All Eyes On 6th District Appeals Court For Polygamy/gay Marriage/adoption

[Skylar]

I won't argue with you that the Court's actions are contradictory and almost whimsical. They certainly are avoiding acting like a court at all costs. One minute gay marriage is allowed against the will of the majority. They next they aren't, then they are again, then they aren't.

They're whimsical only if your interpretation on why the stays were granted was valid. As the Court's actions utterly and incontrovertibly contradict everything you claimed the Court believed. You're not recognizing the most obvious and likely reason that the court's actions contradict your claims on the court's motives:

That you were just wrong.

The SCOTUS knows that this question is probably one of the most important society-altering questions of this century. So what do they do? They give it a pass for other lesser legal questions for the 2015 calendar.

That contradicts what you told us earlier, where you said that SCOTUS had already ruled that the state bans on gay marriage were constitutional. In point of fact, the SCOTUS said no such thing. And has allowed to stand every lower court ruling that overrules such bans. Including the bans in California and Utah which were both found to be unconstitutional by the federal judiciary.

And in Windsor ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional in not recognizing gay marriage.

The legal precedent is stacking up overwhelmingly on one side of this issue. And its not yours.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the whole quote and I'm including it because all of the points are necessary for the cumulative impact.

The fact is, the court is flip flopping back and forth between legal and not legal and that is unacceptable IMHO. If the evidence is stacking up on your side, why are there so many states still with no legal gay marriage? My one guess would be "the adoption issue". It's possible the Justices are wrestling with the very dire balance of gay hoped-for civil rights vs orphaned kids' actual civil rights to protection from predictable harm.

"I won't argue with you that the Court's actions are contradictory and almost whimsical. They certainly are avoiding acting like a court at all costs. One minute gay marriage is allowed against the will of the majority. They next they aren't, then they are again, then they aren't.
I'll tell you something though, the fact that gay marriage STILL isn't legal in all 50 states sure is saying something? Or nothing...it's hard to say isn't it? The SCOTUS knows that this question is probably one of the most important society-altering questions of this century. So what do they do? They give it a pass for other lesser legal questions for the 2015 calendar.
I share your frustration for sure. Would be nice to be told once and for all "this is why we are letting gay marriage be legal in some places and not in others". Wouldn't you like to know exactly why that is? I sure would..."

 

[Skylar]

The fact is, the court is flip flopping back and forth between legal and not legal and that is unacceptable IMHO.

Your entire basis of argument in calling out the USSC is based on your own misunderstanding of what a stay is, and what it applies to. You claim that a stay is an affirmative ruling that gay marriage bans were constitutional. That's just wrong. A stay means no such thing. Likewise, you claimed that the stay applied to every state. That's wrong too. It applied only to those who petitioned for it.

The courts have yet to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. They have, however, upheld every lower court ruling that found such bans to be unconstitutional. And have ruled that federal law that doesn't recognize gay marriage is unconstitutional. And found that once a right had been extended, it couldn't be revoked.......and quite intentionally allowed the right of marriage to be extended to gays and lesbians in a myriad of states where such a right was not protected.

The simplest and most likely conclusion is that you were just wrong. That the court didn't believe what you claimed they did. That they hadn't ruled the way you claimed they did. And that you projected your beliefs onto the court, making up positions for them that have never taken nor ever uttered.

I share your frustration for sure. Would be nice to be told once and for all "this is why we are letting gay marriage be legal in some places and not in others". Wouldn't you like to know exactly why that is? I sure would..."

Frustrated? I think you're making the same mistake now as you did before: projecting your own beliefs and your own feelings onto other people that don't necessarily share them. Last time it was the courts. This time, its me. I'm not frustrated in the least. I've long since recognized that your understanding of what stays were and how they were applied was deeply flawed and fundamentally mistaken. The courts rulings are consistent with that recognition. And explicitly contradict your interpretations.

