6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Not legally, according to Baker 1971 as reaffirmed by Judge Sutton this month. Lower federal courts do not enjoy the luxury of overturning judgments at the SCOTUS level. The law defaults to the the last judgment on the matter. Both Baker, 1971 and Windsor 2013 affirm state's choice in approving or disapproving gay marriage. No state told by a lower federal circuit judge that it must honor gay marriages against its electorate's Will has legal gay marriage. And they never have. Not in 1971. Not in 2013.. Not now, until SCOTUS revisits its judgments in Baker and Windsor and overturns itself.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Not legally, according to Baker 1971 as reaffirmed by Judge Sutton this month. Lower federal courts do not enjoy the luxury of overturning judgments at the SCOTUS level. The law defaults to the the last judgment on the matter. Both Baker, 1971 and Windsor 2013 affirm state's choice in approving or disapproving gay marriage. No state told by a lower federal circuit judge that it must honor gay marriages against its electorate's Will has legal gay marriage. And they never have. Not in 1971. Not in 2013.. Not now, until SCOTUS revisits its judgments in Baker and Windsor and overturns itself.

MIght want to do some research on the SCOTUS. There are two ways that a SCOTUS precedent becomes inactive. One the SCOTUS directly setting aside a prior judge. The second is doctrinal changes that render a prior ruling inapplicable anymore. As noted in the Circuit Court rulings by the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts - that while the SCOTUS has not directly set aside Baker (from 1971) there have been a number of doctrinal changes that have occured which have changed the legal landscape.

Baker was a one-line dismissal of an appeal for want of a "Federal question" at the time. There were no states that recognized SSCM and there was no Federal law on the issue. That has changed:

1. Congress passed DOMA in 1996 which inserted the Fedreal government into the equation, in other words it created a Federal issue.

2. State began recognizing SSCM in 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to establish Marriage Equality. Since then a number of states have passed SSCM through action so the legislatures and at the ballot box - in addition to those where SSCM exists because bans on SSCM were found unconstitutional.

3. The SCOTUS recognized in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas that States targeting homosexual for discriminatory treatment was unconstitutional.

4. Finally in United States v. Windsor the SCOTUS ruled discrimination by the Federal government against homosexuals for not recognizing legally valid Civil Marriages amongst same-sex couples as unconstitutional and eviscerated the logic that was presented to justify such discrimination. The SCOTUS noted in Windsor that while States had great latitude in family law, that such laws must still recognize Constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.​

Very telling was you insistance just a few months ago that the cases on appeal to the SCOTUS would be a slam dunk, that the SCOTUS would accept the case and slap down the Circuit Courts. In fact you were wrong. They did no such thing. As a matter of fact they let each of the 4 Circuit Court rulings stand and each one (IIRC) addressed the Baker question. If it was as you said, all the court need to do was accept the case, reiterate the Baker position - and this would be all done with.

But they didn't, they let the Circuit Court ruling stand.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, your record of pretending to be Kennedy is spectacularly bad. Worse, even if everything you allege is true, if one case of abuse invalidates the right to marriage of an entire sexual orientation...

....then straights are so completely fucked.

Are you going on record as denouncing what is being done to young Thomas Lobel in California?

Are you going to admit that straights do far worse, far more often? If no, then clearly you don't care about the suffering of children. As children are only a horse for you to ride in bashing gay people.

Admit straights do worse and more often....or admit children mean nothing to you if they don't let you bash gays. Its one or the other.

 

[Skylar]

Very telling was you insistance just a few months ago that the cases on appeal to the SCOTUS would be a slam dunk, that the SCOTUS would accept the case and slap down the Circuit Courts. In fact you were wrong. They did no such thing. As a matter of fact they let each of the 4 Circuit Court rulings stand and each one (IIRC) addressed the Baker question. If it was as you said, all the court need to do was accept the case, reiterate the Baker position - and this would be all done with.

But they didn't, they let the Circuit Court ruling stand.

You're not going to find much consitency in Silo's musings. He insisted that the stay offered Utah proved that the courts supported gay marriage bans and that gay marriage bans were fully constitutional, including in California where Prop 8 had been overturned. As a stay in Utah meant that gay marriage could not go on in any State.

Oh, the chuckle we got out of that one. As it demonstrated such stunning ignorance of stays and what they mean.

And it was a full on gut buster when the USSC lifted that stay and allowed the circuit court ruling overturning gay marriage bans to stand. Silo insisted that the courts had contradicted themselves. When all they'd done is contradict Silo's silly assumptions.

 

[Skylar]

.....I'm not sure even Kennedy in the end is going to get behind this: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yeah, your record of pretending to be Kennedy is spectacularly bad. Worse, even if everything you allege is true, if one case of abuse invalidates the right to marriage of an entire sexual orientation...

