Gay Marriage v Windsor Part II: "Separate But Equal!"

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And...as the world turns...more and more Americans support legalized gay marriage.

Pro wrestling gained in popularity, too. Obama was elected twice. If you think common misapprehension justifies social counter-productivity then you are part of the problem.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage,

And legal homo marriage provides for adoption, brainiac. They are not mutually exclusive. Mostly the opposite of that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[1] Windsor was already Decided June 2013. And in it the Court first formally recognized states' sovereignty to define marriage under the question of gay marriage. Then it used that assigned jurisdiction and declaration of "unquestioned authority" to strike down part of DOMA.

In other words you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot as an LGBT cultee declare "victory!" on Windsor and then say "oh...but wait!" on Windsor's assignment of state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage.

The Court didn't say that "states can only say yes to gay marriage". All that was said as to the 14th was "unless the 14th ....Loving...applies". They didn't say it did apply in Windsor BTW. In fact at the end of the Opinion the Court openly declared that as of It's Decision, only some states had legal gay marriage. [2] So if you're looking for a vote of confidence on Them applying the 14th to gay sexual behaviors' cult, don't get your hopes up...

[3] But the real question of this thread is once the Court reminds everyone [including activist judges] that ignorance of Windsor is no excuse for violating it, what "marriages" will remain legal, if any, who defied Windsor [that made this state power retroactive to the founding of the country]?

You cite that the fed got involved in denying Utah statehood unless they dropped polygamy. Polygamy technically was not voted on by all members of the territory of Deseret [Utah's old name] which was a fledgling state back in the day. Actually it was a territory. So it didn't have state sovereignty at all at the time. The fed saw mormonism as a cult and polygamy as intrinsic to that cult. More than a statement about marriage, the fed was trying to "break the cult mentality" by attacking one of its main components.

[4] So since you brought up the Utah/statehood question, what date do you think would be the retroactive assignment of state sovereignty on marriage?

The emboldened parts of your thread in order as they are key.

(1) And in it the Court first formally recognized states' sovereignty to define marriage under the question of gay marriage.

Yes. I get that. But my response to that cannot be properly understood without grasping the foundational imperative of constitutional law. That imperative is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law on which this nation was founded, which is not merely the stuff of philosophizing, but is the most practical and tangible means possible by which we may know what the limits of a legitimate government's powers are. As divorced from that foundation, the Constitution can be made to mean virtually anything one wants. That foundation is absolute. Natural law is not compatible with the state's official approbation of homosexuality in any way, shape or form. Government need not sanction/suppress homosexuality or the private expressions thereof, but legitimate government has no authority to ever embrace it. The nature of homosexuality is moral and sexual relativism. The absolute imperatives of liberty, i.e., the assertion of the inalienable rights of the individual, and the government's seal of approval on homosexuality at any level of governance cannot co-exist. Hence, neither the federal government nor those of the several states have the authority/power to do such a thing, certainly not under natural law and not under constitutional law.

(2) So if you're looking for a vote of confidence on Them applying the 14th to gay sexual behaviors' cult, don't get your hopes up...

Yes. I follow the contents of that paragraph, particularly the emboldened portion. That's not my argument, my hope, or my expectation, necessarily. That will be Lefty's in the pending cases. My only point is that the Court might run off the rails of stare decisis again. Certainly, that is the wont of the Court's leftist members. Kennedy will be the key vote. How far does he intend to take this? I don't know what he's going to do on the grounds of Fourteenth Amendment' Equal Protection Clause, whether the Court sufficiently open the door to its application in Windsor or not, do you? I don't think it did either. It wouldn't immediately follow, but from the jump the entire enterprise is irrational.

(3) [3] But the real question of this thread is once the Court reminds everyone [including activist judges] that ignorance of Windsor is no excuse for violating it, what "marriages" will remain legal, if any, who defied Windsor [that made this state power retroactive to the founding of the country]?

Indeed. But given the Court's reasoning in Windsor, it is not necessarily a forgone conclusion that it will continue down the line of Windsor's apparent logic. I actually wrote more on this point, as in fact your observation here is the heart of the matter, but withheld that until you responded to the portion in the above. I’ll post that latter.

(4) So since you brought up the Utah/statehood question, what date do you think would be the retroactive assignment of state sovereignty on marriage?

