Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That

[WorldWatcher]

4. Race and behaviors are totally different.

Under your premise the SCOTUS would have ruled in favor or Texas in the Lawrence v. Texas case because you call homosexual acts a "behavior".



Yet they didn't, they ruled - using your term - that such restrictions were unconstitutional.



>>>>

What one does in one's bedroom, legal or not, does not automatically qualify one to rewrite society's terms of marriage.

Now you are moving the goalposts. Your claim has been that behaviors don't qualify for protections under the 14th Amendment.

Yet in Lawrence v. Texas the court held that it violated the 14th Amendment to target those behaviors.




Your claim is proven false.

(Whether the 14th Amendment extends to Civil Marriage, is unknown as the SCOTUS has not addressed any case dealing with the question. The Windsor case ONLY dealt with (Per the decision and the Chief Justices own remarks in the writings of the case) Federal law and didn't address State law at all.)

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Now you are moving the goalposts. Your claim has been that behaviors don't qualify for protections under the 14th Amendment.

Yet in Lawrence v. Texas the court held that it violated the 14th Amendment to target those behaviors.




Your claim is proven false.

(Whether the 14th Amendment extends to Civil Marriage, is unknown as the SCOTUS has not addressed any case dealing with the question. The Windsor case ONLY dealt with (Per the decision and the Chief Justices own remarks in the writings of the case) Federal law and didn't address State law at all.)

>>>>

Private behaviors. Once they want to marry, their behaviors become public. And that's when the majority has a right to either approve of or deny the new meme as one of its collective values. And as it turns out this is exactly what Windsor asserted.

 

[Silhouette]

That would depend on the State in which this supposed "illegal" Civil Marriage took place.

If it was in any of the 11 States that Windsor acknowledged (as of when it was being written) had legal Civil Marriage, in California (since the Prop 8) after the SCOTUS let the District Court Judges ruling that it was unconstitutional, or any of the 6 States since then that have allowed Civil Marriage...

You have brought up the one issue the Court will certainly wrestle with: the issue of clarity on why it said 11 states had legal gay marriage as of that writing. Looking bad from your angle, that means the court is giving a vote of "no confidence" on Loving applying to gay behaviors getting the 14th protections. Looking bad from my angle it means that the court for some reason is saying a broad consensus within the sovereign states that they feel is necessary to approve of so-called "gay marriage", is also saying at the same time "but one activist judge can speak for an entire state also".

Which contradicts what they said over and over about a state's consensus.

I have a hunch that some of the Justices involved in authoring Windsor's Opinion 'behind the scenes' shall we say... included language that was nonsensical like that to bring others on board who were less than careful of gleaning what was really going on and being put in cement via Windsor.

I know you know what I'm talking about too.

Only 3 states by Windsor's defining of a broad consensus of the governed have actually ratified so-called "gay marriage". Other states you mentioned did not ratify it. It was forced upon them by judicial tyranny. Ergo "gay marriage" isn't legal there. Just 3 states.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That would depend on the State in which this supposed "illegal" Civil Marriage took place.

If it was in any of the 11 States that Windsor acknowledged (as of when it was being written) had legal Civil Marriage, in California (since the Prop 8) after the SCOTUS let the District Court Judges ruling that it was unconstitutional, or any of the 6 States since then that have allowed Civil Marriage...

You have brought up the one issue the Court will certainly wrestle with: the issue of clarity on why it said 11 states had legal gay marriage as of that writing. Looking bad from your angle, that means the court is giving a vote of "no confidence" on Loving applying to gay behaviors getting the 14th protections. Looking bad from my angle it means that the court for some reason is saying a broad consensus within the sovereign states that they feel is necessary to approve of so-called "gay marriage", is also saying at the same time "but one activist judge can speak for an entire state also".

Which contradicts what they said over and over about a state's consensus.

I have a hunch that some of the Justices involved in authoring Windsor's Opinion 'behind the scenes' shall we say... included language that was nonsensical like that to bring others on board who were less than careful of gleaning what was really going on and being put in cement via Windsor.

I know you know what I'm talking about too.

Only 3 states by Windsor's defining of a broad consensus of the governed have actually ratified so-called "gay marriage". Other states you mentioned did not ratify it. It was forced upon them by judicial tyranny. Ergo "gay marriage" isn't legal there. Just 3 states.

New York, the state from whence Windsor came didn't pass it by ballot.

Yu'd a thunk that the SCOTUS wouldn't have even considered the case if they hadn't considered non-ballot initiative achievements of SSCM valid.


Face reality, it's like 18 or 19 without even counting the ones that are on federal Stay because they were passed by ballot, passed by legislatures, or passed by findings of State Courts. Then of course they let Prop 8 stand because they chose NOT to invalidate the District Court Judges ruling.


I don't know which way they (SCOTUS) will come down on the decision but you can be sure that: (a) they won't be invalidating decisions based on State court action, (b) they won't be invalidating legislative actions, (c) they won't be invalidating ballot actions, (d) the Federal government will still continue to recognize all valid Civil Marriages based on jurisdiction of origin.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

New York, the state from whence Windsor came didn't pass it by ballot.

Yu'd a thunk that the SCOTUS wouldn't have even considered the case if they hadn't considered non-ballot initiative achievements of SSCM valid.


