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

[Syriusly]

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,

No- as you usual you completely misrepresent everything since you apparently are unable to make an honest post.

Windsor doesn't say anything about State being allowed- or not allowed to have gay marriage.

It says the Federal Government cannot tell States it will not recognize State marriage law.

And it very very clearly says that State marriage laws are subject to Constitutional guarantees.

You are just delusional .

 

[Silhouette]

Since you have bled out another page to "dominate" the topic on a new page, hoping the reader won't go back a page to check...I will post the quotes directly from Windsor here. Note the parts in red and how the words "unquestioned authority" on the specific legal question of ratifying or not ratifying gay marriage are used in reference to the states OVER the federal system.. Windsor said if a state's consensus decides one way or another on gay marriage, then that's what the fed has to abide by.

Note the word "SOME" underlined in the first quote from Windsor. That seals the deal...

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.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The judge should rule that one of the men needs to cut their penises off.

 

[Syriusly]

The judge should rule that one of the men needs to cut their penises off.

Always so good to hear from Americans who want to have other Americans have their penis's cut off.

So patriotic.

 

[Syriusly]

Since you have bled out another page to "dominate" the topic on a new page, hoping the reader won't go back a page to check..

Windsor doesn't address the legality of gay marriage at all.

Windsor specifically says that state's marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You are delusional.

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor doesn't address the legality of gay marriage at all.

Windsor specifically says that state's marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You are delusional.

Are you high on meth or something? How can you read the quotes from Windsor and deduce that "Windsor doesn't address the legality of gay marriage at all"??? Do you think you can just fabricate your version of reality from thin air, like y'all do your "the majority of Americans support gay marraige" (taken from surveys done in the blue district of San Francisco of actual Americans) and pull the wool over everyone's eyes??

Read this again and tell me how Windsor was not a determination of whether or not denying gay marriage is legal:

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

"Against this background (a statewide deliberative process) of lawful same-sex marriage in some States (but not all, because we just said it's arrived at by a statewide, not federal, deliberative process of a state's citizens)..."

 

[Silhouette]

After reading that, how is again that lower circuit courts can order states to perform gay marraiges against the will of the deliberative consensus?

How again is it that "Prop 8 isn't the law anymore"?

You realize of course that the intiative system in California and other states is a "statewide deliberative process"...and that the ruling against defenders of Prop 8 was procedural, not on the merits of their case? The Court effectively (but not purposefully) let stand the lower court ruling in the federal system, for what it was worth. Which is exactly bupkiss upon the reading of Windsor. In June 2013, the US Supreme Court affirmed the merits of Prop 8 as binding law.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

French populists agree: (Paris, 2013)

France is one of the most liberal countries around. Even they can see that common sense prevails when it comes to the formative years of children...

Children have been raised in single family homes for centuries. No one has ever asked if that was right to do.

Are you now going to advocate that all single parents can't raise their kids? Are you going to go to a woman or man whose spouse has died and tell them they can't raise their kids?

Do you even think about what you post before you post it?

 

[Dana7360]

What exactly is a "gay-lifestyle marriage"? Isn't that the one where two married people get to file a joint tax return and are eligible for Social Security death benefits? Or did you think it was the one where you are forced to suck a dick?

If you are opposed to this "gay-lifestyle marriage" being allowed, it makes me wonder how you feel about the gay lifestyle in general being allowed.

I think adults should be allowed to smoke cigarettes. I don't think they should be allowed to smoke cigarettes inside homes or cars where children are constantly present. That is the best analogy I can give you about your point. Adults can **** up and do insane/stupid or harmful stuff. They just cannot be allowed to drag kids down with them without the child's knowledgable consent. And since children are not capable of that knowledgable consent, the state gets involved on their behalf.

Wow you actually believe you have the right to tell people how to live their lives.

Why don't you pay attention to you life? I'm sure you've got better things to do that stick you nose into a complete stranger's life and judge it according to your beliefs.

However, how would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? Would you like some person telling you that you can't raise your child because you're heterosexual? Would you like it if someone tried to take your children from you just because of who you love?

 

[Silhouette]

You seem to have difficulty reading... And do stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Silhouette]

Children have been raised in single family homes for centuries. No one has ever asked if that was right to do. Are you now going to advocate that all single parents can't raise their kids? Are you going to go to a woman or man whose spouse has died and tell them they can't raise their kids? Do you even think about what you post before you post it?

It's a large conceptual jump from what a state incentivizes for tax breaks and other bennies (usually to its fiscal loss) as the best formative environment for its future citizens/children to "next are you going to advocate that other homes cannot raise kids". Your logical reasoning is deeply flawed.

This isn't a debate about who can or cannot raise kids. Wolves in the forest have been known to raise kids from time to time. It's about a state deciding which arrangements to ENTICE to create the best conditions for that formative environment. Otherwise a state would have zero interest, fiscally or otherwise, to be involved in the privelege of marriage at all.

It so happens that a child's best shot at life is under the roof where there is a father and mother...both genders representative as role models...not too young to be too immature to raise children (minors)...not too numerous to dilute the individual attention and role modeling each child receives (polygamy)...not too closely related by blood to create birth defects (incest)...not too few to create a lack of one of the complimentary genders as role model (monosexual single-by-choice parents) and not otherwise guaranteeing a lack of the complimentary gender as role model 100% of the time (gay).