Well, yes, that's my point, Utah was not a state and was not going to become a state unless it formally banned polygamy first, though I was not cognizant of the fed's central motive. Thank you for making me aware of that historical nuance. In any event, it's relevance goes to the fact of what legitimate marriage is and to the fact of the fallaciousness of the Court's anticipatory counterargument, which merely obscures the fact of the Court's illegitimate and historically retroactive allegation that the several states had the power to redefine marriage.

As for the several state's sovereignty on marriage, they’ve always had that, but only insofar as regulating heterosexual marriage goes. Once again, the issue here does not pertain to the regulatory sovereignty over marriage, but to the definition of marriage. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the government or even the people thereof, and it cannot be legitimately regulated on any other basis but the physiological and biological facts of heterosexual union. The redefining of marriage by government is a depraved act of tyranny. But none of the leftists on this forum will ever get that. Neither will our over-enthusiastic libertarians, though liberty can be preserved in the face of "homo marriage" as long as the state gets out of the business of regulating marriage altogether in terms of taxation and public accommodation. But that's never going to happen now free of the strife of litigation and civil disobedience.

 

[Silhouette]

[1] Windsor was already Decided June 2013. And in it the Court first formally recognized states' sovereignty to define marriage under the question of gay marriage. Then it used that assigned jurisdiction and declaration of "unquestioned authority" to strike down part of DOMA.

In other words you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot as an LGBT cultee declare "victory!" on Windsor and then say "oh...but wait!" on Windsor's assignment of state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage.

The Court didn't say that "states can only say yes to gay marriage". All that was said as to the 14th was "unless the 14th ....Loving...applies". They didn't say it did apply in Windsor BTW. In fact at the end of the Opinion the Court openly declared that as of It's Decision, only some states had legal gay marriage. [2] So if you're looking for a vote of confidence on Them applying the 14th to gay sexual behaviors' cult, don't get your hopes up...

[3] But the real question of this thread is once the Court reminds everyone [including activist judges] that ignorance of Windsor is no excuse for violating it, what "marriages" will remain legal, if any, who defied Windsor [that made this state power retroactive to the founding of the country]?

You cite that the fed got involved in denying Utah statehood unless they dropped polygamy. Polygamy technically was not voted on by all members of the territory of Deseret [Utah's old name] which was a fledgling state back in the day. Actually it was a territory. So it didn't have state sovereignty at all at the time. The fed saw mormonism as a cult and polygamy as intrinsic to that cult. More than a statement about marriage, the fed was trying to "break the cult mentality" by attacking one of its main components.

[4] So since you brought up the Utah/statehood question, what date do you think would be the retroactive assignment of state sovereignty on marriage?

The emboldened parts of your thread in order as they are key.

(1) And in it the Court first formally recognized states' sovereignty to define marriage under the question of gay marriage.

Yes. I get that. But my response to that cannot be properly understood without grasping the foundational imperative of constitutional law. That imperative is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law on which this nation was founded, which is not merely the stuff of philosophizing, but is the most practical and tangible means possible by which we may know what the limits of a legitimate government's powers are. As divorced from that foundation, the Constitution can be made to mean virtually anything one wants. That foundation is absolute. Natural law is not compatible with the state's official approbation of homosexuality in any way, shape or form. Government need not sanction/suppress homosexuality or the private expressions thereof, but legitimate government has no authority to ever embrace it. The nature of homosexuality is moral and sexual relativism. The absolute imperatives of liberty, i.e., the assertion of the inalienable rights of the individual, and the government's seal of approval on homosexuality at any level of governance cannot co-exist. Hence, neither the federal government nor those of the several states have the authority/power to do such a thing, certainly not under natural law and not under constitutional law.

(2) So if you're looking for a vote of confidence on Them applying the 14th to gay sexual behaviors' cult, don't get your hopes up...

Yes. I follow the contents of that paragraph, particularly the emboldened portion. That's not my argument, my hope, or my expectation, necessarily. That will be Lefty's in the pending cases. My only point is that the Court might run off the rails of stare decisis again. Certainly, that is the wont of the Court's leftist members. Kennedy will be the key vote. How far does he intend to take this? I don't know what he's going to do on the grounds of Fourteenth Amendment' Equal Protection Clause, whether the Court sufficiently open the door to its application in Windsor or not, do you? I don't think it did either. It wouldn't immediately follow, but from the jump the entire enterprise is irrational.

