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

[Seawytch]

The premise, that same sex couples are equal to opposite sex couples is the false argument.

Logic is pissy to SeaWitch?

A nudist feels he was born that way, does not effect anyone's marriage and knew he was a nudist his/her entire life. Why the discrimination when their lifestyle is far more consistent with nature than your?

Hater. Bigot.

The irony of you mentioning logic is rich beyond words. Pops idea of logic:

Pops: Gays can't marry because they don't have babies naturally
Logical people: Older and infertile couples can't have babies naturally
Pops: Yeah, but that's "normal"

Ta-da! Pop's "logic"

Nobody discriminates against nudists. No one can run around naked, not just nudists. You really don't understand the nature of discrimination do you? Nudists are not treated differently than everyone else. They are not kept from enjoying all the same laws, benefits and protections as people who are not nudists. Your analogies aren't just illogical, they're downright stupid.

Lol, spoken by someone who's entire life is illogical. Now you want to preach logic?

Your lifestyle makes logical reasoning impossible. You do realize that being placed in jail for being nude in public takes a few rights away right?

No, probably not. It's not a felony so you'll still get to vote and own a weapon, so no, no rights are taken away.

Was homosexual activity ever illegal?

Yes it was...and in some states it's illegal for gays to marry. They face fines and jail time for getting married in another state. Of course, I double dog dare them to try and fine or jail someone for getting married.

Might want to think a bit before posting your warped logic.

But you see mine isn't warped, yours is. Your analogies are silly and even stupid. Everyone is treated the same if they are naked in public, don't you get that? There is no "discrimination" against nudists. They aren't singled out in a law like gays are in anti gay marriage laws. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

 

[Seawytch]

We have a rational reason...they don't qualify. Marriage laws are instituted to promote the raising of children in stable families, producing good & productive citizens, gays cannot have children...period.

They can have a civil union, which will give their unions the benefits they QUALIFY for, they don't even qualify to adopt children, unless they Had a kid prior to finding out they were "born gay", that's a totally different thing & I'm sure they can figure a way to make that work in a civil union.

We don't have to...we're marrying. Now, if you'd like to change all civil marriages to civil unions, that'd be fine but separate but equal ain't gonna cut it.

 

[LockeJaw]

We have a rational reason...they don't qualify. Marriage laws are instituted to promote the raising of children in stable families, producing good & productive citizens, gays cannot have children...period.

They can have a civil union, which will give their unions the benefits they QUALIFY for, they don't even qualify to adopt children, unless they Had a kid prior to finding out they were "born gay", that's a totally different thing & I'm sure they can figure a way to make that work in a civil union.

We don't have to...we're marrying. Now, if you'd like to change all civil marriages to civil unions, that'd be fine but separate but equal ain't gonna cut it.

I don't believe the state should be in the marriage business to begin with, but since it is, that actually would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Silhouette]

We don't have to...we're marrying. Now, if you'd like to change all civil marriages to civil unions, that'd be fine but separate but equal ain't gonna cut it.

13 year olds in New Hampshire are "separate but equal". And you're only legally able to be married [since the founding of the country...see Windsor] in states whose broad majority has deemed that you may if you are of the exclusive behavioral cult 'LGBT'. Why polygamy in just those 3 states is still illegal is the real mystery.

You really ought to read Windsor Seawytch because the judges sitting at the very very top of the legal chain you're relying on to come to your false conclusions are most definitely going to read their own words from just last year. June 2013.

Are you afraid to read the Windsor Opinion? It's not a bunch of mumbo jumbo. It's really easy to read. And individual state's citizen's rights to weigh in on what the Court defined as a new and weird concept [gay marriage] couldn't be more clearly supported. ie; if any state challenges whether or not a judge has the right to dictate to the broader citizenry on the topic of the behaviors 'LGBT' being married there, the US Supreme Court has to, by it's own words, find in favor of the broader citizenry.

