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

[Syriusly]

The Windsor case tested state's rights to define marriage weighed against the fed. It was found that states get the say-so...for now.

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

You keep ignoring that the court very clearly states that State's right to determine marriage is subject to the constitutional guarantees- just like Loving v. Virginia.

Because it destroys your argument.

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

You keep ignoring that the court very clearly states that State's right to determine marriage is subject to the constitutional guarantees- just like Loving v. Virginia.

Because it destroys your argument.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently Windsor didn't make gay marraige legal across all 50 states.

No one has said it did. You're just beating the stuffing out of those strawmen.

It just said that states tell the fed how marriage is going to be. Loving v Virginia as applicable to some sex behaviors "as race" has not been tested yet. So in the interim, states' rights rule.

It doesn't say that loving has to apply. It said that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, state laws are authoritative. And it uses Loving as an example of the States being subject to those guarantee.

The whole 'some sex behaviors as race' nonsense is you citing yourself. And has no relevance to any legal proceeding, as you have no relevance to any legal preceding.

Where are the stays SCOTUS? Why won't you protect democracy and your OWN Decision last year avering states' rights to define marriage?

Because the Windsor ruling never puts the State above judicial review. But explicitly affirms that the States laws are subect to constitutional guarantees. And even cites an example where the USSC overruled state marriage law. Your entire basis of argument is imagined.

You've completely fucked up again, Silo. You misread Windsor. There is no conflict between the denial of stays by the USSC and the Windsor ruling. There's only a conflict between the denials of stay and your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently Windsor didn't make gay marraige legal across all 50 states.

No one has said it did. You're just beating the stuffing out of those strawmen.

So, you agree that particular point hasn't been tested and ruled on by SCOTUS. Yet state's rights to define marriage HAS been tested and found to be the "unquestioned authority on it" under Windsor...which was a test that whether or not she was legally "gay married". So that question was specific and under the context of gay marriage. They ended the Windsor Decision by reiterating that gay marriage as of their Decision "was only allowe in some states", not all.

During the interim they must default to the strongest Constitutional provision: one tested and true over and over. That would be the power of the votes of the individuals within the states to define their own laws. If just some deviant sex behaviors shall gain federal protection via SCOTUS, then fine. But until then, the default goes to Windsor/states' choice..

 

[Skylar]

So, you agree that particular point hasn't been tested and ruled on by SCOTUS.

For about the 10th time, the SCOTUS has yet to rule on the constitutional validity of gay marriage bans. They haven't overturned them. They haven't upheld them.

Yet state's rights to define marriage HAS been tested and found to be the "unquestioned authority on it" under Windsor...which was a test that whether or not she was legally "gay married". So that question was specific and under the context of gay marriage.

The lower courts have found almost universally that the constitutional guarantees that State marriage laws are subject to are violated by gay marraige bans. None have cited the USSC's determination that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional....as no such ruling exists. They've all used other precedent to come to the same conclusion. Romer is a common source, with Kennedy's triple standard for the validity of a State law being used: 1) That a State law can't voilate rights. 2) that a state law can't target specific groups. 3) TGhat a state law must serve a compelling state interest.

Gay marriage bans have been found to fail all three points. And each circuit appellant court is authoritative in its circuit district. The only court that can overrule their rulings is the USSC. Which in every instance, has declined to do so. Preserving the circuit court rulings that overturn gay marriage bans.....perfectly. Not a single circuit appelant court ruling overruling gay marriage bans has ever been overturned by the USSC.

Ever.

During the interim they must default to the strongest Constitutional provision: one tested and true over and over. That would be the power of the votes of the individuals within the states to define their own laws. If just some deviant sex behaviors shall gain federal protection via SCOTUS, then fine. But until then, the default goes to Windsor/states' choice..

And which constitutional provision is strongest is a matter for the district courts to decide. They are tasked with the duty of deciding if constitutional guarantees have been violated. Whether or not the courts can overrule the will of the people of a given state when they create unconstitutional laws is thoroughly established: they can. So the question is simply whether or not such a violation of constitutional rights has been created by gay marriage bans.

And in 50 of 52 cases, the courts have found that they have.

 

[Syriusly]

Apparently Windsor didn't make gay marraige legal across all 50 states.

No one has said it did. You're just beating the stuffing out of those strawmen.

So, you agree that particular point hasn't been tested and ruled on by SCOTUS. Yet state's rights to define marriage HAS been tested and found to be the "unquestioned authority on it" under Windsor...which was a test that whether or not she was legally "gay married". So that question was specific and under the context of gay marriage. They ended the Windsor Decision by reiterating that gay marriage as of their Decision "was only allowe in some states", not all.

During the interim they must default to the strongest Constitutional provision: one tested and true over and over. That would be the power of the votes of the individuals within the states to define their own laws. If just some deviant sex behaviors shall gain federal protection via SCOTUS, then fine. But until then, the default goes to Windsor/states' choice..

'they must'- the courts clearly aren't listening to you. And neither are the appellete courts.

And the Supreme Court can rule however it wants- the Supreme Court gives great deference to precedent- but the Supreme Court can overturn precedent.

Your continued assertion that Windsor somehow doesn't specifically say that State's authority over marriage are subject to Constitutional scrutiny is just bat guano crazy.

 

[Silhouette]

'they must'- the courts clearly aren't listening to you. And neither are the appellete courts.

And the Supreme Court can rule however it wants- the Supreme Court gives great deference to precedent- but the Supreme Court can overturn precedent.

Your continued assertion that Windsor somehow doesn't specifically say that State's authority over marriage are subject to Constitutional scrutiny is just bat guano crazy.

The courts aren't mandated to listen to me. They are mandated to listen to Windsor.

 

[Skylar]

The courts aren't mandated to listen to me. They are mandated to listen to Windsor.

The only one saying that Windsor made gay marriage bans constitutional.....is you. Windsor never even addresses the topic.

 

[Silhouette]

The courts aren't mandated to listen to me. They are mandated to listen to Windsor.

The only one saying that Windsor made gay marriage bans constitutional.....is you. Windsor never even addresses the topic.

Well, now it's me, the federal appeals court handling Puerto Rico and the 6th Circuit handling Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee...

Read the OP in this thread and note especially the Puerto Rico case and the reasoning it cites: 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[WorldWatcher]

The courts aren't mandated to listen to me. They are mandated to listen to Windsor.

The only one saying that Windsor made gay marriage bans constitutional.....is you. Windsor never even addresses the topic.

Well, now it's me, the federal appeals court handling Puerto Rico and the 6th Circuit handling Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee...

Read the OP in this thread and note especially the Puerto Rico case and the reasoning it cites: 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Pssst - the court in Puerto Rico was a District Court, not an appeals court. The First Circuit Court of Appeals handles Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.


>>>>