Do SCOTUS' Gay Marriage Stays-In-Interim Apply to All 50 States?

[Inevitable]

Shackled is correct: we are a constitutional republic that uses (but not always) democratic processes in its operation.

The will of the majority can never override guaranteed civil liberties IAW the Constitution.

This separates us from democratic governments like Iran and Iraq and Russia.

The only thing democratic about our nation it's the way we choose our leaders.

It's far more than that, Inevitable.

what else is democratically selected?

 

[Inevitable]

[MENTION]Silhouette[/MENTION]
Have a look at this. I know it's geared forchildren but it's educational and the information provided is accurate. Once you review it please explain where the voting public comes into the picture. It's only 3 minutes long and it explains the process of law very well without complex jargon and if youare as old as I am you remember them being on television.

Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law: [ame=http://youtu.be/Otbml6WIQPo]Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Silhouette]

Shackled is correct: we are a constitutional republic that uses (but not always) democratic processes in its operation.

The will of the majority can never override guaranteed civil liberties IAW the Constitution.

This separates us from democratic governments like Iran and Iraq and Russia.

Civil liberties as applied to race or behavior? Which one? Behaviors don't come with "civil liberties"...

 

[Inevitable]

Shackled is correct: we are a constitutional republic that uses (but not always) democratic processes in its operation.

The will of the majority can never override guaranteed civil liberties IAW the Constitution.

This separates us from democratic governments like Iran and Iraq and Russia.

Civil liberties as applied to race or behavior? Which one? Behaviors don't come with "civil liberties"...

Yes they do. Religion is a behavior and it has a civil liberty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shackled is correct: we are a constitutional republic that uses (but not always) democratic processes in its operation.

The will of the majority can never override guaranteed civil liberties IAW the Constitution.

This separates us from democratic governments like Iran and Iraq and Russia.

Civil liberties as applied to race or behavior? Which one? Behaviors don't come with "civil liberties"...

Yes they do. Religion is a behavior and it has a civil liberty.

SCOTUS certainly said so in throwing out the law against homosexuals in Colorado.

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled is correct: we are a constitutional republic that uses (but not always) democratic processes in its operation.

The will of the majority can never override guaranteed civil liberties IAW the Constitution.

This separates us from democratic governments like Iran and Iraq and Russia.

The only thing democratic about our nation it's the way we choose our leaders.

For the most part, that is absolutely correct. Some states, (such as CA) allow the public to vote on propositions or referendums directly. (For example, CA's prop 8 was voted on directly by the citizens). Even those votes, however, are limited by state and federal constitutions.

 

[Silhouette]

Shackled is correct: we are a constitutional republic that uses (but not always) democratic processes in its operation.

The will of the majority can never override guaranteed civil liberties IAW the Constitution.

This separates us from democratic governments like Iran and Iraq and Russia.

The only thing democratic about our nation it's the way we choose our leaders.

For the most part, that is absolutely correct. Some states, (such as CA) allow the public to vote on propositions or referendums directly. (For example, CA's prop 8 was voted on directly by the citizens). Even those votes, however, are limited by state and federal constitutions.

1. There is nothing in the California constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

2. There is nothing in the US Constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

3. There IS something in the California constitution about being inferior in whole to the US Constitution and its interpretations however. It must abide by them.

4. Last year in Windsor, SCOTUS Found constitutionally that states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage.

5. Prop 8 is, ergo, valid and enforceable law. Any failure to enforce that law is sedition.

 

[ShackledNation]

The only thing democratic about our nation it's the way we choose our leaders.

For the most part, that is absolutely correct. Some states, (such as CA) allow the public to vote on propositions or referendums directly. (For example, CA's prop 8 was voted on directly by the citizens). Even those votes, however, are limited by state and federal constitutions.

1. There is nothing in the California constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

2. There is nothing in the US Constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. Thus, the US Constitution protects marriage as a civil right.

4. Last year in Windsor, SCOTUS Found constitutionally that states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage.

No it didn't. Windsor did not rule on the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans whatsoever.

5. Prop 8 is, ergo, valid and enforceable law. Any failure to enforce that law is sedition.

Nope. Prop 8 was held to violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution and was thus struck down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Last year in Windsor, SCOTUS Found constitutionally that states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage" but retains the right to kick California's ass if it violates peoples' marriages rights, such as marriage equality.