These activist judges are in full contempt of Windsor 2013. And I know most of them have read it. And if they haven't, ignorance of the law is no excuse. There is a movement actually to have them impeached for their insolence.

Representative John Becker, R-Union Township, is calling on Republican Congressman Brad Wenstrup to initiate impeachment proceedings against Federal Judge Timothy S. Black for “malfeasance and abuse of power.”

Black’s alleged misconduct? He ordered that Ohio must recognize the “homosexual marriage” of John Arthur and James Obergefell.

“I am writing you today to express my concerns about the federal government’s ever growing propensity to violate state sovereignty,” Becker said. “Although this has been a trend since the early 19th century, it has accelerated exponentially in recent decades.”

Federal judges are appointed for life. The only was to remove a federal judge is for the House of Representatives to impeach them or the Senate to vote to remove them from office.

“Judge Black has demonstrated his incompetence by allowing his personal political bias to supersede jurisprudence,” Becker wrote. “This will begin the process of restoring state sovereignty back to the original intent of the US Constitution.”

Since 1797, there have been eight federally appointed judges removed from office and three more that resigned prior to their potential removal.

In response, Wenstrup said: “While Judge Black’s ruling violated the Ohio Constitution and the will of Ohio voters, the question of whether this decision also violated the U.S. Constitution remains before a higher court. I will watch those appellate proceedings closely to see if Judge Black’s decision is upheld and I have full confidence in the Ohio’s office of the Attorney General during the appeals process.” http://www2.cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/20/clemont-lawmaker-impeach-gay-rights-judge/

If you read the words carefully above, it's a shot across the bow and a warning to other judges. In other words, lawmakers in Congress are saying to the judges, "hey buddy, you'd better read Windsor. Because if you don't and it's found you were in full ignorance of what the Court said on how gay marriage laws are to be enacted [by the broad consensus] and the SCOTUS reaffirms that in the various appeals heading its way [like from the 10th circuit], we're coming for your head"...

 

[WorldWatcher]

We don't have to...we're marrying. Now, if you'd like to change all civil marriages to civil unions, that'd be fine but separate but equal ain't gonna cut it.

13 year olds in New Hampshire are "separate but equal".

13 Year old girls are allowed to Civilly Marry in New Hampshire, marriage which are recognized by pretty much every state I've checked and are recognized by the federal government.

They aren't "separate" and they are "equal".


>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

Sil lays the smack down on libs every time! It's almost painful to watch!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sil lays the smack down on libs every time! It's almost painful to watch!

Really?

She claims that SSCM is only legal in 3 States, yet the SCOTUS itself identified 11 States in the Windsor ruling which was achieved through a mixture of judicial rulings, legislative actions, and ballot initiatives. Yet she says only the ballot initiative states are valid.

So you also think that's it only valid in 3 States (agree with SIL) or to you recognize that the SCOTUS recognized 11 States in Windsor?


Do you think that Winsdor said that States have unlimited authority to define Civil Marriage (as SIL claims) or you you acknowledge that Windsor specifically said such state actions are subject to constitutional guarantees?


As the Chief Justice pointed out, Windsor was about Federal law and whether if a State said yes if the Federal government could say "No". The answer of course was the Fed's couldn't discriminate against legally married gay couples. How the SCOTUS will rule is anyone's guess at this point, and I don't claim to know. But her whole "behaviorial" schtick is humorous. Religion is a behavior, wanting to marry someone of a different race is behavior, the SCOTUS DID NOT invalidate the District Court ruling in the Prop 8 case (which they could have done), in Romer v. Evans the SCOTUS found laws targeting homosexuals were unconstitutional (whether it is "behavior" or "biological" wasn't even a factor).


I don't to know how the SCOTUS will rule, but we should have a ruling by the end of June 2015 at the present pace.