(3) [3] But the real question of this thread is once the Court reminds everyone [including activist judges] that ignorance of Windsor is no excuse for violating it, what "marriages" will remain legal, if any, who defied Windsor [that made this state power retroactive to the founding of the country]?

Indeed. But given the Court's reasoning in Windsor, it is not necessarily a forgone conclusion that it will continue down the line of Windsor's apparent logic. I actually wrote more on this point, as in fact your observation here is the heart of the matter, but withheld that until you responded to the portion in the above. I’ll post that latter.

(4) So since you brought up the Utah/statehood question, what date do you think would be the retroactive assignment of state sovereignty on marriage?

Well, yes, that's my point, Utah was not a state and was not going to become a state unless it formally banned polygamy first, though I was not cognizant of the fed's central motive. Thank you for making me aware of that historical nuance. In any event, it's relevance goes to the fact of what legitimate marriage is and to the fact of the fallaciousness of the Court's anticipatory counterargument, which merely obscures the fact of the Court's illegitimate and historically retroactive allegation that the several states had the power to redefine marriage.

As for the several state's sovereignty on marriage, they’ve always had that, but only insofar as regulating heterosexual marriage goes. Once again, the issue here does not pertain to the regulatory sovereignty over marriage, but to the definition of marriage. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the government or even the people thereof, and it cannot be legitimately regulated on any other basis but the physiological and biological facts of heterosexual union. The redefining of marriage by government is a depraved act of tyranny. But none of the leftists on this forum will ever get that. Neither will our over-enthusiastic libertarians, though liberty can be preserved in the face of "homo marriage" as long as the state gets out of the business of regulating marriage altogether in terms of taxation and public accommodation. But that's never going to happen now free of the strife of litigation and civil disobedience.

Your response seems to both verify the potency of Windsor but at the same time suggests that the Court only wrote it in order to overturn itself in the next year or two.

I don't think they had overturning themselves in mind when they wrote Windsor. Rather, it seems Windsor is a trojan horse or an anesthetic meant to deaden the final blow they're going to deliver on gay marriage. Perhaps they were hoping someone like me wouldn't come along and read it or bring it up constantly for discussion? But I did and we are talking about it. Windsor's essence is the "state's choice" Decision.

You think they'll be overturning that soon. I don't.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[1] Windsor was already Decided June 2013. And in it the Court first formally recognized states' sovereignty to define marriage under the question of gay marriage. Then it used that assigned jurisdiction and declaration of "unquestioned authority" to strike down part of DOMA.

In other words you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot as an LGBT cultee declare "victory!" on Windsor and then say "oh...but wait!" on Windsor's assignment of state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage.

The Court didn't say that "states can only say yes to gay marriage". All that was said as to the 14th was "unless the 14th ....Loving...applies". They didn't say it did apply in Windsor BTW. In fact at the end of the Opinion the Court openly declared that as of It's Decision, only some states had legal gay marriage. [2] So if you're looking for a vote of confidence on Them applying the 14th to gay sexual behaviors' cult, don't get your hopes up...

[3] But the real question of this thread is once the Court reminds everyone [including activist judges] that ignorance of Windsor is no excuse for violating it, what "marriages" will remain legal, if any, who defied Windsor [that made this state power retroactive to the founding of the country]?

You cite that the fed got involved in denying Utah statehood unless they dropped polygamy. Polygamy technically was not voted on by all members of the territory of Deseret [Utah's old name] which was a fledgling state back in the day. Actually it was a territory. So it didn't have state sovereignty at all at the time. The fed saw mormonism as a cult and polygamy as intrinsic to that cult. More than a statement about marriage, the fed was trying to "break the cult mentality" by attacking one of its main components.

[4] So since you brought up the Utah/statehood question, what date do you think would be the retroactive assignment of state sovereignty on marriage?

The emboldened parts of your thread in order as they are key.

(1) And in it the Court first formally recognized states' sovereignty to define marriage under the question of gay marriage.

Yes. I get that. But my response to that cannot be properly understood without grasping the foundational imperative of constitutional law. That imperative is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law on which this nation was founded, which is not merely the stuff of philosophizing, but is the most practical and tangible means possible by which we may know what the limits of a legitimate government's powers are. As divorced from that foundation, the Constitution can be made to mean virtually anything one wants. That foundation is absolute. Natural law is not compatible with the state's official approbation of homosexuality in any way, shape or form. Government need not sanction/suppress homosexuality or the private expressions thereof, but legitimate government has no authority to ever embrace it. The nature of homosexuality is moral and sexual relativism. The absolute imperatives of liberty, i.e., the assertion of the inalienable rights of the individual, and the government's seal of approval on homosexuality at any level of governance cannot co-exist. Hence, neither the federal government nor those of the several states have the authority/power to do such a thing, certainly not under natural law and not under constitutional law.