 

[Silhouette]

Your entire basis of argument in calling out the USSC is based on your own misunderstanding of what a stay is, and what it applies to. You claim that a stay is an affirmative ruling that gay marriage bans were constitutional. That's just wrong. A stay means no such thing. Likewise, you claimed that the stay applied to every state. That's wrong too. It applied only to those who petitioned for it.

Why was the stay granted? It's a valid question to ask of a Court that you assume is "all on the side of legalized gay marriage". Care to answer why they granted the stay in Utah's case? I know that the AG of Utah had standing and pled on behalf of his voters that to not grant the stay would damage democracy there. Why did they simply say "no it won't damage democracy" and not issue the stay?

 

[Skylar]

Why was the stay granted?

I dunno. The court didn't say. I have a few guesses....but they're just personal opinion. Perhaps because the courts have already ruled that once a right is extended, it can't be revoked. And allowing gay marriage to proceed would likely make it legal, regardless of the constitutionality of the bans.....as the right would be extended before a ruling on the constitutionality of bans could be made. A stay would have established a neutral position, where the constitutionality of the bans could be addressed directly and exclusively.

Perhaps it was because delaying implementation would have made things simpler, regardless of how the court ruled. Another guess......they needed more time to think about it. Perhaps its because they wanted to affirm that the States AG's had standing after turning away individual citizens in appeals for the lower court ruling overturning Prop 8.

The fact is, neither of us know why. You claimed you did know. And the court's recent actions really call your claims of 'knowledge' into question. As they're recent actions explicitly contradict everything you claimed the court believed. With the most likely and most simple conclusion one can draw from the court's recent actions being that you were just wrong about what the court believed.

This conclusion is only reinforced by the preponderance of the actions of the SCOTUS which has upheld every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. And found that federal law prohibiting the recognition of gay marriage was unconstitutional. And have allowed the right of marriage to be extended to gays, with the courts having ruled that once a right is extended it can't be revoked. All of which fall firmly on the side of gay marriage advocates.

 

[Silhouette]

Why was the stay granted?

I dunno. The court didn't say. I have a few guesses....but they're just personal opinion. Perhaps because the courts have already ruled that once a right is extended, it can't be revoked. And allowing gay marriage to proceed would likely make it legal, regardless of the constitutionality of the bans.....as the right would be extended before a ruling on the constitutionality of bans could be made. A stay would have established a neutral position, where the constitutionality of the bans could be addressed directly and exclusively.

Once a right is extended...it can't be revoked? Are you saying they were reticent to participate in granting gay marriage?

 

[Skylar]

Once a right is extended...it can't be revoked? Are you saying they were reticent to participate in granting gay marriage?

I'm saying they may have. It all depends on how they rule later. I'm saying that gays actually being married in Utah likely strengthens the position of gay marriage advocates in Utah. And I'm also saying that your interpretation of what stays are was dead wrong. And your interpretation of how stays were applied was dead wrong. And that the courts have never ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional, despite your claim otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

" And that the courts have never ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional, despite your claim otherwise." Never, not once. The folks like Sil are in the metaphorical position of the defenders of the Alamo once the Mexican infantry and grenadiers commanded the open ground and drove the Texicans into the single-cell rooms set in the eastern interior wall.

The orphans are cheering as the cannon are being manhandled in front of and discharged into the front doors. No Sam Houston, no San Jacinto await the deniers of marriage equality. No last moment rescue. Only a shuddering blast that fills the room with flying slivers followed by thrusting bayonets of SCOTUS.

Hyperbolic, I agree. But guys the final act is closing. The end draws nigh.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm saying they may have. It all depends on how they rule later. I'm saying that gays actually being married in Utah likely strengthens the position of gay marriage advocates in Utah. And I'm also saying that your interpretation of what stays are was dead wrong. And your interpretation of how stays were applied was dead wrong. And that the courts have never ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional, despite your claim otherwise.

"It all depends on how they rule later"? I thought this one was in the bag. Now you're not sure? Jake, isn't there only one way the Supreme Court can rule?...ie: your way?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Certainly won't rule your way, Sil.