If they rule that States can discriminate against same-sex couples, it won't end there. It just means that action will return back to the States and the process of state-by-state repeals will start. Instead of being done with in the next couple of years, it will take (IMHO) 15-20 years to repeal them at the state level at the ballot box.

If the SCOTUS rules that homosexuals are included under the "All persons" portion of the 14th, then the only action left will be a Constitutional Amendment. A battle on the national level those that advocate discrimination are not likely to win.​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

...As the Chief Justice pointed out, Windsor was about Federal law and whether if a State said yes if the Federal government could say "No". The answer of course was the Fed's couldn't discriminate against legally married gay couples. How the SCOTUS will rule is anyone's guess at this point, and I don't claim to know. But her whole "behaviorial" schtick is humorous. Religion is a behavior, wanting to marry someone of a different race is behavior, the SCOTUS DID NOT invalidate the District Court ruling in the Prop 8 case (which they could have done), in Romer v. Evans the SCOTUS found laws targeting homosexuals were unconstitutional (whether it is "behavior" or "biological" wasn't even a factor).


I don't to know how the SCOTUS will rule, but we should have a ruling by the end of June 2015 at the present pace.

If they rule that States can discriminate against same-sex couples, it won't end there. It just means that action will return back to the States and the process of state-by-state repeals will start. Instead of being done with in the next couple of years, it will take (IMHO) 15-20 years to repeal them at the state level at the ballot box.

If the SCOTUS rules that homosexuals are included under the "All persons" portion of the 14th, then the only action left will be a Constitutional Amendment. A battle on the national level those that advocate discrimination are not likely to win.​

Thanks Lockejaw for the compliments but I am "one of the libs". I'm against fracking, for woman's right to choose and all about green energy. Sorry if I burst your bubble. I am one of tens of millions of democrats who are against gay marriage at the polls. Only I'm one of the very very few who are speaking up against it. And it's because we lost a dear family friend to the ignorance of how the LGBT cult works. I've made it sort of a lifelong quest to set the record straight...

..and on to that...

Worldy, first of all, it's not "anyone's guess" how SCOTUS will rule because it already has ruled on state's place in the ratifying or not ratifying of gay marriage. It said in Windsor that it wanted the broadest consensus in the respective states to weigh in before a decision was made. Read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. United States v. Windsor.

And my "behavioral schtick" is not only not a laughing matter, but it is the crux of why the Court said in Windsor that gay marriage is a new and weird concept that the majority had to weigh in on state by state. Religions are specified in the 14th for protection. Random, weird, incomplete other behaviors, such as "LGBT" are NOT provided for in the 14th. How could they be? What other behaviors are being left out of the 14th unfairly therefore? If your yardstick is that the minority behaviors LGBT are allowed to usurp the majority rule that disapproves of them, then how could any other minority behavior that the majority disapproves of not also be allowed to manipulate the 14th legally to dictate to the majority?

Goodbye American law. You don't see me laughing about that concept.

And finally Worldly, when you discover what is said in Windsor and what the Court will tell you for sure by next year, you will find that first of all, only 3 states have or have ever had legal gay marriage [in Windsor the Court took pains to say their finding was retroactive to the founding of the country]. And secondly, having gay marriage passed in the states it was denied in isn't going to be a simple wave of the hand. Oh, no. Because you see, people in great masses are quite angry at having their vote stripped away by gay activists and their sychophant judges. The harbinger for a poor prognosis for gay marriage this way is the fact that twice in the looniest, most left-wing fruit and nut bowl state in the Union, California, gay marriage tried twice and lost twice. You think a third time will be a charm when the news of the LGBT messiah Harvey Milks sex life gets put on prime time TV ads?

The thing that y'all fail to see is that people are concerned for their children, and future generations of children forced to be inducted into this cult either in support or actual deeds. Good luck, because you're going to need it.

And as I said, there is already a warning shot above the bow to any future activist judges thinking they can overrule Windsor. Congress is clamping down and sharpening their knives for any judge found to be in contempt of the US Supreme Court's ruling last Summer...