(2) So if you're looking for a vote of confidence on Them applying the 14th to gay sexual behaviors' cult, don't get your hopes up...

Yes. I follow the contents of that paragraph, particularly the emboldened portion. That's not my argument, my hope, or my expectation, necessarily. That will be Lefty's in the pending cases. My only point is that the Court might run off the rails of stare decisis again. Certainly, that is the wont of the Court's leftist members. Kennedy will be the key vote. How far does he intend to take this? I don't know what he's going to do on the grounds of Fourteenth Amendment' Equal Protection Clause, whether the Court sufficiently open the door to its application in Windsor or not, do you? I don't think it did either. It wouldn't immediately follow, but from the jump the entire enterprise is irrational.

(3) [3] But the real question of this thread is once the Court reminds everyone [including activist judges] that ignorance of Windsor is no excuse for violating it, what "marriages" will remain legal, if any, who defied Windsor [that made this state power retroactive to the founding of the country]?

Indeed. But given the Court's reasoning in Windsor, it is not necessarily a forgone conclusion that it will continue down the line of Windsor's apparent logic. I actually wrote more on this point, as in fact your observation here is the heart of the matter, but withheld that until you responded to the portion in the above. I’ll post that latter.

(4) So since you brought up the Utah/statehood question, what date do you think would be the retroactive assignment of state sovereignty on marriage?

Well, yes, that's my point, Utah was not a state and was not going to become a state unless it formally banned polygamy first, though I was not cognizant of the fed's central motive. Thank you for making me aware of that historical nuance. In any event, it's relevance goes to the fact of what legitimate marriage is and to the fact of the fallaciousness of the Court's anticipatory counterargument, which merely obscures the fact of the Court's illegitimate and historically retroactive allegation that the several states had the power to redefine marriage.

As for the several state's sovereignty on marriage, they’ve always had that, but only insofar as regulating heterosexual marriage goes. Once again, the issue here does not pertain to the regulatory sovereignty over marriage, but to the definition of marriage. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the government or even the people thereof, and it cannot be legitimately regulated on any other basis but the physiological and biological facts of heterosexual union. The redefining of marriage by government is a depraved act of tyranny. But none of the leftists on this forum will ever get that. Neither will our over-enthusiastic libertarians, though liberty can be preserved in the face of "homo marriage" as long as the state gets out of the business of regulating marriage altogether in terms of taxation and public accommodation. But that's never going to happen now free of the strife of litigation and civil disobedience.

Your response seems to both verify the potency of Windsor but at the same time suggests that the Court only wrote it in order to overturn itself in the next year or two.

I don't think they had overturning themselves in mind when they wrote Windsor. Rather, it seems Windsor is a trojan horse or an anesthetic meant to deaden the final blow they're going to deliver on gay marriage. Perhaps they were hoping someone like me wouldn't come along and read it or bring it up constantly for discussion? But I did and we are talking about it. Windsor's essence is the "state's choice" Decision.

You think they'll be overturning that soon. I don't.

Emboldened: That's correct, but the leftist laymen on this forum don't get that.

Of course, the Court is not going to overturn itself, and a decision that drags the Fourteenth into the fray as predicated, wrong or right, on Windsor, will not be played out as if it overturned Windsor.

Read between the lines with regard to the leftists on the Bench.

Instead of thinking that I don't get it, think about what the leftist members of the Court are actually up to, whether it logically follows from Windsor or not. That's MY point. As I said, I wrote a bit more on that, which I will post tomorrow.

The real question is where does Kennedy stand? He probably holds to the apparent gist of Windsor, the one that you and I understand, from the context and the logic of the decision. If so, the designs of plaintiffs seeking to advance their agenda in pending cases are dead on arrival. If not. . . .

But in any event, Windsor is still a devastating blow to liberty, even if it is intended to block any further advances of the "homo-marriage" agenda, and that is MY ultimate concern.

