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

[Syriusly]

[
The privelege of marriage is not a right...

It very much is a right- no matter how much you don't want it to be

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Skylar]

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"?

Where does Windsor indicate that same sex marriage bans are constitutional? Where does Windsor even mention same sex marriage bans?

Just quote those passages for us.

 

[Skylar]

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

Why? You do it to USSC justices all the time. Insisting that rulings that never even mention gay marriage bans somehow found gay marriage bans to be constitutional.

And don't get me started on your bizarre rants regarding what 'kennedy has considered'. Those are tales of fictional wonder that might as well begin with 'once upon a time.'

 

[Skylar]

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...

Save of course, that 'do states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage without federal interference' isn't a question asked in Windsor. Nor does Windsor even address the topic. Nor makes a single mention of gay marriage bans.

Ever.

Nothing you've cited mentions gay marriage bans, expresses an opinion on them by the court, or indicates they are constitutional. All of that is your imagination.

So where did the courts state that gay marriage bans were constitutional or even mention gay marriage bans? And of course, that gay marriage bans didn't violate any of the 'constitutional guarantees' that the courts clearly indicate that State marriage laws are subject to.

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".

Nothing you've cited even mentions gay marriage bans. Let alone states that such bans are constitutional. Please quote the portion of Windsor where it states that gay marriage bans are constitutional.

And the Windsor court has said repeatedly that state marriage laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees. The Perry ruling found that Prop 8 violated those constitutional guarantees. With the USSC preserving that ruling.

Which means that Prop 8 is dead. There are no appeals.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

That's nonsense...

There is no greater advocate for men to bear their responsibilities than Americans.

But with that said... the RESPONSIBILITY for conception is today, what it has always been and THAT rest upon the "WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!"

Wherein the right to choose rest within the RESPONSIBILITY to CHOOSE WISELY, with whom she engages in the behavior that is designed, SPECIFICALLY FOR: Procreation.

Men are designed to GET IN! It's the woman's job to KEEP THEM OUT! Until such time wherein she CHOOSES; as is her RIGHT, to engage in the behavior designed to conceive a child.

 

[Dana7360]

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...

I don't think that two wrongs make a right. That was the point of my post.

If it's bad for a child to not be raised with a father why isn't that person doing something about it?

There are millions of kids in America whose father turned his back and walked away. Millions more whose father even denied parentage.

Yet we can't allow gays to marry because there might not be a father figure in a child's life. What if they don't have kids? What if the gay couple is male? That kid will have not one but two fathers.

What about divorced couples? Are you now going to advocate that couples not be allowed to divorce? What about kids whose father has died? Are you going to rip that kid from it's only living parent?

You don't understand that here in America you can't discriminate against a group of people. If you're not going to let gay people marry because they won't have kids or the kids won't have the opposite sex parent in the home then you have to take all kids from all single parent homes. You have to make all men stop turning their backs on their children and just walking away. You have to not allow infertile couples to marry or if the couple decides they don't want kids you'll have to not allow them to marry or break up the marriage.

What you want is illegal and cruel to your fellow Americans. I don't support what you want. I support the constitution and what America stands for. Obviously you don't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>



Same-sex marriages begin in Miami-Dade County The Miami Herald
Court won 8217 t add to delay of Florida same-sex marriages SCOTUSblog


Just a note for SIL, it's now officially 36 States where SSCM is legal with Civil Marriages starting today in Florida.

And before you go off, remember the State already applied for a stay from the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS turned them down. With your ranting about Baker and Windsor one would think that if the SCOTUS agreed with you they would have issued the stay and prevented SSCM's from starting. And no it wasn't one "rogue" Justice that did it. The appeal went to Justice Thomas who referred it to the full court and only two Justices were noted as desenting in the denial of the stay (Thomas and Scalia).


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

>



Same-sex marriages begin in Miami-Dade County The Miami Herald
Court won 8217 t add to delay of Florida same-sex marriages SCOTUSblog


Just a note for SIL, it's now officially 36 States where SSCM is legal with Civil Marriages starting today in Florida.

And before you go off, remember the State already applied for a stay from the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS turned them down. With your ranting about Baker and Windsor one would think that if the SCOTUS agreed with you they would have issued the stay and prevented SSCM's from starting. And no it wasn't one "rogue" Justice that did it. The appeal went to Justice Thomas who referred it to the full court and only two Justices were noted as desenting in the denial of the stay (Thomas and Scalia).


>>>>

I keep saying....a 7 to 2 ruling on gay marriage isn't outside the realm of possibility.