Face reality, it's like 18 or 19 without even counting the ones that are on federal Stay because they were passed by ballot, passed by legislatures, or passed by findings of State Courts. Then of course they let Prop 8 stand because they chose NOT to invalidate the District Court Judges ruling.


I don't know which way they (SCOTUS) will come down on the decision but you can be sure that: (a) they won't be invalidating decisions based on State court action, (b) they won't be invalidating legislative actions, (c) they won't be invalidating ballot actions, (d) the Federal government will still continue to recognize all valid Civil Marriages based on jurisdiction of origin.

If they won't be invalidating ballot actions, then Prop 8 is and was [remember in Windsor they said it was retroactive to the founding of the country] the law in California and all gay marriages there are invalid. You agree, right?

And matter of fact they WILL invalidate legislative and judicial activism within the states because they specified that they wanted the broadest consensus possible on so-called "same sex marriage". If challenged, the legislature or activist judges of a given state will fall as second class citizens to individual voters pushing for their will to be heard. And I think you've brought up a great point. When SCOTUS affirms Windsor when it hears these various cases next year, they're going to have to include langauge that is quite specific and strong about reaffirming their constitutional interpretation that a wide swath of the citizenry needs to weigh in.

They outlined that in Windsor but it needs emphasis added. I think it was pages 16-19 in the Opinion. If memory serves. They can nip any activism at higher levels by deferring to the voters the preference of being "The Deciders" [as Dubya used to say].

Behaviors are regulated by the majority. Especially in this case. It was spelled out in Windsor.

 

[Silhouette]

Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."
December 13, 2004

Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 9:51:59 AM by Laissez-faire capitalist

1.)Dr. Dean Hamer who failed to find a "gay gene":

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic. Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think that we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

2.) Dr. Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not negate the psychosocial factors."

("New Evidence of a "Gay Gene," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, Vol. 146. Issue 20, p.95)

3.) British researchers generated comparable results in an identical-twin study. Their conclusion? The suprisingly low odds that both twins were homosexual.

The study by them: "confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation."

(King, M and McDonald, E. Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands. British Journal of Psychiatry. 160: 407-409 (1992).

4a.)Homosexual researcher Simon Levay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals:

"I didn't show that gay men are born that way the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

4b.)Dr. Simon Levay: The most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.

Levay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

5.) Dr. J. Satinover:

"Research studies on homosexuality by Dr's Dean Hamer, Michael Bailey, Richard Dillard, Simon Levay. Laura Allen and Roger Gorski have failed to show proof of a gay gene. There is no scientific evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic. The media has sensationalized and perpetuated the myth of a homosexual gene."

Satinover, J. M.D. (1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids. Baker Books

6.) Another of Dr. Jeffery Satinover's conclusions in "The Gay Gene":

"There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do when speaking in sound bites to the public."

(Jeffery Satinover, M.D. The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8) Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."

Just a few more tidbits to augment the OP.

 

[Silhouette]

The Huffington Post...

The bombastic title:

Supreme Court Rules In Hobby Lobby Case, Dealing Blow To Birth Control Coverage

The snippet:

"Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law," Alito wrote, adding that by requiring religious corporations to cover contraception, "the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs." Supreme Court Rules In Hobby Lobby Case, Dealing Blow To Birth Control Coverage

A long long time ago I worked for a fundamentalist christian company. And I took political science in school; I had a basic grasp of the Amendments and the Constitution. Never would I imagine my employers back then would ever be required to provide abortive pills [not that the morning after pill is one of those, it isn't, the fetus has not yet implanted so by definition the woman isn't pregnant] or anything else that violated their faith at a fundamental level. They prayed every day. Evidence of their deeply held religious beliefs was everywhere in the things they said to the announcements of holidays etc. etc. And so it is. People's religions don't stop because they need to make a living. You can't require people to choose welfare or their religion but not both.

But this big headline and bombastic declaration "dealt a blow" isn't about birth control is it? I mean, any woman in any state has access to free or almost free birth control as it is. She doesn't need it as part of her employment package. So this may be inconvenient at best, but a "blow"? No. No, there's something else being felt as a "blow" here and we all know what it is so we might as well talk about it..

This means that if a cake baker or a photographer doesn't want to promote a homosexual cultural takeover of mainstream values [see the mandate in the New Testament in Jude 1, with the promise of eternal damnation for failure of the faithful to resist], they don't have to provide those services to homosexuals and therefore, they won't and they cannot be sued or blackmailed to be sued for it.

So this comes as a real muzzle for the machine that's been grinding up everything in its path in the legal arena in the last 5-6 years.

The second "blow" is when the cult of LGBT will be asked to provide proof that they are a race or a gender or a country of origin or a federally-recognized religion. They will be asked to assure the public that if they get a federal green light on marriage, how they can assure that same public that polygamy [waiting in the chute, foaming at the mouth and chomping on the bit, dancing in place and breaking out in a sweat] won't immediately follow that precedent? And after them, which other minority set of behaviors [not necessarily sexual] that people really really feel should have "civil rights" to beat back a majority disapproval will have it's day in court using the same precedent?

And so on until majority-rule regulating behaviors is no more?

Yes, today was a "blow" all right. But it wasn't about birth control. It was about one religion being told that they cannot beat back the rights of other religions by threatening or delivering lawsuits...that manipulate a false premise...