I've had to do some reading in the past few days to catch with guys like you and World Watcher on the case law regarding the details of the marriage/civil union aspects of the issue, but I know how to read case law and how to evaluate the Court's inner politics. As I said before, I'm generally aware of the historical precedents and constructs of case law as competent layman go, and I'm steeped in the constitutional, statutory and case law of immigration and nationality, including the pertinent international law. And you have taught me much here, clarified much for me here. Thank you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...That poll simply states that 83% of the respondents support the separation of church and state. It doesn't say squat about whether "gay marraige should be legal and enforceable".

The absurd lengths that homophobic bigots like Sil are going to these days just demonstrates how far out of touch they are with where mainstream America is today.

Oh, and only 133 people responded, not "hundreds".

83% of respondents to the poll believe that people who have beliefs that conflict with promoting a gay sex cult should not have to be required to do so as a matter of law. That is some weak ass "support for gay marriage".

133 people are "hundreds". Any amount over 100 is a multiple of 100 so the plural "hundreds" applies..

Again, it's one of the largest responses to a poll I've seen at USMB and as such shows the level of interest in that 83% and how they responded to the topic. That is some strong-ass support. As in a strong "NO" to forcing gay marriage on people who don't believe in it. What does that say about the 83% who voted that way and their feelings about gay marriage in general? It says they aren't all that hot about it.

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So when you hear LGBT cultees assuring you how " a majority of Americans support gay marriage" you can be sure that support is very very weak, if not an outright lie..

Your reading comprehension shortcoming combined with your homophobic bigotry are a bad combination.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage,

And legal homo marriage provides for adoption, brainiac. They are not mutually exclusive. Mostly the opposite of that.

Next time try understanding the context before exposing your ignorance.

 

[Silhouette]

Emboldened: That's correct, but the leftist laymen on this forum don't get that.

Of course, the Court is not going to overturn itself, and a decision that drags the Fourteenth into the fray as predicated, wrong or right, on Windsor, will not be played out as if it overturned Windsor.

Read between the lines with regard to the leftists on the Bench.

Instead of thinking that I don't get it, think about what the leftist members of the Court are actually up to, whether it logically follows from Windsor or not. That's MY point. As I said, I wrote a bit more on that, which I will post tomorrow.

The real question is where does Kennedy stand? He probably holds to the apparent gist of Windsor, the one that you and I understand, from the context and the logic of the decision. If so, the designs of plaintiffs seeking to advance their agenda in pending cases are dead on arrival. If not. . . .

But in any event, Windsor is still a devastating blow to liberty, even if it is intended to block any further advances of the "homo-marriage" agenda, and that is MY ultimate concern.

I've had to do some reading in the past few days to catch with guys like you and World Watcher on the case law regarding the details of the marriage/civil union aspects of the issue, but I know how to read case law and how to evaluate the Court's inner politics. As I said before, I'm generally aware of the historical precedents and constructs of case law as competent layman go, and I'm steeped in the constitutional, statutory and case law of immigration and nationality, including the pertinent international law. And you have taught me much here, clarified much for me here. Thank you.

Well you're welcome but I certainly don't know it all. I'm just good at reading I guess. And I've read the Windsor Opinion. There are two ways to read the Windsor Opinion: 1. With rainbow colored glasses and 2. Objectively.

When it comes to #2, I agree about Kennedy. The Pelosi far-left kookoo klub thinks on this issue they have Kennedy in the bag. But Kennedy is unpredictable and likes to surprise people.

There are the sheer mechanics of Windsor too. In order to strike down part of DOMA the Court Declared that gay marriage was a state's discreet community's choice. And thereafter, that choice had to be respected by the fed as true legal marriage. So gays arguing that states shouldn't have a choice on gay marriage is putting that power back into the hands of the feds again. Which is re-legitimizing DOMA during a GOP administration and domination of Congress.

Another mechanical legal issue is the mention of Loving v Virginia in Windsor and the whole issue of the 14th. The HUGE problem with extending the 14th to cover just an exclusive club of deviant sexual BEHAVIORS means that no other sexual behavior may be denied. The 14th's essence is one if inclusiveness. Once you set a precedent that minority behaviors that are learned or acquired get special protection from the majority, you cannot arbitrarily deny other behaviors repugnant to the majority. On what grounds would you deny them? That they're "icky"? [When you just legitimized and protected anal sex??]

