than you do:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion doesnot decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."​

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Hey dummy...don't want to burst your bubble, but if Windsor Avered that the choice was up to the states' "unquestioned authority", reaffirmed in potency by Stating at the end of Windsor that gay marraige was only legal in "some states" (not all 50), then, all the states that allowed or refused to allow gay marriage had their choice and power to do so reaffirmed.

Again, Silo.....and you know all of this already, the Windsor decision said that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, the issue was up to the States.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor V. US

You refuse to acknowledge that portion of the ruling, virtually never mention it, and pretend it doesn't exist. But just because you close your eyes and pretend doesn't mean that the ruling actually changes.

No lower court can tell SCOTUS what's what on a specific question of law. In Prop 8's case, the specific question was and is: "can California legally deny gay marriage". Windsor said "yes, all states can affirm or deny gay marriage".

Windsor said that subject to certain constitutional guarantees the states decide. And the Perry court found that Prop 8 failed the constitutional guarantee test. The USSC preserved that ruling, have never indicated that gay marriage bans are constitutional, and have preserved every ruling that overturns such rulings. Including the Perry case.

Which is why prop 8 is no more.

 

[Skylar]

And as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court points out, someone that knows a hell of a lot more about the law than you do:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion doesnot decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."​

Yeah, but what does the Chief justice of the USSC know in comparison to an anonymous farm hand on a message board?

 

[Katzndogz]

Having been able to follow the children of quite a few gay couples to adulthood my observation is that the children of same sex couples suffer from the same kind of emotional and social dysfunctions as any child raised in a single parent household.

I've seen none of that. My experience has been that the children grow up well adjusted and healthy. In fact, I've observed noticeably greater rates of such outcomes with same sex couples than with hetero couples.

When trying to glean the reason why, the best I was able to come up with is that there are no shotgun weddings among same sex couples. All children are born on purpose. Giving the parents a chance to ensure financial stability and emotional maturity to a much greater degree than many hetero couples are granted when the stick turns up blue.

There haven't been shotgun weddings in this country for many years.

 

[Skylar]

Having been able to follow the children of quite a few gay couples to adulthood my observation is that the children of same sex couples suffer from the same kind of emotional and social dysfunctions as any child raised in a single parent household.

I've seen none of that. My experience has been that the children grow up well adjusted and healthy. In fact, I've observed noticeably greater rates of such outcomes with same sex couples than with hetero couples.

When trying to glean the reason why, the best I was able to come up with is that there are no shotgun weddings among same sex couples. All children are born on purpose. Giving the parents a chance to ensure financial stability and emotional maturity to a much greater degree than many hetero couples are granted when the stick turns up blue.

There haven't been shotgun weddings in this country for many years.

There have however been quite a few folks who accidentally got pregnant or got a girl pregnant. And started having kids without the emotional maturity, relationships skills or financial stability to raise a family. Watch 'Teen Mom' for a juicy snootful of how awkward those kind of accidents can get.

With same sex couples, there are no such accidents. Ever child is on purpose. Which means they have a much better chance to prepare, to wait until they are ready emotionally and financially. And that preparation pays off, in my observation.

 

[Syriusly]

I didn't say it was a ruling on the merits or procedural, I said they issued a ruling on the same day that took the number of states to 13.

That is true. The SCOTUS in the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling vacated the 9th Circuit Decision but allowed the Federal District Court decision to remain the ruling on the matter. That ruling, on the merits, was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and therefore SSCM became legal again in California.

Hey dummy...don't want to burst your bubble, but if Windsor Avered that the choice was up to the states' "unquestioned authority", reaffirmed in potency by Stating at the end of Windsor that gay marraige was only legal in "some states" (not all 50), then, all the states that allowed or refused to allow gay marriage had their choice and power to do so reaffirmed.

That was the MERITOUS decision that SCOTUS made that day.

The NON-MERITOUS decision was to vacate the Prop 8 case due to a procedural flaw. So in order to weigh the Prop 8 decision on the proper scale, one would not turn to the lower court decision on a state's particular right to affirm or deny gay marriage. One would turn to the HIGHEST Court's MERITOUS decision on that specific point of law.

So in case you are a little slow, that means that they at once vacated the Prop 8 case AND affirmed that Prop 8 was the law by trumping the lower court's previous decision on Prop 8 by their Affirmations in Windsor.

No lower court can tell SCOTUS what's what on a specific question of law. In Prop 8's case, the specific question was and is: "can California legally deny gay marriage". Windsor said "yes, all states can affirm or deny gay marriage".

So.....OVERRULED...and CHECKMATE pal. Prop 8 is law and so are all the other state-enacted bans on gay marriage until SCOTUS and SCOTUS ONLY says otherwise...

Prop 8 is dead.