The orphans will not permit haters to deprive them of parents, hetero or homo.

Get over yourself. This is almost over.

 

[Skylar]

The last defenders like Sil are in the metaphorical position of the defenders of the Alamo once the Mexican infantry and grenadiers commanded the open ground and drove the Texicans into the single-cell rooms set in the eastern interior wall.

The orphans are cheering as the cannon are being manhandled in front of and discharged into the front doors.

No Sam Houston, no San Jacinto await the deniers of marriage equality. No last moment rescue.

Only a shuddering blast that fills the room with flying slivers followed by thrusting bayonets.

Hyperbolic, I agree. But guys the final act is closing.

Maybe. I'd say the odds of a pro-gay marriage ruling coming out of the USSC are very likely. But the swing voter on this issue is Kennedy. And Kennedy is a big believer in State's rights. Read the Windsor ruling (which he wrote), and he's rather careful to note that DOMA is overturned because of the State's authority to define marriage.

However, Kennedy also has a long track record of ruling in favor of gays, having struck down discriminatory language against gays in cases from Colorado. And the court has affirmed every single lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. And have now allowed gay marriage to proceed in some of the most conservative states in the Union, including Utah and Missouri. The existence of gay marriages in a state dramatically increases the strength of the position of gay marriage advocates, as to institute gay marriage bans after the fact would either revoke rights they already possessed or create a distinct and lessor 'legal class'.

Both of which the SCOTUS in general, and Kennedy in particular, are loathe to do.

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe. I'd say the odds of a pro-gay marriage ruling coming out of the USSC are very likely. But the swing voter on this issue is Kennedy. And Kennedy is a big believer in State's rights. Read the Windsor ruling (which he wrote), and he's rather careful to note that DOMA is overturned because of the State's authority to define marriage.

However, Kennedy also has a long track record of ruling in favor of gays, having struck down discriminatory language against gays in cases from Colorado. And the court has affirmed every single lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. And have now allowed gay marriage to proceed in some of the most conservative states in the Union, including Utah and Missouri. The existence of gay marriages in a state dramatically increases the strength of the position of gay marriage advocates, as to institute gay marriage bans after the fact would either revoke rights they already possessed or create a distinct and lessor 'legal class'.

Both of which the SCOTUS in general, and Kennedy in particular, are loathe to do.

So you're saying that Kennedy supports arbitrary fascism by attrition? A slow and insidious seemingly-unstoppable overthrow/erosion of the democratic process by which a society fashions its mores and standards in human behaviors. Whether they feel compulsive or not?

Arbritrary of course because everyone involved in this overthrow of discreet communities self-ruling on issues of human behavior [not race] are trying to pretend that polygamy isn't the same legal argument...

 

[Skylar]

I'm saying they may have. It all depends on how they rule later. I'm saying that gays actually being married in Utah likely strengthens the position of gay marriage advocates in Utah. And I'm also saying that your interpretation of what stays are was dead wrong. And your interpretation of how stays were applied was dead wrong. And that the courts have never ruled that gay marriage bans are constitutional, despite your claim otherwise.

"It all depends on how they rule later"? I thought this one was in the bag. Now you're not sure? Jake, isn't there only one way the Supreme Court can rule?...ie: your way?

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the court's mind. And I've never said 'its in the bag'. I think a pro-gay marriage is quite likely. But Kennedy could be uncomfortable with the broad implications to State's Rights and vote with the conservatives. I don't think he will. But he could.

I think the preponderance of evidence leans toward the court voting in favor of gay marriage. For all the reasons I've cited in the above post.

 

[Skylar]

Maybe. I'd say the odds of a pro-gay marriage ruling coming out of the USSC are very likely. But the swing voter on this issue is Kennedy. And Kennedy is a big believer in State's rights. Read the Windsor ruling (which he wrote), and he's rather careful to note that DOMA is overturned because of the State's authority to define marriage.

