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

[80zephyr]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Government makes rules for our society that we live by. I don't particularly care that we have so many single parent families, but the fact is, is that, thru welfare, government created these situations.

The government, thru official mandate, has made it easier to divorce, easier to be unwed and have children, and easier for society to erode the concept of "family".

Gay marriage is simply another nail in society's coffin.

Mark

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

When government in essence pays people to divorce, aren't they in fact doing what you claim you don't want them to do?

Mark

If you don't understand that a monetary safety net for a mother makes it easy for her to divorce, I guess there is really nothing left to say.

Mark

Government pays people to divorce? Lead me further down this stream of thought please.

If you don't understand that a monetary safety net for a mother makes it easy for her to divorce, I guess there is really nothing left to say.

Mark

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Booger-eating subsidies are next. That’s logic.

Uh.....No. That is definitely not logic.

It is perfect logic. Think harder.

Look, I've read the entire book, and it said nothing about booer-eating subsidies. Maybe you should read it. It's only a buck.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Barnes-Library-Essential-Reading/dp/0760770409&tag=ff0d01-20

You should study your book a little harder.

 

[Toronado3800]

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Government makes rules for our society that we live by. I don't particularly care that we have so many single parent families, but the fact is, is that, thru welfare, government created these situations.

The government, thru official mandate, has made it easier to divorce, easier to be unwed and have children, and easier for society to erode the concept of "family".

Gay marriage is simply another nail in society's coffin.

Mark

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

When government in essence pays people to divorce, aren't they in fact doing what you claim you don't want them to do?

Mark

If you don't understand that a monetary safety net for a mother makes it easy for her to divorce, I guess there is really nothing left to say.

Mark

Government pays people to divorce? Lead me further down this stream of thought please.

If you don't understand that a monetary safety net for a mother makes it easy for her to divorce, I guess there is really nothing left to say.

Mark

I do agree that divorce courts are pro female. This makes them against half the folks getting divorced though...

Try for a rewording and I may agree.

 

[Silhouette]

Don’t make up positions for me, retard. Why do you always leave the part of Windor’s ruling where states get to still define marriage but still have to meet certain constitutional guarantees? You keep demanding everyone has to submit to your wild legal ramblings, but we don’t.

I don't. You'll notice I frequently mention how Obergefell legalized polygamy in 2015....


mdk? You're aware that if you believe Obergefell is the law of the land that polygamy is now legal, right? No? I'd like to hear your specific argument if the answer is "No". Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer...

 

[mdk]

Don’t make up positions for me, retard. Why do you always leave the part of Windor’s ruling where states get to still define marriage but still have to meet certain constitutional guarantees? You keep demanding everyone has to submit to your wild legal ramblings, but we don’t.

I don't. You'll notice I frequently mention how Obergefell legalized polygamy in 2015....

I do. You’ll notice how I frequently mention that no one is bound by your silly legal interpretations.

 

[mdk]

Don’t make up positions for me, retard. Why do you always leave the part of Windor’s ruling where states get to still define marriage but still have to meet certain constitutional guarantees? You keep demanding everyone has to submit to your wild legal ramblings, but we don’t.

I don't. You'll notice I frequently mention how Obergefell legalized polygamy in 2015....


mdk? You're aware that if you believe Obergefell is the law of the land that polygamy is now legal, right? No? I'd like to hear your specific argument if the answer is "No". Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer...

No need. The case that was making its way through the system cited their religious freedoms and privacy were being violated. Why don’t you support the Browns’ religious freedoms? Are some more equal than others?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Dudes can marry dudes, and chicks can marry chicks. It’s done, deal with it. Find a fight you can win like banning aborti....Er wait...that one is settled too. Never mind, just know gender is irrelevant where marriage is concerned

No, it’s deeper than that. It isn’t merely about homos marrying. It’s about the legal standard granted, the subsidies everyone is forced to provide and the equal opportunity of adoption, thereby intentionally denying a child the opportunity to be raised by the necessary mother/father situation empirically proven to be necessary.

.....the subsides everyone is forced to provide...? What the hell subsides are you providing because of gay marriage?

Tax breaks afforded married couples. The rest of us cover that break.

Tax deductions are not subsidies by definition. I get your point, but it is not technically a subsidy anymore than the tax deductions Exxon Oil takes is a subsidy for big oil.

 

[Silhouette]

No need. The case that was making its way through the system cited their religious freedoms and privacy were being violated. Why don’t you support the Browns’ religious freedoms? Are some more equal than others?

The thing is, not all polyamorous orientations derive from religion. Some are merely lifestyles. Many men in fact might argue they were “born that way”. Lol

I can’t help it if the Brown’s lawyer is dumb. He should’ve framed the case exactly like Obergefell; & then cited the 14th Amendment as proof that the Court can’t at one minute arbitrarily favor a gay lifestyle while just as arbitrarily denying a polyamorous lifestyle. BAM. Done deal.