Everything you said is incorrect.

You are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't say it was a ruling on the merits or procedural, I said they issued a ruling on the same day that took the number of states to 13.

That is true. The SCOTUS in the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling vacated the 9th Circuit Decision but allowed the Federal District Court decision to remain the ruling on the matter. That ruling, on the merits, was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and therefore SSCM became legal again in California.

Hey dummy...don't want to burst your bubble, but if Windsor Avered that the choice was up to the states' "unquestioned authority", reaffirmed in potency by Stating at the end of Windsor that gay marraige was only legal in "some states" (not all 50), then, all the states that allowed or refused to allow gay marriage had their choice and power to do so reaffirmed.

That was the MERITOUS decision that SCOTUS made that day.

The NON-MERITOUS decision was to vacate the Prop 8 case due to a procedural flaw. So in order to weigh the Prop 8 decision on the proper scale, one would not turn to the lower court decision on a state's particular right to affirm or deny gay marriage. One would turn to the HIGHEST Court's MERITOUS decision on that specific point of law.

So in case you are a little slow, that means that they at once vacated the Prop 8 case AND affirmed that Prop 8 was the law by trumping the lower court's previous decision on Prop 8 by their Affirmations in Windsor.

No lower court can tell SCOTUS what's what on a specific question of law. In Prop 8's case, the specific question was and is: "can California legally deny gay marriage". Windsor said "yes, all states can affirm or deny gay marriage".

So.....OVERRULED...and CHECKMATE pal. Prop 8 is law and so are all the other state-enacted bans on gay marriage until SCOTUS and SCOTUS ONLY says otherwise...

Prop 8 is dead.

Everything you said is incorrect.

You are delusional.

Here's the thing with Silo. I genuinely don't know if he's lying his ass off, hoping to muster up support in the uninformed. Or if he really believes that his non-existent passages in Windsor really do exist.

If I had to guess, I'd say the answer is yes.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the thing with Silo. I genuinely don't know if he's lying his ass off, hoping to muster up support in the uninformed. Or if he really believes that his non-existent passages in Windsor really do exist.

If I had to guess, I'd say the answer is yes.

United States v. Windsor

page 14 of Opinion:
After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution.

Page 16 if Opinion:
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,see, e.g., Loving v.Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

Then later it Avers:

Page 18 Opinion:
The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”...Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in NewHampshire.

Page 18 of Opinion:
The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this classof persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition

Page 19 of Opinion:
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v.United States , 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete communitytreat each other in their daily contact and constant inter-action with each other.

The bits in red above are the Constitutional Finding in Windsor on the specific question of law "Do states have the right to say yes or no to gay marraige without federal interference...for those keeping track of whether or not the lower circuit courts ordering states to ratify gay marriage against their initiative-consensus...

In case any question lingers about whether Windsor intended or granted sweeping protection on that specific question of law to be applied by federal force against the states' Wills:

Page 21 of Opinion:
The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

And as you know the Court ended its writing only acknowledging that so-called "gay marriage" was only allowed in some 11 states. At the time the church of LGBT was claiming that California was the 12 state. But that was never allowed for in Windsor since it JUST SAID that the initiative and authority of ratifying gay marriage or not was the "Unquestioned authority of the states". Of course they left California out. How could they include it when California had legally consulted its citizens and they said 'NO!' (twice)...

 

[Skylar]

The bits in red above are the Constitutional Finding in Windsor on the specific question of law "Do states have the right to say yes or no to gay marraige without federal interference...for those keeping track of whether or not the lower circuit courts ordering states to ratify gay marriage against their initiative-consensus...

And where pray tell is ANY mention of gay marriage bans if they are approved by Windsor? Show us where it says that gay marriage bans are constitutional.

There's no mention of any such bans. Let alone an authorization of such bans or a finding of constitutionality of such bans. You've hallucinated all of it. The courts have never found that gay marriage bans are constitutional in Windsor. They never even mention them.

As for the 'authority of the states', its subject to certain constitutional guarantees. As the courts explicitly states three times:

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

Windsor V. The US.

And this is where your argument breaks. As the courts didn't find that gay marriage bans in were constitutional in Windsor. They didn't even address the topic. As it was outside the scope of the issue being discussed. Which even Justice Roberts recognized:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the major-ity’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

Justice Roberts on Windsor V. US.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Justice Roberts straight up contradicts you. And the Windsor court never mentions anything you've claimed about gay marriage bans. And contradicts you 3 times on the court's authority to overturn state marriage laws if they violate the constitution.

Why?

Because Windsor was about whether Federal LAWS on marriage override State LAWS on marriage. And the courts ruled that no, Federal LAW can't, as marriage is the exclusive province of the State to regulate. So DOMA, a Federal LAW, cannot override the State LAW in NY on marriage.