....then straights are so completely fucked.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And the joining of one woman and one woman. And the joining of one man and one man. At least in 32 of 50 States.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

.....I'm not sure even Kennedy in the end is going to get behind this: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yeah, your record of pretending to be Kennedy is spectacularly bad. Worse, even if everything you allege is true, if one case of abuse invalidates the right to marriage of an entire sexual orientation...

....then straights are so completely fucked.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And the joining of one woman and one woman. And the joining of one man and one man. At least in 32 of 50 States.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And this without regard to popular whimsy of a deviant cult.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Not legally, according to Baker 1971 as reaffirmed by Judge Sutton this month. Lower federal courts do not enjoy the luxury of overturning judgments at the SCOTUS level. The law defaults to the the last judgment on the matter. Both Baker, 1971 and Windsor 2013 affirm state's choice in approving or disapproving gay marriage. No state told by a lower federal circuit judge that it must honor gay marriages against its electorate's Will has legal gay marriage. And they never have. Not in 1971. Not in 2013.. Not now, until SCOTUS revisits its judgments in Baker and Windsor and overturns itself.

MIght want to do some research on the SCOTUS. There are two ways that a SCOTUS precedent becomes inactive. One the SCOTUS directly setting aside a prior judge. The second is doctrinal changes that render a prior ruling inapplicable anymore. As noted in the Circuit Court rulings by the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts - that while the SCOTUS has not directly set aside Baker (from 1971) there have been a number of doctrinal changes that have occured which have changed the legal landscape.

Baker was a one-line dismissal of an appeal for want of a "Federal question" at the time. There were no states that recognized SSCM and there was no Federal law on the issue. That has changed:

1. Congress passed DOMA in 1996 which inserted the Fedreal government into the equation, in other words it created a Federal issue.

2. State began recognizing SSCM in 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to establish Marriage Equality. Since then a number of states have passed SSCM through action so the legislatures and at the ballot box - in addition to those where SSCM exists because bans on SSCM were found unconstitutional.

3. The SCOTUS recognized in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas that States targeting homosexual for discriminatory treatment was unconstitutional.

4. Finally in United States v. Windsor the SCOTUS ruled discrimination by the Federal government against homosexuals for not recognizing legally valid Civil Marriages amongst same-sex couples as unconstitutional and eviscerated the logic that was presented to justify such discrimination. The SCOTUS noted in Windsor that while States had great latitude in family law, that such laws must still recognize Constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.​

Very telling was you insistance just a few months ago that the cases on appeal to the SCOTUS would be a slam dunk, that the SCOTUS would accept the case and slap down the Circuit Courts. In fact you were wrong. They did no such thing. As a matter of fact they let each of the 4 Circuit Court rulings stand and each one (IIRC) addressed the Baker question. If it was as you said, all the court need to do was accept the case, reiterate the Baker position - and this would be all done with.

But they didn't, they let the Circuit Court ruling stand.



>>>>

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. The SCOTUS has no influence over human physiology. thus are irrelevant.

If the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality continue to push this, they'll find themselves subjected to a violent backlash by a very angry and soundly justified moral majority... and from there it's just a short hop back into the closet.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, your record of pretending to be Kennedy is spectacularly bad. Worse, even if everything you allege is true, if one case of abuse invalidates the right to marriage of an entire sexual orientation...

....then straights are so completely fucked.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And the joining of one woman and one woman. And the joining of one man and one man. At least in 32 of 50 States.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And this without regard to popular whimsy of a deviant cult.

And back in reality......

‘This is history’: First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Wyoming -

See more at: This is history First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Wyoming

Don't they look so happy?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. The SCOTUS has no influence over human physiology. thus are irrelevant.

If human physiology is the basis of marriage....then why can infertile couples still get married? Why are the marriages of childless couples still valid?

They prove, undeniably, that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Killing your 'physiological' standard as being the sole basis of a valid marriage.

But tell us again what God thinks about the gays.

If the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality continue to push this, they'll find themselves subjected to a violent backlash by a very angry and soundly justified moral majority... and from there it's just a short hop back into the closet.

And now physical threats of violence. Someone not dealing well with reality, I see. The true colors of anti-gay marriage folks are really starting to come through.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And the joining of one woman and one woman. And the joining of one man and one man. At least in 32 of 50 States.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And this without regard to popular whimsy of a deviant cult.

And back in reality......

‘This is history’: First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Wyoming -

See more at: This is history First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Wyoming

Don't they look so happy?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Therefore, even you and the smiling truckers in your photo, should realzie that there is no potential for 'same sex' marriage... although marriage is traditionally... 'the same sex'. Over and over, it's always the same old sex... .

 

[Syriusly]

My guess is that the Left's case got away from them, and a change of judges to be empaneled came at a time which prevented them from getting to court in time to ask for the hearing to be rescheduled.