Sil is going to go crazy when marriage equality becomes the law of the nation.

 

[Inevitable]

The only thing democratic about our nation it's the way we choose our leaders.

For the most part, that is absolutely correct. Some states, (such as CA) allow the public to vote on propositions or referendums directly. (For example, CA's prop 8 was voted on directly by the citizens). Even those votes, however, are limited by state and federal constitutions.

1. There is nothing in the California constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

2. There is nothing in the US Constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

3. There IS something in the California constitution about being inferior in whole to the US Constitution and its interpretations however. It must abide by them.

4. Last year in Windsor, SCOTUS Found constitutionally that states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage.

5. Prop 8 is, ergo, valid and enforceable law. Any failure to enforce that law is sedition.

Next year that might change.

If the courts decide that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected you won't lose anything you will gain

 

[Silhouette]

For the most part, that is absolutely correct. Some states, (such as CA) allow the public to vote on propositions or referendums directly. (For example, CA's prop 8 was voted on directly by the citizens). Even those votes, however, are limited by state and federal constitutions.

1. There is nothing in the California constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

2. There is nothing in the US Constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

3. There IS something in the California constitution about being inferior in whole to the US Constitution and its interpretations however. It must abide by them.

4. Last year in Windsor, SCOTUS Found constitutionally that states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage.

5. Prop 8 is, ergo, valid and enforceable law. Any failure to enforce that law is sedition.

Next year that might change.

If the courts decide that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected you won't lose anything you will gain

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now, what does that make the changing or revoking or refusal of enforcement of that initiative law in California? Oh yes, that's right. That's called 'sedition'....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

The court wouldn't be reversing itself as the court didn't rule with what you are saying.

The court itself said itself that the Windsor ruling was limited to lawful marriage and federal recognition of those marriages.

Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court notes that the Windsor decision does not apply to the states and that question would be a seperate case.

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now,

We don't, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that decision allowed to remain valid by the SCOTUS.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

The court wouldn't be reversing itself as the court didn't rule with what you are saying.

The court itself said itself that the Windsor ruling was limited to lawful marriage and federal recognition of those marriages.

Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court notes that the Windsor decision does not apply to the states and that question would be a seperate case.

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now,

We don't, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that decision allowed to remain valid by the SCOTUS.



>>>>

Windsor did rule how I said it did. It ruled at its very essence that a state has a right to weigh in on gay marriage via a broad consensus and once it does that, the fed is bound to abide by its decision. That's how it justified striking down part of DOMA [while the other parts still stand].

You can't say "well the Supreme Court used a state's choice on gay marriage to justify striking down DOMA"..then celebrate that as a victory. Then in the next sentence say "oh, but state's cannot choose on gay marriage when we don't want them to [Prop 8]". There was no, as in ZERO finding conclusively on gay marriage as a civil right in Windsor. Ergo, the Constitutional Finding cited [state's choice on gay marriage] is binding law until further notice. So far it is the Ruling Principle on the question of gay marriage. And that is of course why the stay was granted in Utah. [the 10th circuit].

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

The court wouldn't be reversing itself as the court didn't rule with what you are saying.

The court itself said itself that the Windsor ruling was limited to lawful marriage and federal recognition of those marriages.

Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court notes that the Windsor decision does not apply to the states and that question would be a seperate case.

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now,

We don't, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that decision allowed to remain valid by the SCOTUS.



>>>>

Windsor did rule how I said it did.

No it didn't. Windsor address federal law and not state law.

You should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who says you are wrong.

Chief Justice Roberts writing on the scope of the Windsor decision:

"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."​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

..Windsor address federal law and not state law.

You should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who says you are wrong.

Chief Justice Roberts writing on the scope of the Windsor decision:

"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."​

Yet as you well know, the Court used state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage as THE tool to strike down part of the federal DOMA law. So on one hand you are all about state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage. On the other hand, you are not.

The Court didn't say "because we've determined federally that gay marriage is a civil right, we are striking down part of DOMA". They said instead, "because states are the ones to decide gay marriage and not the fed, the fed must abide by what the states say".

That's what Windsor Found constitutionally. And that's why the stay in Utah was granted by SCOTUS recently..

 

[WorldWatcher]

..Windsor address federal law and not state law.

You should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who says you are wrong.