The only antidote would be Windsor. You know, where the fed declared states can include or exclude based on their unique cultural values. The fed isn’t allowed to be that arbitrary. One lifestyle gets in, they all do. Remember, Obergefell ties itself to the hip of the 14th Amendment while giving new protections (legislating from the Bench) to a lifestyle.

Before you foam at the mouth about Loving v Virginia...race actually is born that way. Since the two people in Loving were man & woman, the only issue there was race.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Dudes can marry dudes, and chicks can marry chicks. It’s done, deal with it. Find a fight you can win like banning aborti....Er wait...that one is settled too. Never mind, just know gender is irrelevant where marriage is concerned

No, it’s deeper than that. It isn’t merely about homos marrying. It’s about the legal standard granted, the subsidies everyone is forced to provide and the equal opportunity of adoption, thereby intentionally denying a child the opportunity to be raised by the necessary mother/father situation empirically proven to be necessary.

.....the subsides everyone is forced to provide...? What the hell subsides are you providing because of gay marriage?

Tax breaks afforded married couples. The rest of us cover that break.

Tax deductions are not subsidies by definition. I get your point, but it is not technically a subsidy anymore than the tax deductions Exxon Oil takes is a subsidy for big oil.

They are subsidies. Everything comes from somewhere.

 

[bodecea]

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?

So sorry to hear that legal gay marriage has ruined your life so badly.

 

[bodecea]

Don’t make up positions for me, retard. Why do you always leave the part of Windor’s ruling where states get to still define marriage but still have to meet certain constitutional guarantees? You keep demanding everyone has to submit to your wild legal ramblings, but we don’t.

I don't. You'll notice I frequently mention how Obergefell legalized polygamy in 2015....


mdk? You're aware that if you believe Obergefell is the law of the land that polygamy is now legal, right? No? I'd like to hear your specific argument if the answer is "No". Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer...

Polygamy now legal? I'm happy for you.

 

[Silhouette]

So sorry to hear that legal gay marriage has ruined your life so badly.

More to the point, it has ruined my State’s sovereignty arbitrarily by a grotesque miscarriage of justice by the pivotal vote of one Justice who gave an interview to the press just weeks before the Hearing saying how she had already made up her mind. It’s not every day one unelected flagrantly-biased person can strip the power of hundreds of millions of self governing people.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy now legal? I'm happy for you.

Not now. June 2015.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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?

So sorry to hear that legal gay marriage has ruined your life so badly.

You want to subsidize booger-eating?

 

[mdk]

No need. The case that was making its way through the system cited their religious freedoms and privacy were being violated. Why don’t you support the Browns’ religious freedoms? Are some more equal than others?

The thing is, not all polyamorous orientations derive from religion. Some are merely lifestyles. Many men in fact might argue they were “born that way”. Lol

I can’t help it if the Brown’s lawyer is dumb. He should’ve framed the case exactly like Obergefell; & then cited the 14th Amendment as proof that the Court can’t at one minute arbitrarily favor a gay lifestyle while just as arbitrarily denying a polyamorous lifestyle. BAM. Done deal.

The only antidote would be Windsor. You know, where the fed declared states can include or exclude based on their unique cultural values. The fed isn’t allowed to be that arbitrary. One lifestyle gets in, they all do. Remember, Obergefell ties itself to the hip of the 14th Amendment while giving new protections (legislating from the Bench) to a lifestyle.

Before you foam at the mouth about Loving v Virginia...race actually is born that way. Since the two people in Loving were man & woman, the only issue there was race.

You’ve been unsuccessfully using the same legal babble for years now. The fact that other lawyers don’t use your gibberish in court is not b/c they are dumb. It’s b/c they don’t want to be laughed out of the room.

 

[Silhouette]

You’ve been unsuccessfully using the same legal babble for years now. The fact that other lawyers don’t use your gibberish in court is not b/c they are dumb. It’s b/c they don’t want to be laughed out of the room.

The new (Court) room in DC may have a different policy on laughter when it comes to weighing Windsor vs Obergefell.

One says states have the final say on marriage. The other says the fed does (on just one lifestyle the 2015 Court favored). Which one of these diametrically opposed Rulings do you think the Constitution will support? Because both can’t exist in the same legal universe.

 

[mdk]

You’ve been unsuccessfully using the same legal babble for years now. The fact that other lawyers don’t use your gibberish in court is not b/c they are dumb. It’s b/c they don’t want to be laughed out of the room.

The new (Court) room in DC may have a different policy on laughter when it comes to weighing Windsor vs Obergefell.

One says states have the final say on marriage. The other says the fed does (on just one lifestyle the 2015 Court favored). Which one of these diametrically opposed Rulings do you think the Constitution will support? Because both can’t exist in the same legal universe.

The courts are not bound by what you pretend these rulings say. There is a reason why very few, if any, lawyers use your legal interpretations and it's not b/c they are stupid.