The privelege of marriage is not a right. It is a state-incentivized program to lure in people to create the best formative life for children. Though they do not always achieve perfection, the structure of all the others don't give kids a chance by their very makeup, let alone the players involved. It is the physical structures from the get-go that virtually guarantee dysfunction in the children in those homes. So the state incentivizes only that arrangment that has the best shot at producing the best well-rounded citizens: normal father/mother husband/wife marriages.

Childless hetero marriages do not interfere with that physical structure. So they are allowed. The state isn't in the business of policing any individuals...only the physical structure of marriage and then stepping out in hopes all will work well...stepping in for divorce only when that environment fails so toxically from the individual players (not the structure, which is still sound) fighting so bitterly that it becomes a detriment to the kids. Again, it is all about the kids..

 

[Dana7360]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

And you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

I just said how children are harmed. You're just being dense.

If you believe that why aren't you leading a movement to stop millions of men from turning their backs on their own flesh and blood?

We have millions of men who make babies then turn their backs and walk away from their own flesh and blood without even giving it a first thought. Much less a second one.

Why is it ok for men to walk away from their own flesh and blood but it's not ok for gay couples to have and raise children?

 

[Silhouette]

If you believe that why aren't you leading a movement to stop millions of men from turning their backs on their own flesh and blood?

We have millions of men who make babies then turn their backs and walk away from their own flesh and blood without even giving it a first thought. Much less a second one.

Why is it ok for men to walk away from their own flesh and blood but it's not ok for gay couples to have and raise children?

Your argument that "two wrongs make a right" is illogical.

Perhaps my next move will be to further re-entice/incentivize abandoning parents to stay with their children. The woes in our society and marriage at its core are at an epidemic. That doesn't mean you deal the best formative environment its final death blow because "all is lost anyway". I don't subscribe to "two wrongs make a right" or your nihilistic viewpoint...

 

[Silhouette]

If you believe that why aren't you leading a movement to stop millions of men from turning their backs on their own flesh and blood?

We have millions of men who make babies then turn their backs and walk away from their own flesh and blood without even giving it a first thought. Much less a second one.

Why is it ok for men to walk away from their own flesh and blood but it's not ok for gay couples to have and raise children?

I think what you're saying is that there are millions of children currently in "danger of immediate legal harm" by their single parent not being able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Both single parents and homosexual-lifestyles guarantee that one of the complimentary gender will be missing 100% of the time. Very poor environment to incentivize for the formative years of children.

From this vantage point, it looks like you're arguing that the fathers of children in a lesbian home belong in that home...

 

[Silhouette]

page 14 of Opinion: United States v. Windsor
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

"Against this background (a statewide deliberative process) of lawful same-sex marriage in some States (but not all, because we just said it's arrived at by a statewide, not federal, deliberative process of a state's citizens)..."

Tell me, does anyone here have a different reading of the quote from Windsor above? Anyone have a description as to how Windsor was not affirming a state's consensus as the legal means of dealing with "arguments for and against same-sex marriage"?

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Here is what Windsor concluded- and this was the legal conclusion- not your interpretation:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

That is it- nothing about telling States what they can or cannot do- it is strictly about telling the Federal government what it cannot do.

 

[Syriusly]

Windsor doesn't address the legality of gay marriage at all.

Windsor specifically says that state's marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You are delusional.

Are you high on meth or something? How can you read the quotes from Windsor and deduce that "Windsor doesn't address the legality of gay marriage at all"??? ."

I am rational- you are delusional. That is the crucial difference between us.

Here is what Windsor concludes:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

Everything else is just analysis to get to this conclusion- that the Federal government cannot ignore State marriage laws.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

 

[Syriusly]

After reading that, how is again that lower circuit courts can order states to perform gay marraiges against the will of the deliberative consensus?

How again is it that "Prop 8 isn't the law anymore"?
.

The high court also paved the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. It left in place a 2010 district court decision that found Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved ban on gay marriages, was unconstitutional.

Prop 8 is dead- has been dead since the Supreme Court left the federal court decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional- stand.

 

[Syriusly]

If you believe that why aren't you leading a movement to stop millions of men from turning their backs on their own flesh and blood?

We have millions of men who make babies then turn their backs and walk away from their own flesh and blood without even giving it a first thought. Much less a second one.

Why is it ok for men to walk away from their own flesh and blood but it's not ok for gay couples to have and raise children?

I think what you're saying is that there are millions of children currently in "danger of immediate legal harm" by their single parent not being able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Both single parents and homosexual-lifestyles guarantee that one of the complimentary gender will be missing 100% of the time. Very poor environment to incentivize for the formative years of children.

From this vantage point, it looks like you're arguing that the fathers of children in a lesbian home belong in that home...

The only children in danger of immediate legal harm' are the children of gay couples- as Justice Kennedy noted:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Syriusly]

page 14 of Opinion: United States v. Windsor
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

"Against this background (a statewide deliberative process) of lawful same-sex marriage in some States (but not all, because we just said it's arrived at by a statewide, not federal, deliberative process of a state's citizens)..."

Tell me, does anyone here have a different reading of the quote from Windsor above? Anyone have a description as to how Windsor was not affirming a state's consensus as the legal means of dealing with "arguments for and against same-sex marriage"?

Once again you have deliberately misquoted Windsor.

The only words in your 'quote' that are from Windsor are the words I highlighted in 'red'.

Here is what Windsor actually said:

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.

Note the word 'Constitution'- as in(also from Windsor)

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.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567(2003) . By its recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status.