However, Kennedy also has a long track record of ruling in favor of gays, having struck down discriminatory language against gays in cases from Colorado. And the court has affirmed every single lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. And have now allowed gay marriage to proceed in some of the most conservative states in the Union, including Utah and Missouri. The existence of gay marriages in a state dramatically increases the strength of the position of gay marriage advocates, as to institute gay marriage bans after the fact would either revoke rights they already possessed or create a distinct and lessor 'legal class'.

Both of which the SCOTUS in general, and Kennedy in particular, are loathe to do.

So you're saying that Kennedy supports arbitrary fascism by attrition?

No. I'm saying what I've said. The 'arbitrary fascism' nonsense is you quoting yourself. And you still don't know what fascism is.

Arbritrary of course because everyone involved in this overthrow of discreet communities self-ruling on issues of human behavior [not race] are trying to pretend that polygamy isn't the same legal argument...

Speech is a behavior. Religion is behavior. Assembly is behavior. And they're all protected. The bizarre 'any ruling on behavior is arbitrary' standard you've pulled sideways out of your ass really has no logical or legal connection to anything. And is thus meaningless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is an irrational behavior.

 

[Silhouette]

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the court's mind. And I've never said 'its in the bag'. I think a pro-gay marriage is quite likely. But Kennedy could be uncomfortable with the broad implications to State's Rights and vote with the conservatives. I don't think he will. But he could.

I think the preponderance of evidence leans toward the court voting in favor of gay marriage. For all the reasons I've cited in the above post.

OK, thank you for clearing that up. In that way you differ from Jake. He believes that gay marriage gaining federal protection is merely a formality the Court will issue any day now..

 

[Silhouette]

I understand fascism to be the rule of the many by the dictations of the few. Is that not what lower court judges are up to with regard to this LGBT subculture? Are you suggesting that LGBT practitioners are the majority of this country? Then why do states' majorities nearly unanimously vote down any marriage but man/woman?

 

[Silhouette]

Speech is a behavior. Religion is behavior. Assembly is behavior. And they're all protected. The bizarre 'any ruling on behavior is arbitrary' standard you've pulled sideways out of your ass really has no logical or legal connection to anything. And is thus meaningless.

Serial killing, compulsive stealing and rape are all behaviors too. Yet they are not protected in the constitution. I'll have to dust off my copy but I'm pretty sure sodomy wasn't written in as a protected behavior either..

 

[Skylar]

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the court's mind. And I've never said 'its in the bag'. I think a pro-gay marriage is quite likely. But Kennedy could be uncomfortable with the broad implications to State's Rights and vote with the conservatives. I don't think he will. But he could.

I think the preponderance of evidence leans toward the court voting in favor of gay marriage. For all the reasons I've cited in the above post.

OK, thank you for clearing that up. In that way you differ from Jake. He believes that gay marriage gaining federal protection is merely a formality the Court will issue any day now..

I think its likely that the SCOTUS will rule that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Or, barring that, I think they will allow the lower court rulings to stand to reach the same results. And every full quorum of a federal court to hear a gay marriage case has ruled in favor of gay marriage. So the results are the same.

I suspect that the courts may intervene on something less controversial than the constitutionality of the bans, as that can have some pretty wide reaching implications to the relationship between federal and state. Like say, if gay marriage in one state must be recognized by another State that doesn't recognize gay marriage. That's a no brainer: of course they are. And would further help push the lower courts to continue to overturn gay marriage bans.

 

[Skylar]

I understand fascism to be the rule of the many by the dictations of the few. Is that not what lower court judges are up to with regard to this LGBT subculture? Are you suggesting that LGBT practitioners are the majority of this country? Then why do states' majorities nearly unanimously vote down any marriage but man/woman?

Fascism is a very specific flavor of oligarchy and dictatorship involving state sanctioned racism, belligerent nationalism, violent suppression of the press and political opposition and strict economic controls. Not regulation but direct control.

We have nothing like that here. And marriage definitions certainly have no relevance to the meaning of fascism. You may want to try 'dictatorial'. Its still inaccurate, but much less so.