 

[hipeter924]

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism...

What I see every time righties open their mouths against same-sex marriage:

 

[Silhouette]

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism...

What I see every time righties open their mouths against same-sex marriage:

That's nice. Maybe you can submit that as an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to convince them that the exclusive "LGBT" club minority behaviors can usurp American law by dictating to the majority who disapproves of them?

Though I'm not sure a baby having a tantrum under the "dont' tread on me" flag is going to win you many supporters of the registered voters you've already pissed off in the various states you're going to find you're going to have to appeal to in order to get gay marriage passed...state...by...painful...state... That is providing the news of LGBT cult messiah Harvey Milk's sex life doesn't get plastered all over the internet, newspapers and prime time television while those new votes are going on...

Good luck with that amicus brief!

 

[LockeJaw]

Doesn't burst my bubble a bit, Im pretty sure you can understand why I would assume you are conservative atleast? A liberal with some common sense, that's a rarity. Either way, I like you & you kick ass. Even though you're a liberal.

...As the Chief Justice pointed out, Windsor was about Federal law and whether if a State said yes if the Federal government could say "No". The answer of course was the Fed's couldn't discriminate against legally married gay couples. How the SCOTUS will rule is anyone's guess at this point, and I don't claim to know. But her whole "behaviorial" schtick is humorous. Religion is a behavior, wanting to marry someone of a different race is behavior, the SCOTUS DID NOT invalidate the District Court ruling in the Prop 8 case (which they could have done), in Romer v. Evans the SCOTUS found laws targeting homosexuals were unconstitutional (whether it is "behavior" or "biological" wasn't even a factor).


I don't to know how the SCOTUS will rule, but we should have a ruling by the end of June 2015 at the present pace.

If they rule that States can discriminate against same-sex couples, it won't end there. It just means that action will return back to the States and the process of state-by-state repeals will start. Instead of being done with in the next couple of years, it will take (IMHO) 15-20 years to repeal them at the state level at the ballot box.

If the SCOTUS rules that homosexuals are included under the "All persons" portion of the 14th, then the only action left will be a Constitutional Amendment. A battle on the national level those that advocate discrimination are not likely to win.​

Thanks Lockejaw for the compliments but I am "one of the libs". I'm against fracking, for woman's right to choose and all about green energy. Sorry if I burst your bubble. I am one of tens of millions of democrats who are against gay marriage at the polls. Only I'm one of the very very few who are speaking up against it. And it's because we lost a dear family friend to the ignorance of how the LGBT cult works. I've made it sort of a lifelong quest to set the record straight...

..and on to that...

Worldy, first of all, it's not "anyone's guess" how SCOTUS will rule because it already has ruled on state's place in the ratifying or not ratifying of gay marriage. It said in Windsor that it wanted the broadest consensus in the respective states to weigh in before a decision was made. Read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. United States v. Windsor.

And my "behavioral schtick" is not only not a laughing matter, but it is the crux of why the Court said in Windsor that gay marriage is a new and weird concept that the majority had to weigh in on state by state. Religions are specified in the 14th for protection. Random, weird, incomplete other behaviors, such as "LGBT" are NOT provided for in the 14th. How could they be? What other behaviors are being left out of the 14th unfairly therefore? If your yardstick is that the minority behaviors LGBT are allowed to usurp the majority rule that disapproves of them, then how could any other minority behavior that the majority disapproves of not also be allowed to manipulate the 14th legally to dictate to the majority?

Goodbye American law. You don't see me laughing about that concept.