 

[Skylar]

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?

That's nonsense...

There is no greater advocate for men to bear their responsibilities than Americans.

But with that said... the RESPONSIBILITY for conception is today, what it has always been and THAT rest upon the "WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!"

The responsibility for conception is with those who conceive the child. And that can't be done solo.

 

[Silhouette]

I keep saying....a 7 to 2 ruling on gay marriage isn't outside the realm of possibility.

You think that there will be a 7/2 ruling to overturn Windsor in less than three years? Really?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I keep saying....a 7 to 2 ruling on gay marriage isn't outside the realm of possibility.

You think that there will be a 7/2 ruling to overturn Windsor in less than three years? Really?

If Windsor said what you think it said (which it doesn't)

Please explain why the SCOTUS has not issued stays on cases from the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court. In each of the cases involved the SCOTUS rejected a stay request which allowed SSCM to begin in all (or one) state withing that jurisdiction where SSCM's were not occurring before.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I keep saying....a 7 to 2 ruling on gay marriage isn't outside the realm of possibility.

You think that there will be a 7/2 ruling to overturn Windsor in less than three years? Really?

Nope. The court isn't overturning Windsor, as it overturned gay marriage restrictions on the federal level (well, most of them). I'm arguing that its plausible that the court will overturn gay marriage restrictions across the country by a 7 to 2 margin. Not likely. But plausible.

Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer are definitely going to vote against gay marriage bans. Kennedy seems a pretty dead lock against it, and will likely author the ruling. As he seems to be the voice of the court on gay rights issues. So you have your majority easily as you did in

I'm arguing that Robert's can see what's coming, where the nation is heading. And he strongly favors the reputation of the court and his own legacy. On that basis alone, I'd say there's a fair chance that he'll side with the majority on gay marriage. I don't think its likely, but I think its possible. Especially given that his discent on Windsor case was based on the perception that DOMA was constitutional based on the interests of uniformity and stability. With 36 of 50 States now recognizing gay marriage, a solid majority of the public now supporting it and hundreds of thousands of gays now married, uniformity and stability would be served by recognizing gay marriage. While bans would produce the opposite.

Alito, one of the most conservative justices on the USSC, has consistently voted against granting stays. I think the two most plausible explanations are that he doesn't believe in such gay marriage bans. Or that he does, and recognizes that if it were to reach the SCOTUS, he and his fellow conservatives would lose.

I'd say the latter is more probable than the former. But the former is a definite possibility. And thus, your 7 to 2 majority. Plausible and possible. But not terribly likely.

And I'm still waiting for you to quote the portions of Windsor where the courts ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Or even mention gay marriage bans. As nothing you've cited does.

 

[Syriusly]

I keep saying....a 7 to 2 ruling on gay marriage isn't outside the realm of possibility.

You think that there will be a 7/2 ruling to overturn Windsor in less than three years? Really?

The Court has already ruled on Windsor- it will not be ruling on it again- that part of DOMA is dead.

Congress cannot pass laws refusing to accept State marriages.

 

[Silhouette]

If Windsor said what you think it said (which it doesn't)

Please explain why the SCOTUS has not issued stays on cases from the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court. In each of the cases involved the SCOTUS rejected a stay request which allowed SSCM to begin in all (or one) state withing that jurisdiction where SSCM's were not occurring before.

Non-meritous stays granted without explanation indeed are a mystery. I suspect they had more to do with politics and a certain political election recently...a spur in the side of the middle voter to get out and defy the LGBT steamroller....

And what do you know...it worked...

 

[WorldWatcher]

If Windsor said what you think it said (which it doesn't)

Please explain why the SCOTUS has not issued stays on cases from the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court. In each of the cases involved the SCOTUS rejected a stay request which allowed SSCM to begin in all (or one) state withing that jurisdiction where SSCM's were not occurring before.

Non-meritous stays granted without explanation indeed are a mystery. I suspect they had more to do with politics and a certain political election recently...a spur in the side of the middle voter to get out and defy the LGBT steamroller....

And what do you know...it worked...

Well since the court denied the stay request for Florida out of the 11th Circuit in mid-December, that shows that "a certain political election recently" which occurred in NOVEMBER is bogus reasoning.

Care to try again. Or are you going to stick with it was because of an election that had already occurred?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Well since the court denied the stay request for Florida out of the 11th Circuit in mid-December, that shows that "a certain political election recently" which occurred in NOVEMBER is bogus reasoning.

Care to try again. Or are you going to stick with it was because of an election that had already occurred?


