Gay Marriage, Is It Really Legal in All 50 States & Who Has Standing To Challenge It?

[Natural Citizen]

What is Legal is very, very, seldom Lawful.

 

[hurricanewatcher]

Bring back Traditional marriage between one man and one women! Require that marriage be binding when two people have kids and make divorce next to impossible.

Every child deserves a dad and a mom.

 

[Toronado3800]

So government should decide who can and can't get married? What else do you want big government to do? Geesh.

I know what else YOU want big government to do...gun control... (mdk doesn't want you bringing "what else" up right now...lol..)

I'm kinda moderate on the gun control thing. Usually I can set folks on both sides spinning in incoherent inconsistent circles though.

 

[Silhouette]

Bring back Traditional marriage between one man and one women! Require that marriage be binding when two people have kids and make divorce next to impossible.

Every child deserves a dad and a mom.

Well except for the divorce part, that’s how the law stands in the most liberal state in the Union. California. That’s according to popular vote there twice & Windsor 2013; which Obergefell cited as authority & didn’t seek to overturn.

America has been smokescreened. Gay marriage is only legal in those states that ratified it on their own. There is no power in the Constitution to arbitrarily uphold outside definition for some (gays) over state powers while just as arbitrarily denying it to others (polygamists etc) from that same federal powerhead.

None. Scalia was right. Obergefell is complete hogwash & couldn't stand a state’s legal challenge from any angle. It cited no authority that gave five judges power to partially overturn 50 states’ powers in Windsor to just favor homosexuals.

 

[mdk]

With exception of a few loons and diehards, most Americans have moved onto more pressing issues facing this nation.

 

[mdk]

Bring back Traditional marriage between one man and one women! Require that marriage be binding when two people have kids and make divorce next to impossible.

Every child deserves a dad and a mom.

Well except for the divorce part, that’s how the law stands in the most liberal state in the Union. California. That’s according to popular vote there twice & Windsor 2013; which Obergefell cited as authority & didn’t seek to overturn.

America has been smokescreened. Gay marriage is only legal in those states that ratified it on their own. There is no power in the Constitution to arbitrarily uphold outside definition for some (gays) over state powers while just as arbitrarily denying it to others (polygamists etc) from that same federal powerhead.

None. Scalia was right. Obergefell is complete hogwash & couldn't stand a state’s legal challenge from any angle. It cited no authority that gave five judges power to partially overturn 50 states’ powers in Windsor to just favor homosexuals.

The case that recently was making its way through courts about polygamy never cited Obergefell or the 14th as their reasoning for polygamy laws to be scrapped. The Brown family cited their religious liberties under the First Amendment and their right to privacy. Why don’t you support their religious liberty? Or do only bakers, wedding photographers, and Kim Davis enjoy those liberties?

 

[Silhouette]

With exception of a few loons and diehards, most Americans have moved onto more pressing issues facing this nation.

Loon #1. Gorsuch. Loon #2. Roberts. Loon #3. Alito. Loon #4. Thomas. Loon #5. Kavanaugh.

You think those “loons” are going to forget Scalia’s criticisms of Obergefell while ignoring that Windsor still exists in full force & effect?

 

[initforme]

Perhaps alot less married couples should have kids. Win all the way around. The trend is growing. It's not a bad thing. Not having kids makes divorce easier and less complicated.

 

[mdk]

With exception of a few loons and diehards, most Americans have moved onto more pressing issues facing this nation.

Loon #1. Gorsuch. Loon #2. Roberts. Loon #3. Alito. Loon #4. Thomas. Loon #5. Kavanaugh.

You think those “loons” are going to forget Scalia’s criticisms of Obergefell while ignoring that Windsorbstill exists in full force & effect?

People that claim Justice Scalia killed himself over gay marriage: loons

People that claim Dylan Roof killed all those people in church over gay marriage: loons

People that claimed Chris Mercer gunned down all those people in community college over gay marriage: loons

People that pretend gay marriage is actually illegal most states: loons

In short, you’re a loon and most people don’t care about gays getting hitched. That burns your ass, but who cares?

 

[Silhouette]

I repeat...

...Loon #1. Gorsuch. Loon #2. Roberts. Loon #3. Alito. Loon #4. Thomas. Loon #5. Kavanaugh....

You think those “loons” are going to forget Scalia’s criticisms of Obergefell while ignoring that Windsor still exists in full force & effect? You DO believe that Windsor still stands in full force and effect, right mdk? Have you ever actually read Windsor's Opinion on state powers re: defining marriage for themselves? Are you aware that they awarded Windsor based on the Court's conclusion that power of defining marriage rests wholly with the states and not at all with the fed's interpretations? That that was what Windsor was all about, overturning FEDERAL INTRUSION ON STATES via the DOMA Act?

 

[caddo kid]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Actually according to Windsor 2013 (which Obergefell did NOT seek to overturn) it is NOT legal in every state. Better check Windsor again because your memory is slipping. Use the link in the OP to find the 56 quotes from Windsor affirming that states define marriage and not the fed.

You’ve said this exact same statement numerous times over the years and yet...

Move on already.

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

What does gay marriage have to do with gun control?

 

[mdk]

I repeat...

...Loon #1. Gorsuch. Loon #2. Roberts. Loon #3. Alito. Loon #4. Thomas. Loon #5. Kavanaugh....

You think those “loons” are going to forget Scalia’s criticisms of Obergefell while ignoring that Windsor still exists in full force & effect?

Yes, like most people, I think they will ignore your wild legal interpretations as well.

 

[Silhouette]

I repeat...