And finally Worldly, when you discover what is said in Windsor and what the Court will tell you for sure by next year, you will find that first of all, only 3 states have or have ever had legal gay marriage [in Windsor the Court took pains to say their finding was retroactive to the founding of the country]. And secondly, having gay marriage passed in the states it was denied in isn't going to be a simple wave of the hand. Oh, no. Because you see, people in great masses are quite angry at having their vote stripped away by gay activists and their sychophant judges. The harbinger for a poor prognosis for gay marriage this way is the fact that twice in the looniest, most left-wing fruit and nut bowl state in the Union, California, gay marriage tried twice and lost twice. You think a third time will be a charm when the news of the LGBT messiah Harvey Milks sex life gets put on prime time TV ads?

The thing that y'all fail to see is that people are concerned for their children, and future generations of children forced to be inducted into this cult either in support or actual deeds. Good luck, because you're going to need it.

And as I said, there is already a warning shot above the bow to any future activist judges thinking they can overrule Windsor. Congress is clamping down and sharpening their knives for any judge found to be in contempt of the US Supreme Court's ruling last Summer...

 

[hipeter924]

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism...

What I see every time righties open their mouths against same-sex marriage:

That's nice. Maybe you can submit that as an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to convince them that the exclusive "LGBT" club minority behaviors can usurp American law by dictating to the majority who disapproves of them?

Though I'm not sure a baby having a tantrum under the "dont' tread on me" flag is going to win you many supporters of the registered voters you've already pissed off in the various states you're going to find you're going to have to appeal to in order to get gay marriage passed...state...by...painful...state... That is providing the news of LGBT cult messiah Harvey Milk's sex life doesn't get plastered all over the internet, newspapers and prime time television while those new votes are going on...

Good luck with that amicus brief!

Already live in a state with same-sex marriage, so I don't have to submit any briefs as the fight is already won. I can take off my briefs, but full body nudity isn't kosher, unless you are a in the closet Republican lawmaker with a male escort on the side.

 

[LockeJaw]

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism...

What I see every time righties open their mouths against same-sex marriage:

AnarchoCommunistCapitalistDemocraticSocialistGreenParty member....

Lmao!

 

[hipeter924]

What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism...

What I see every time righties open their mouths against same-sex marriage:

AnarchoCommunistCapitalistDemocraticSocialistGreenParty member....

Lmao!

Are you capable of writing a sentence with word breaks?

PS: Anarchist Communist and Anarcho Capitalist, at least spell it right Libertard.

 

[LockeJaw]

Listen Hipster, you don't get to tell me a thing.

You have ZERO credibility. Youre the one saying you can be all of those at once & not be a hypocrite. Not me, hypocrite.

 

[Silhouette]

Doesn't burst my bubble a bit, Im pretty sure you can understand why I would assume you are conservative atleast? A liberal with some common sense, that's a rarity. Either way, I like you & you kick ass. Even though you're a liberal.

Well of course I'm somewhat conservative. I'm in the middle bloc where the sane people dwell.. The fringes on either extremes are the ones interested in usurping democracy and poisoning the public well, whether it is psychological poison as with the cult of LGBT or actual poison as in the case of fracking...

Thanks for the compliments though. Very rare to receive them on these types of threads.

 

[Silhouette]

Already live in a state with same-sex marriage, so I don't have to submit any briefs as the fight is already won. I can take off my briefs, but full body nudity isn't kosher, unless you are a in the closet Republican lawmaker with a male escort on the side.

Not legally unless you live in one of the 3 states who used the democratic process of legislating to make it legal. If you think you live in California and are legally gay married...I've got some very disappointing news for you. That has never been the case there since the founding of the country, nor any other state where the voter's rule has been illegally ripped away by contemptuous judicial activists...who are slated to be impeached by Congress....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Worldy, first of all, it's not "anyone's guess" how SCOTUS will rule because it already has ruled on state's place in the ratifying or not ratifying of gay marriage. It said in Windsor that it wanted the broadest consensus in the respective states to weigh in before a decision was made. Read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. United States v. Windsor.

That is incorrect Sil, as the SCOTUS said in it's opinion, the decision of the case was confined to the protections under federal law of the 5th Amendment and that the Windsor decision was "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."

