Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Seawytch]

Cept the ghey is not a protected class.

In some states they are...

The comment was regarding the 14th

and the Federal government.



Ghey is not protected Federally.

And I just showed you that isn't 100% true and some LGBT have successfully sued under Federal Law.

Don't forget Romer and Lawrence either.

And the 14th is being cited in Federal Courts finding anti gay laws unconstitutional...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionaries are down to trying a variety of heterosexual majority will Jackson democracy. SCOTUS won't buy it for a second.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show, I suggest you do. It's a show about a bisexual transvestite who seeks to undo a marriage between two innocent heterosexuals and how he completely corrupts their value system by sexual seduction and repetitive chanting and singsong. Eventually he does "liberate" the two newleyweds and the movie ends with them completely inducted as anything-goes sluts. But not before in a sideline premise, this bisexual transvestite "Dr. Frankenfurter" creates a youthful boy-toy as his child/son/sodomy toy. The frankenstein-boy's name is "Rocky". Hence "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".

WHAAAAAAAAAT?!?! Just...WHAT...THE...****?! Silly is being even sillier than usual today!

Just because this is one of my favorite singers...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMRl55U0eDw]Hot Patootie[/ame]

(And yes, that blonde IS Susan Sarandon! Thye redhead in the corset is "Little Nell" Campbell.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your Honor, please accept into the record as Defense Exhibit 13B43n18 a copy of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

 

[OODA_Loop]

And I just showed you that isn't 100% true and some LGBT have successfully sued under Federal Law.

Protection for LGBT Employees Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities

Currently, there is no federal law that explicitly prohibits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws hiring or employment discrimination on the basis of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but does not mention sexual orientation

 

[Kondor3]

"The far right reactionaries..."

Given that only 3% of the population is Homosexual, and that 97% of the population is not...

Something tells me that the 'Far right' is not the only element of the population of our country that opposes the Gay Lobby Agenda, in whole or in part...

No point trying to demonize or misrepresent or mischaracterize the legions of good, decent folk who want nothing to do with such perverse and unnatural practices and behaviors and their manifestations within our society and culture...

That's how the Gay Lobby got into trouble with their public relations disasters concerning Chick-Fil-A and A&E in the first place, by arrogantly bashing anyone who voices opposition, and by getting their heads handed back to them on a platter in the marketplace, as America reacted viscerally and in strong opposition to the Gay Lobby approach to chastising those companies and people...

But DO keep on trying to 'demonize' The Opposition... in a very real sense, you're doing their job FOR them, and making it that much easier for Mainstream America to despise and oppose the Gay Cause... you're going to slam 'em anyway, regardless of what anybody says. You can't help yourselves, and, you may have gotten to the point by now where you have no other practical choice.

Far right reactionaries? More like Mainstream America.

 

[beagle9]

I believe the States should have the right to determine what laws they should be allowed to follow.

However, I disagree with your notion that government should be allowed to enter anyone's bedroom and dictate, under penalty of law, what a person can or cannot do in their homes. This is not a Conservative stance and smacks of tyranny.

Either you are for limited government, or you are not.

How does not expanding the governments power to regulate same sex relationships allow the government to dictate what a person can do in their homes? By not recognizing same sex relationships as marriage, has the government prevented them from doing anything they want sexually?

Yes, it has.

However, there is a much simpler solution. Simply do away with government recognized marriage all together. Civil contracts can do everything that current marriage law does, without the emotional blackmail and governmental oppression.

Marriage is essentially a Religious Institution. People can get married in church, and if they can find a church to marry the same sex, more power to them.

However, religious marriage would not be recognized by the government for anyone. Only civil contracts.

I don't really need any government to tell Me I am married, so I could care less what others, the government, or even God thinks about it.