Chief Justice Roberts writing on the scope of the Windsor decision:

"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."​

Yet as you well know, the Court used state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage as THE tool to strike down part of the federal DOMA law. So on one hand you are all about state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage. On the other hand, you are not.

The Court didn't say "because we've determined federally that gay marriage is a civil right, we are striking down part of DOMA". They said instead, "because states are the ones to decide gay marriage and not the fed, the fed must abide by what the states say".

That's what Windsor Found constitutionally. And that's why the stay in Utah was granted by SCOTUS recently..

No they didn't.

Windsor addressed only the denial of federal recognition of those where same sex civil marriage is lawful (i.e. "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.") later that same say to become 13 when they allowed the ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to remain the final decision in the case.

The ruling in Windsor was limited to the Federal issue before the courts under the 5th Amendment and it never addressed, as a function of constitutional law, whether states could discriminate against homosexuals - that will be a case working through the system now. ("By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.")


The 5th Amendment is a federal issue and as the court themselves said the ruling is limited to states that said "Yes" - the 12 they cited.



>>>>

 

[ShackledNation]

..Windsor address federal law and not state law.

You should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who says you are wrong.

Chief Justice Roberts writing on the scope of the Windsor decision:

"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."​

Yet as you well know, the Court used state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage as THE tool to strike down part of the federal DOMA law. So on one hand you are all about state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage. On the other hand, you are not.

The Court didn't say "because we've determined federally that gay marriage is a civil right, we are striking down part of DOMA". They said instead, "because states are the ones to decide gay marriage and not the fed, the fed must abide by what the states say".

That's what Windsor Found constitutionally. And that's why the stay in Utah was granted by SCOTUS recently..

SCOTUS did not say that. You are totally making that up. This was the holding:

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of
persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."

The 10th amendment regarding states rights was not listed a single time in the decision. Perhaps you were confused because of this:

"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"

The court also clearly states this:

"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia"

The bold sections are key. Although states have a right to regulate marriage (which I do not dispute and the court rightly stated), that right is limited by constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The question "do same-sex marriage bans violate those certain constitutional guarantees" was not asked of the court, nor did the court respond to it in any way. To say it did is either (a) an example of you deliberately lying and distorting the truth, or (b) an example of your ignorance of this particular decision and how judicial rulings work in general.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

..Windsor address federal law and not state law.

You should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who says you are wrong.

Chief Justice Roberts writing on the scope of the Windsor decision:

"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."​

Yet as you well know, the Court used state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage as THE tool to strike down part of the federal DOMA law. So on one hand you are all about state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage. On the other hand, you are not.

The Court didn't say "because we've determined federally that gay marriage is a civil right, we are striking down part of DOMA". They said instead, "because states are the ones to decide gay marriage and not the fed, the fed must abide by what the states say".

That's what Windsor Found constitutionally. And that's why the stay in Utah was granted by SCOTUS recently..

SCOTUS did not say that. You are totally making that up. This was the holding:

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of
persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."

The 10th amendment regarding states rights was not listed a single time in the decision. Perhaps you were confused because of this:

"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"

The court also clearly states this:

"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia"

The bold sections are key. Although states have a right to regulate marriage (which I do not dispute and the court rightly stated), that right is limited by constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The question "do same-sex marriage bans violate those certain constitutional guarantees" was not asked of the court, nor did the court respond to it in any way. To say it did is either (a) an example of you deliberately lying and distorting the truth, or (b) an example of your ignorance of this particular decision and how judicial rulings work in general.

Both a and b.

 

[Inevitable]

1. There is nothing in the California constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

2. There is nothing in the US Constitution about gay marriage being a civil right.

3. There IS something in the California constitution about being inferior in whole to the US Constitution and its interpretations however. It must abide by them.

4. Last year in Windsor, SCOTUS Found constitutionally that states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage.

5. Prop 8 is, ergo, valid and enforceable law. Any failure to enforce that law is sedition.

Next year that might change.

If the courts decide that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected you won't lose anything you will gain

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now, what does that make the changing or revoking or refusal of enforcement of that initiative law in California? Oh yes, that's right. That's called 'sedition'....

make a case, I wish you luck.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now, what does that make the changing or revoking or refusal of enforcement of that initiative law in California? Oh yes, that's right. That's called 'sedition'....

Prop 8 isn't the law. It was struck down by the courts.