Which lawful marriages? "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. " Which became 12 later that same day when they issued their decision in the Prop 8 case and decided NOT to vacate the District Court Judges ruling allowing it to stand.

Now of course you are free to continue to promote your incorrect legal theory that Windsor only validated SSCM for three States. Of course any one can continue to be wrong.

If you disagree with that, maybe you should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who holds that same opinion and who said, in his dissenting opinion:

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."​

The issue was not decided and could go either way. No matter the likely ruling of the 10th or 4th Circuit Courts that decision will be appealed and the SCOTUS can then decide the separate issue of whether States can exclude same-sex couples from equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment as they already ruled that way in Romer and ruled that way in Windsor as to the application of the 5th Amendment.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Worldy, first of all, it's not "anyone's guess" how SCOTUS will rule because it already has ruled on state's place in the ratifying or not ratifying of gay marriage. It said in Windsor that it wanted the broadest consensus in the respective states to weigh in before a decision was made. Read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. United States v. Windsor.

That is incorrect Sil, as the SCOTUS said in it's opinion, the decision of the case was confined to the protections under federal law of the 5th Amendment and that the Windsor decision was "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."

Which lawful marriages? "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. " Which became 12 later that same day when they issued their decision in the Prop 8 case and decided NOT to vacate the District Court Judges ruling allowing it to stand.

Now of course you are free to continue to promote your incorrect legal theory that Windsor only validated SSCM for three States. Of course any one can continue to be wrong.

If you disagree with that, maybe you should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who holds that same opinion and who said, in his dissenting opinion:

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."​

The issue was not decided and could go either way. No matter the likely ruling of the 10th or 4th Circuit Courts that decision will be appealed and the SCOTUS can then decide the separate issue of whether States can exclude same-sex couples from equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment as they already ruled that way in Romer and ruled that way in Windsor as to the application of the 5th Amendment.


>>>>

Yes, that's interesting because at the time of their writing, your camp was claiming that California was the 13th state to have gay marriage forced on it...well the 10th, since only 3 have ratified it according to Windsor.

So you think Windsor's long-winded and very specific outlines for how the majority must decide on gay marriage is some legal island that won't be cited? Too late. The AG for Utah I think it was has already used Windsor in his appeals and will continue to do so. SCOTUS can't sequester it's own precedent and legal logic away like that. It will be cited. And in fact, it has been cited. Utah won it's emergency appeal to put a stop to "gay marriages" there, remember. If memory serves I think their AG cited Windsor in those pleadings too.

Odd that they'd mention 12 [but not 13-California] at the time of Windsor and equally odd that when California's oath-taking officials directly in the line of fire [county clerks who issue licenses] for disobeying the will of the majority would be denied a stay on gay marriage in order to receive clarity, by the same exact court that granted a stay to Utah.

There are many curious contradictions that will have to be addressed in any new decision. But the bottom line is that the Opinion of Windsor goes on and on and on and on and on and on about how gay marriage is weird, new and how the broadest possible consensus is the right and proper way to ratify it if it ever does get off the ground in the respective states...and not the fed. They mentioned ad nauseum about that too: not the fed, not the fed, not the fed. Except where the 14th applies. But then like you said, they brought up Loving v Virginia in Windsor too, and then went on to say that only a few states had legal gay marriage [in violation of their own description of how that was to come about within the same document]. If it Loving was applicable, you'd think they would've said so.

I think they left that open ended for some sharp lawyers to close the loophole on.

And as I've mentioned many times Worldy, you cannot have just some arbitrary minority of deviant sexual behaviors calling themselves a "race" and thereby declaring to the majority that they cannot have a say. What behaviors would come next riding on the coattails of that precendent? Why not them also? Because the majority finds them "icky"?

You see the catch-22 you're in. Good luck with that.

 

[LockeJaw]

(; Go get um Sil!