You see folks, now this is what goes on here, where as there is certain groups that want to get the government out of the business of what it once recognized, and then upheld as being a decent institution in which we like to call the "Institution of Marriage" in this nation, and they want it changed because this instititution represents the traditional uniting or the joining up together of what has always been known as marriage between a man and a woman, and rightfully so. The two were always joined together in Holy matramony, and then they are to raise a family as a result of this marriage being between a man and a woman, in which will give the kids a stable enviroment that brings normalcy and a proper balance to it all for which the kids can easily relate to as such in their lives.

Now due to the break down of the traditional family over the years (purposely set upon and caused by these groups over time), now these groups feel that they have weakened the isntitutions enough so, that they can recreate these institutions with not much resistance any longer or to either destroy them as they wish. These very groups have been hacking away at everything this nation has been known for over time, and they have been hacking away within it's structure over these many years (like termites in the wood), secretly and strategically planning and lashing out when they can against that which has called itself a nation in which was united in these ways over time, and they are on the attack at every angle now so look for it.

This is just one of those attacks, and they see themselves winning over time because as the new generations fall to these attacks, they can smell blood in the water is what these sharks can, and this is what we are dealing with now in America daily anymore.

They want the government to have no stance at all except for maybe one that leans towards the side that wants gay marriage, and this whether it be here or there in the land. Then these few with their huge mouths want the government to use it's power to enforce a new stance taken, otherwise once they get it seperated from the long time traditional stance that it has taken over time, then it will go rogue for them is their hopes by way of it's rogue judges, and that is what they want in all of this by what I'm seeing, especially when I read post like what I'm responding to above.

 

[dcraelin]

False argument because the legislature cannot deny civil rights.

I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.

Because Section II of the 14th Amendment addressed, specifically, the right to vote.

If I understand you right, the 14th addressed the right to vote in context of race, then that testifies to the overall intent of the amendment also.

You don't understand it at all, period.

The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.

 

[Silhouette]

The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".

As the court noted in the ruling:

"This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."​

>>>>

Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.

Oops.

 

[tinydancer]

Your Honor, please accept into the record as Defense Exhibit 13B43n18 a copy of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

 

[Silhouette]

You don't understand it at all, period.

The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

Really? Anyone can marry anyone? I'm pretty sure the Court isn't going to interpret the 14th that way when it comes to marriage.

A driver's license is a privelege; a privelege that blind people don't qualify for. Pretty sure the Court isn't going to stand up to a state and tell them the blind now have to be able to drive.

Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone you say? It harms a word, "marriage". Just like transsexualism harms the words "male" and "female". And what's with that Harvey Milk guy sodomizing orphaned street teens on drugs, and then having that "sexuality" celebrated as iconic of gay and lesbian values?

Wouldn't that be a contradiction to child welfare and adoption by gays and lesbians? I'd sure think so. I wonder what an adoption agency would say to a prospective set of parents who freely adored and promoted Jerry Sandusky's "open sexuality"? Pretty sure they'd be turned down. One of the things marriage does is opens up participants to equality in adopting kids. Belonging to a social culture [not race] that upholds and promotes Harvey Milk as iconic of their values is harmful to orphaned children who then can be accessed by them via married-status. Unless the LGBT community would be happy with 2nd class marriage-adoptive priveleges?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The decision says nothing about whether States can say "No", the Windsor decision only addresses States that have said "Yes".

As the court noted in the ruling:

"This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."​

>>>>

Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.

Oops.

Lawful Marriages are those conducted under the jurisdiction of civil government which establish a family relationship between non-related consenting adults.

All Windsor said, as the court noted, that decision applies only to Civil Marriges where the state said "Yes", this couple is Civilly Married and therefore it is unconstitutional for the Federal government not to recognize that Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple.

As the Chief Justice noted, the Windsor decision was only about those States that said "Yes" and has no impact on determining if States can say "No". That will be another case - which will very likely be Utah after it has run it's course through the 10th Circuit appeal process.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.



If I understand you right, the 14th addressed the right to vote in context of race, then that testifies to the overall intent of the amendment also.

You don't understand it at all, period.

The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

I am making the same argument for single people that gay-marriage advocates make on their side. If mine is a false argument then theirs is also.