...Loon #1. Gorsuch. Loon #2. Roberts. Loon #3. Alito. Loon #4. Thomas. Loon #5. Kavanaugh....

You think those “loons” are going to forget Scalia’s criticisms of Obergefell while ignoring that Windsor still exists in full force & effect? You DO believe that Windsor still stands in full force and effect, right mdk? Have you ever actually read Windsor's Opinion on state powers re: defining marriage for themselves? Are you aware that they awarded Windsor based on the Court's conclusion that power of defining marriage rests wholly with the states and not at all with the fed's interpretations? That that was what Windsor was all about, overturning FEDERAL INTRUSION ON STATES via the DOMA Act?

Here's what Obergefell said in a nutshell with respect to citing Windsor as an authority "We the Court say that a religious based notion such as the defense of marriage act to preserve its sanctity as man/woman only violates states's sovereignty to define their own social milieus. At the same time we will create a mandate that another lifestyle, JUST LGBT (but not polygamy etc.), CAN intrude on those states' sovereignty to define their own social (behavioral) milieus.

They threw out a religious notion as rationale for federal intrusion on states re: power to define their own society just to adopt another culture-club's rationale to force their value system on states without the states' permission: citing federal powers that simply don't exist anywhere. Oh, and one of the Justices who did this unilateral erosion of states' sovereignty announced at a press interview a few weeks before the Hearing "I think America is ready for gay marriage". You know, America. As in "all 50 States" cuz she said so... Maybe Ginsburg thinks America is ready to have all their guns taken away too? Maybe she thinks America is also ready for little kids to be able to consent for sex with adults? Who knows what insane ideas rattle around in her despotic mind that she feels all 50 states are ready for?

 

[Silhouette]

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

What does gay marriage have to do with gun control?

It's what mdk's hypocrisy has to do with the conversation more like. zephyr's post meant to out mdk as a hypocrite because mdk supports states overriding the federal 2nd Amendment at the same time mdk supports the fed USSC overriding states' sovereignty (Windsor 2013) in defining which lifestyles may or may not marry in their boundaries.

 

[mdk]

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

What does gay marriage have to do with gun control?

It's what mdk's hypocrisy has to do with the conversation more like. zephyr's post meant to out mdk as a hypocrite because mdk supports states overriding the federal 2nd Amendment at the same time mdk supports the fed USSC overriding states' sovereignty (Windsor 2013) in defining which lifestyles may or may not marry in their boundaries.

What a total crock. Show a single post of mine where I’ve supported states overriding the 2nd Amendment. You won’t find one b/c you’re making shit up again.

 

[Nia88]

Yes it's legal in every state. Why does it bother you so much? Gays and lesbians are going to fuck regardless. How does them getting married effect you?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes it's legal in every state. Why does it bother you so much? Gays and lesbians are going to fuck regardless. How does them getting married effect you?

Well see, Windsor says it isn't. So which is dominant? Windsor or Obergefell that...oops! ...cited Windsor. There is an unworkable conflict of declaration of state vs federal powers on marriage between Windsor and Obergefell. So a challenge will have to decide if the fed can, after all, dictate how marriage is going to be to the individual states. Because Windsor said it couldn't and Obergefell (Ironically, citing Windsor) said it could.

A state could simply deny gays a marriage license citing Windsor and the gays would have a very sticky legal problem on their hands trying to assert that Windsor didn't say 56 times that the definition of marriage cannot be the federal government and has to be the states. If you say that Windsor had an exception "except where it isn't constitutional to deny", you'd have to find language in the Constitution that says the gay lifestyle cult has dominant rights to polygamists and so forth.

See what a rat's nest this is? You can't cite the 14th Amendment on equal rights and privilege for just some repugnant lifestyles while holding back others...who, by the way, also have children "that are harmed" by their adults not being able to marry...Why do children of polygamists have to continue being "harmed" by their parents not able to marry?

Buckle up, the mess that is Obergefell is vulnerable to just one state saying "hell no, we cite Windsor's authority too!"....

 

[Silhouette]

Nice of you to post a gif animation of what you will look like when Windsor is cited as justification for state sovereignty on the definition of marriage.

Do you believe polygamists have a right to marry after Obergefell? Or is the 14th Amendment an arbitrary Amendment on which lifestyles get privileges?

 

[mdk]

Nice of you to post a gif animation of what you will look like when Windsor is cited as justification for state sovereignty on the definition of marriage.

Do you believe polygamists have a right to marry after Obergefell? Or is the 14th Amendment an arbitrary Amendment on which lifestyles get privileges?

Polygamists have sued to marry. In the latest case they cited their religious liberties under the 1st Amendment and their right to privacy were being violated. They never cited the 14th. Why do you suddenly have a problem with religious liberties? Or do the ones that only target fags count in your world?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Actually according to Windsor 2013 (which Obergefell did NOT seek to overturn) it is NOT legal in every state. Better check Windsor again because your memory is slipping. Use the link in the OP to find the 56 quotes from Windsor affirming that states define marriage and not the fed.

In California for instance, gay marriage is not legal according to Windsor 2013. So, unless you're saying Windsor was overturned by Obergefell (which you know it wasn't and the opposite is true: Obergefell cited it as an authority), gay marriage is ILLEGAL in CA and many other states.

One state. That's all it takes for standing. You're a stickler for standing, right mdk? Or is that your buddy Skylar?

Well marriage is a contract between two people, many gays have done this with a LLC and it works better. If for some reason it allows the LLC to be null and void, with no one getting hurt. Marriage contract is a messy one and bad to break.