Which you've bizarrely interpreted that to mean that the federal COURTS can't intervene if State marriage laws violate the rights of individuals. Which the Windsor Court explicitly contradicts you on, 3 times. Each time insisting that yes, the State marriage laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And even giving you cases in which the courts did EXACTLY what you insist they can't do: override state marriage laws because they violated the rights of citizens.

Which they did in Loving V. Virginia.

So where did the courts rule that gay marriage bans were constitutional in Windsor. As nothing you've cited even MENTIONS gay marriage bans. Let alone rules they are constitutional.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[Skylar]

And as you know the Court ended its writing only acknowledging that so-called "gay marriage" was only allowed in some 11 states. At the time the church of LGBT was claiming that California was the 12 state. But that was never allowed for in Windsor since it JUST SAID that the initiative and authority of ratifying gay marriage or not was the "Unquestioned authority of the states". Of course they left California out. How could they include it when California had legally consulted its citizens and they said 'NO!' (twice)...

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees. This is the part you keep ignoring. And the Windsor court never indicates that gay marriage bans pass that test, or are in any wy constitutional. In fact, the Windsor court never mentions gay marriage bans AT ALL.

Ever.

You've made all that up. All while ignoring the court's explicit contradiction of your claims, where they ruled that the State marriage laws must respect the constitutional rights of citizens. The Windsor court even offered as an example of that, the Loving v. Virginia case in which the courts overturned state marriage laws because they violated the constitution.

Where the courts did exactly what you insist the courts can't do.

Demonstrating elegantly that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Page 14:

"...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution....."


Until further notice. And until that notice comes, no lower court may contradict a specific finding of law at the Supreme level.

 

[Skylar]

Page 14:

"...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution....."

That's a mention of lawful same sex marriages. Now show any mention of gay marriage bans. And then show us where the Windsor court found that such same sex marriage bans were constitutional.

With page numbers, please.

Until further notice. And until that notice comes, no lower court may contradict a specific finding of law at the Supreme level.

The courts have never found that same sex marriage bans are constitutional in Windsor. So how could a lower court ruling that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional be contradicted by the Windsor ruling...which never ruled on the constitutionality of such bans?

And you'll have to use ACTUAL citations of the Windsor ruling. Not your imagination. So far you've yet to cite of the Windsor ruling that even mentions same sex marriage bans. Let alone finds them constitutional.

Try again.

 

[MaxGrit]

That best environment involves a father and a mother. All others are inferior for all the reasons stated in the OP.

That is incorrect and the State has a interest which it very often, and unfortunately, ignores when it lets biology override what is in the best for the child. The best parents for a child are very often not those who created it. There are very few people I would let reproduce, and even fewer who would be allowed to then act as parents.

You make a huge and poor assumption, heterosexual biological parents are best, and you're wrong.

You are a moron, very stupid.

 

[Skylar]

That best environment involves a father and a mother. All others are inferior for all the reasons stated in the OP.

That is incorrect and the State has a interest which it very often, and unfortunately, ignores when it lets biology override what is in the best for the child. The best parents for a child are very often not those who created it. There are very few people I would let reproduce, and even fewer who would be allowed to then act as parents.

You make a huge and poor assumption, heterosexual biological parents are best, and you're wrong.

You are a moron, very stupid.

Max, you're basing your conclusoins on your religious beliefs. Which means that we'd already have to agree with you for them to matter to us. What you lack is a logical, rational, or evidence based argument.

Nor does gay marriage have the slightest thing to do the proposed goal. As gays and lesbians are already having kids. Marriage only prevents harm to the children. It doesn't make children. People do.

 

[Silhouette]

That's a mention of lawful same sex marriages. Now show any mention of gay marriage bans. And then show us where the Windsor court found that such same sex marriage bans were constitutional.

With page numbers, please.

Are you suggesting that states only have the authority to ratify but not disallow gay, polygamy, monosexual (single person) or incest marriages?

The last time I checked my dictionary on the word "choice" it means an option between two or more possibilities. In this case the states' unquestioned authority on gay marriage allowed in SOME states means the authority to allow it or not to allow it. Since when is a state's authority conditional, when the highest authority in the federal system just stated that gay marriage is only legally allowed in SOME states?

 

[Skylar]

That's a mention of lawful same sex marriages. Now show any mention of gay marriage bans. And then show us where the Windsor court found that such same sex marriage bans were constitutional.

With page numbers, please.

Are you suggesting that states only have the authority to ratify but not disallow gay, polygamy, monosexual (single person) or incest marriages?

I'm suggesting that you show us any mention of gay marriage bans in the Windsor decision and exactly where the Windsor court ruled that same sex marriage bans were constitutional.

With page numbers.