And I do wish you the best of luck in your battle.

Singled Out: Are Unmarried People Discriminated Against?

 

[Silhouette]

Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.

Oops.

All Windsor said, as the court noted, that decision applies only to Civil Marriges where the state said "Yes", this couple is Civilly Married and therefore it is unconstitutional for the Federal government not to recognize that Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple.
>>>>

I understand that you are hopeful that this is so. However, instead of putting words in the Court's mouth, I will quote them directly:

Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Page 14 of Opinion:

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons. 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 to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood....

...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. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

...Page 17:

..“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States&#8221. Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations...

...Page 18:

...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.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384(1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice)....

...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 class of 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:

...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

Several things in the mind of the Court become clear upon reading ITS OWN WORDS and not the words of hopeful interpretors:

1. The Court believes very strongly about a state's right to define marriage within its own boundaries.

2. The Court recognizes that this innate power is retroactive to the founding of the country.

3. The Court even made mention of how the Framers of the Constitution agreed with #1 & #2; [which is a very poor harbinger for wresting that power away. ie: it will not be a quick and flippant decision if the Court does.]

4. The Court believes that a broad-swath weigh in and not judicial activism or oligarchies are requisite of a state's consensus decision under the context of oddball marriages like gay and lesbian marriage.

So, gay activists have their work cut out for them. Since DOMA mentioned Loving v Virginia and did nothing about that application, nor did they declare that it was applicable to gay marriage, that means at the rock bottom least they are not convinced. So there's the challenge. Gays and lesbians need to convince the Court that:

1. They are an inherant and innate group of people that are inclusive among themselves in some significant or key way.

2. That their marriages being forced upon the states via the 14th aren't inadvertently stripping legal power of the states away from them on the question of marriage qualification.

ie; if you allow one questionable group of behaviors calling themselves "born that way" without proper vetting as such or diagnosis from the community of weighty experts their studies and their peers' review, then others can follow in self-diagnosis declaring they too were "born that way" without all that necessary paperwork proving that this is the case.

And then there's the Harvey Milk problem.

The last ditch argument that seemed to really sway the Court last time around was gays claims that "children will be harmed if the gays raising them cannot be married". Yet gays and lesbians round the globe line up in lockstep behind who they call their sexual-culture icon: Harvey Milk. And as I always have to remind new viewers just tuning into these debates: Harvey Milk's sexuality that gays and lesbians celebrate and force kids to celebrate as a matter of law in schools in California, was bending over homeless orphaned teen boys on drugs to sodomize, one after the other.

One minor victim he even officated as his father figure while sodomizing him. That boy later commited suicide on Milk's birthday.

This becomes very problematic for the argument of "it will harm the kids not to let gays marry". One of the perks of marriage is an automatic qualifier to be in the top tier of those who must be considered as adoptive parents for orphaned kids. Lining up to defend a sexual predator of minors is going to come to loggerheads with that perk.

What I envision happening, if gay marriage is forced upon the states, is lawsuit after lawsuit as more and more adoption agents come under fire for not automatically rubber-stamping gays adopting kids. Even if that gay couple comes into the adoption office wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts. Anything less than instant qualification and we will be looking at this case played out in courts in a different way in the future: the civil rights of children to be protected from harm v the civil rights of "married gay couples who can iconize anyone they want without disqualification".

or boiled down: children's rights to protection v gays rights to expose them to sexual indoctrinization that is inappropriate for them [Harvey Milk and his cult]

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't understand it at all, period.

The 14th grants all the same rights and privileges, may deny none to any.

Really? Anyone can marry anyone? I'm pretty sure the Court isn't going to interpret the 14th that way when it comes to marriage.

A driver's license is a privelege; a privelege that blind people don't qualify for. Pretty sure the Court isn't going to stand up to a state and tell them the blind now have to be able to drive.

Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone you say? It harms a word, "marriage". Just like transsexualism harms the words "male" and "female". And what's with that Harvey Milk guy sodomizing orphaned street teens on drugs, and then having that "sexuality" celebrated as iconic of gay and lesbian values?