>>>>

It is curious, I won't deny that. But as it stands, the only MERITOUS Decision at the Supreme Court level in the federal system was one that found states get to deliberate for or against gay marriage and create law according to their consensus on that question. (Windsor 2013). So the only binding law to date is that states get to choose up or down on gay marriage and the fed can only abide by and respect that choice until further notice.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well since the court denied the stay request for Florida out of the 11th Circuit in mid-December, that shows that "a certain political election recently" which occurred in NOVEMBER is bogus reasoning.

Care to try again. Or are you going to stick with it was because of an election that had already occurred?


>>>>

It is curious, I won't deny that. But as it stands, the only MERITOUS Decision at the Supreme Court level in the federal system was one that found states get to deliberate for or against gay marriage and create law according to their consensus on that question. (Windsor 2013). So the only binding law to date is that states get to choose up or down on gay marriage and the fed can only abide by and respect that choice until further notice.

Your belief about Windsor is false as it doesn't mean what you say it does.

Hell, the Chief Justice of the Supreme court flat out disagrees with what you try to say and he knows a lot more about the law then your or I.

So at the end of the day you have nothing to explain why the SCOTUS hasn't applied your opinion out Windsor in the multiple stay requests that have been made.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Well since the court denied the stay request for Florida out of the 11th Circuit in mid-December, that shows that "a certain political election recently" which occurred in NOVEMBER is bogus reasoning.

Care to try again. Or are you going to stick with it was because of an election that had already occurred?


>>>>

It is curious, I won't deny that. But as it stands, the only MERITOUS Decision at the Supreme Court level in the federal system was one that found states get to deliberate for or against gay marriage and create law according to their consensus on that question. (Windsor 2013).

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Which the court states 3 times in the Windsor decision. And you've ignored as many.

Show us anywhere in the WIndsor decision where the courts found that gay marriage bans were constitutional? Or even mentioned gay marriage bans....

You can't. As the Windsor decision has neither. You've imagined it. And no lower court is bound to your imagination.

So the only binding law to date is that states get to choose up or down on gay marriage and the fed can only abide by and respect that choice until further notice.

Nope. Even Justice Roberts recognized that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about:

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, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage

Justice Roberts, Dissenting
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Justice Roberts explicitly contradicts your assertions. And backing them is....no one. No USSC justice has ever found that the Windsor decision ruled that same sex marriage bans are constitutional. Virtually every court to apply the Windsor decision overturned gay marriage bans. Again, in explicit contradiction of your interpretation. The USSC has preserved every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. And the Windsor decision makes no mention of gay marriage bans. Let alone authorizes them.

Again, Silo.....you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Your belief about Windsor is false as it doesn't mean what you say it does.

Hell, the Chief Justice of the Supreme court flat out disagrees with what you try to say and he knows a lot more about the law then your or I.

So at the end of the day you have nothing to explain why the SCOTUS hasn't applied your opinion out Windsor in the multiple stay requests that have been made.


>>>>

Reading the written words from the link to the Windsor Opinion does not constitute "my belief". It is a FACT what was written on page 14 in Windsor about how any legal gay marriage is arrived at until further notice: a statewide deliberation pro and con, by a state's "unquestioned authority" on the question and hinge of specific law.

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 United States v. Windsor

 

[Skylar]

Your belief about Windsor is false as it doesn't mean what you say it does.

Hell, the Chief Justice of the Supreme court flat out disagrees with what you try to say and he knows a lot more about the law then your or I.

So at the end of the day you have nothing to explain why the SCOTUS hasn't applied your opinion out Windsor in the multiple stay requests that have been made.


>>>>

Reading the written words from the link to the Windsor Opinion does not constitute "my belief". It is a FACT what was written on page 14 in Windsor about how any legal gay marriage is arrived at until further notice: a statewide deliberation pro and con, by a state's "unquestioned authority" on the question and hinge of specific law.

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 United States v. Windsor

That's a mention of lawful same sex marriages.

Now show us where there's any mention of same sex marriage bans. And then show us where the courts ruled that these bans were constitutional.

Just don't hold your breath while trying to do it. Because its going to be a long.....long......long wait.

Reading the written words from the link to the Windsor Opinion does not constitute "my belief". It is a FACT what was written on page 14 in Windsor about how any legal gay marriage is arrived at until further notice: a statewide deliberation pro and con, by a state's "unquestioned authority" on the question and hinge of specific law.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And the lower courts have almost universally found that gay marriage bans violate these constitutional guarantees.

So show us where the courts ruled that such gay marriage bans are constitutional. With page numbers please.