I've no way to prove it, but the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is irrational... thus reasonable people, while tolerant of the individual deviant, are not going to condone the normalization of perverse reasoning, therefore the ONLY means to do so, is to put the hearing of such a case in front of people they KNOW will 'rule' favorably.

.....I'm not sure even Kennedy in the end is going to get behind this: Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Please ensure that your present your argument to the Supreme Court.

I want the Court to know the nuts that oppose same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And the joining of one woman and one woman. And the joining of one man and one man. At least in 32 of 50 States.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. And this without regard to popular whimsy of a deviant cult.

And back in reality......

‘This is history’: First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Wyoming -

See more at: This is history First same-sex marriage licenses issued in Wyoming

Don't they look so happy?

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. ... .

Marriage is the joining of a couple of humans.

They do look happy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. The SCOTUS has no influence over human physiology. thus are irrelevant.

If human physiology is the basis of marriage....then why can infertile couples still get married?

LOL! For Pete's sake, what does infertility have to do with marriage? Just because a man and a woman are infertile, that doesn't mean that they don't love one another and should not dedicate themselves to a life, joined as one, analogous to the sustainable joining common to coitus, to provide one another with a stable home.

You're not a very bright gal are ya sis?

 

[Skylar]

Therefore, even you and the smiling truckers in your photo, should realzie that there is no potential for 'same sex' marriage... although marriage is traditionally... 'the same sex'. Over and over, it's always the same old sex... .

You keep rocking back and forth, muttering that to yourself, big guy. Gays will just keep getting married:

Fifteen to twenty couples participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony on the steps of the Historic Sedgwick County Courthouse in Wichita, Kan., Monday, Nov.17, 2014.

Read more here: PHOTOS Gay marriage comes to Kansas The Wichita Eagle

They don't teach evolution in Kansas.....but they're performing gay marriages!

 

[Syriusly]

Yes...as well as two men or two women...in more states than it is reserved for only men and women.

Not legally, according to Baker 1971 as reaffirmed by Judge Sutton this month..

Legally according to the other 4 Appellate Courts- which the Supreme Court let stand.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. The SCOTUS has no influence over human physiology. thus are irrelevant.

If human physiology is the basis of marriage....then why can infertile couples still get married?

LOL! For Pete's sake, what does infertility have to do with marriage? Just because a man and a woman are infertile, that doesn't mean that they don't love one another and should not dedicate themselves to a life, joined as one, analogous to the sustainable joining common to coitus, to provide one another with a stable home.

Exactly like any two persons- man and man, woman and woman, and man and woman.

Doesn't mean that they don't love another, and should not dedicate themselves to a life, joined as one, analgous to the sustainable joining common to coitus, to provide one another with a stable home.

 

[Skylar]

LOL! For Pete's sake, what does infertility have to do with marriage?

Simple: you've claimed the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. The infertile can't procreate. Yet their marriages are still valid.

Demonstrating undeniably that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. Nixing your 'physiology' argument yet again.

Your logic doesn't work, Keys. So tell us again what God thinks about gays. You're not going to deny God again, keeping His word under a bushel basket are you? Surely the duty of any Christian is to declare God's commandments and His Word.

So declare already. Tell us what God commands you to do to gay people. You're already threatening violence. Why get bashful now?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And now physical threats of violence. Someone not dealing well with reality, I see. The true colors of anti-gay marriage folks are really starting to come through.

Violence is the natural consequence of two opposing forces, wherein reasonable compromise has proven to be impossible. Do some research, maybe google: "WAR: What is it good for?" (Answer: Solving problems that the absence of war could not solve.)

But hey, with 1% of the population being inflicted with the perversion and another 5% supporting it, I'd say you ladies should continue to make asses of yourself.

Your behavior being outlawed for most of human history is probably only the result of short-sited bigots trying to keep the color-coordinated down... and its very unlikely that it is because you're unmitigated assholes who are incapable of knowing when to shut up.

More power to ya... It is my sincere hope that you take it to the SCOTUS and they rule that everyone must endorse sexual deviancy or ELSE! I'm sure everything will work itself out.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! For Pete's sake, what does infertility have to do with marriage?

Simple: you've claimed the sole purpose of marriage is procreation.

NOOooooew... Not me. Not only have I never made that claim... I have never said anything that could potential lend to such an absurd inference.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. But only because that is how nature designed it.

 

[Skylar]

Violence is the natural consequence of two opposing forces, wherein reasonable compromise has proven to be impossible. Do some research, maybe google: "WAR: What is it good for?" (Answer: Solving problems that the absence of war could not solve.)

There's not going to be any 'war' over gay marriage, chum. As the majority of the nation supports it.

You can't convince folks of the validity of your argument as your logic and reasoning are crap. Since you failed to produce a logic, rational argument....now you're threatening to physically hurt people unless they do what you tell them.

So tell us about the 'duty of a Christian' again. I must have missed the part in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus started talking about war and violence against those who disagree with you.