Wouldn't that be a contradiction to child welfare and adoption by gays and lesbians? I'd sure think so. I wonder what an adoption agency would say to a prospective set of parents who freely adored and promoted Jerry Sandusky's "open sexuality"? Pretty sure they'd be turned down. One of the things marriage does is opens up participants to equality in adopting kids. Belonging to a social culture [not race] that upholds and promotes Harvey Milk as iconic of their values is harmful to orphaned children who then can be accessed by them via married-status. Unless the LGBT community would be happy with 2nd class marriage-adoptive priveleges?

When it comes to civil rights, dear, yes, SCOTUS will interpret it that ay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is misapplying what the Court has said.

Nothing more.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Define "lawful marriages". The Court did. They said Windsor was made lawful by New York's consensus.

Oops.

All Windsor said, as the court noted, that decision applies only to Civil Marriges where the state said "Yes", this couple is Civilly Married and therefore it is unconstitutional for the Federal government not to recognize that Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple.
>>>>

I understand that you are hopeful that this is so. However, instead of putting words in the Court's mouth, I will quote them directly:

Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster. From the same link:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its
analysis leads no further. 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."​

Windsor does not answer the question about State that say "No", it only addressed recognition by the Federal government pertaining to States that said "Yes". An answer as to whether States can discriminate in the realm of Civil Marriage based on gender (actual language) to exclude same-sex couples (intent) will be another case.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster. From the same link:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its
analysis leads no further. 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."​

Windsor does not answer the question about State that say "No", it only addressed recognition by the Federal government pertaining to States that said "Yes". An answer as to whether States can discriminate in the realm of Civil Marriage based on gender (actual language) to exclude same-sex couples (intent) will be another case.

>>>>

You can hang onto your little bouy of dissent in a churning sea of "State's unquestioned authority...since the founding of our nation" as wave after wave of that reiteration hits you upon reading the majority Opinion on DOMA. But eventually you are going to have to face the facts, large, looming and persistent as they are...

 

[Misty]

This is where I become confused. Marriage s a conservative concept.

Why are conservatives against it and gays for it?

Gays want to be more conservative why don't we let them?

Why is marriage a conservative concept??

Really?

Think about it. You know I'm right.

This is probably the most brilliant point ever made on this board.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, I think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court understands the ruling a little better then a nameless internet poster. From the same link:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis
leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its
analysis leads no further. 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."​

Windsor does not answer the question about State that say "No", it only addressed recognition by the Federal government pertaining to States that said "Yes". An answer as to whether States can discriminate in the realm of Civil Marriage based on gender (actual language) to exclude same-sex couples (intent) will be another case.

>>>>

You can hang onto your little bouy of dissent in a churning sea of "State's unquestioned authority...since the founding of our nation" as wave after wave of that reiteration hits you upon reading the majority Opinion on DOMA. But eventually you are going to have to face the facts, large, looming and persistent as they are...

I deal with facts.

Fact #1: Windsor did not settle the question of whether States can say "no", it only addressed whether Federal government has to recognize Civil Marriage from States that said "Yes".

Fact #2: Windsor had no impact on Prop 8 (which is typically your other attempt to mis-apply Windsor), Prop 8 was found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed it to stand by not vacating the District Courts decision.

Fact #3: It will be a different case (possibly Utah) in which the SCOTUS addresses whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.

Fact #4: You cherry-picking and out of context quotes are an attempt to mis-state what the court said. The court said the States have the "unquestioned authority" to say "yes" and the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages. They specifically didn't say that States have "unquestioned authority" to say "No", but that State Civil Marriage laws were still subject to Constitutional guarantees. If States have the "unquestioned authority" to define Civil Marriage as they see fit, then the court would not have overturned State marriage bans in the Loving case. Since they did, that shows the court recognizes there are constitutional limits on how State Civil Marriage laws can function.​

>>>>