And since human behaviors [not race, religion, gender or country of origin] are regulated by the majority of discreet communities within states, for obvious reasons, you've just then ripped away the entirety of a state's self-governance and you created a system of fascism. Any democratic body ruled by a minority set of behaviors is in essence a fascist state. That's how the nazis got their foothold in Germany. They declared certain repugnant behaviors 'protected and untouchable' by the populace...such as gassing jews and political persecution.

Setting a precedent for protecting minority behaviors repugnant to the majority, using the 14th, would be like sending a torpedo right into the heart of American democracy...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Odd how when ever someone stands up waving the Constitution in the air citing Equal Rights, they're marginalized as an activist.

And here Separate But Equal has worked so well in the recent past,

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified and permitted racial segregation, as not being in breach of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens, and other federal civil rights laws. Under the doctrine, government was allowed to require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be separated along racial lines, provided that the quality of each group's public facilities was equal. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."[1]
Separate but equal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Can't imagine why anyone'd be against 'civil unions' if they're identical to 'marriages' in all but name. Those activists...

 

[Silhouette]

Odd how when ever someone stands up waving the Constitution in the air citing Equal Rights, they're marginalized as an activist.

And here Separate But Equal has worked so well in the recent past,

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified and permitted racial segregation, as not being in breach of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens, and other federal civil rights laws. Under the doctrine, government was allowed to require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be separated along racial lines, provided that the quality of each group's public facilities was equal. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."[1]
Separate but equal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Can't imagine why anyone'd be against 'civil unions' if they're identical to 'marriages' in all but name. Those activists...

You're being sarcastic right?

Race has nothing to do with sexual behaviors. I'll keep shooting that false premise down like skeet in the sky as long as you keep pulling that lever. You know what happens to conclusions that follow a shattered premise, right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Odd how when ever someone stands up waving the Constitution in the air citing Equal Rights, they're marginalized as an activist.

And here Separate But Equal has worked so well in the recent past,

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified and permitted racial segregation, as not being in breach of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens, and other federal civil rights laws. Under the doctrine, government was allowed to require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be separated along racial lines, provided that the quality of each group's public facilities was equal. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."[1]
Separate but equal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Can't imagine why anyone'd be against 'civil unions' if they're identical to 'marriages' in all but name. Those activists...

You're point is moot. The repugnant construct of separate but equal as applied to the utterly benign physiological traits/features of nature is dead and rightly so. To pretend that sexual orientation/sexual expression is not a categorically different thing, which impacts legitimate concerns, no less the inalienable human rights of the people, is absurd. This touches on the ideological/behavioral imperatives of free-association and private property. We need not take your demagoguery seriously, except for the fact that your arrogant and morally obtuse attitude is dangerously widespread and, consequently, constitutes an existential threat to liberty and the stability of the Republic. Given your appalling lack of interest in the enterprise of understanding why that's true, you have nothing of value to offer.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well you're welcome but I certainly don't know it all. I'm just good at reading I guess. And I've read the Windsor Opinion. There are two ways to read the Windsor Opinion: 1. With rainbow colored glasses and 2. Objectively.

When it comes to #2, I agree about Kennedy. The Pelosi far-left kookoo klub thinks on this issue they have Kennedy in the bag. But Kennedy is unpredictable and likes to surprise people.

There are the sheer mechanics of Windsor too. In order to strike down part of DOMA the Court Declared that gay marriage was a state's discreet community's choice. And thereafter, that choice had to be respected by the fed as true legal marriage. So gays arguing that states shouldn't have a choice on gay marriage is putting that power back into the hands of the feds again. Which is re-legitimizing DOMA during a GOP administration and domination of Congress.

Another mechanical legal issue is the mention of Loving v Virginia in Windsor and the whole issue of the 14th. The HUGE problem with extending the 14th to cover just an exclusive club of deviant sexual BEHAVIORS means that no other sexual behavior may be denied. The 14th's essence is one if inclusiveness. Once you set a precedent that minority behaviors that are learned or acquired get special protection from the majority, you cannot arbitrarily deny other behaviors repugnant to the majority. On what grounds would you deny them? That they're "icky"? [When you just legitimized and protected anal sex??]

And since human behaviors [not race, religion, gender or country of origin] are regulated by the majority of discreet communities within states, for obvious reasons, you've just then ripped away the entirety of a state's self-governance and you created a system of fascism. Any democratic body ruled by a minority set of behaviors is in essence a fascist state. That's how the nazis got their foothold in Germany. They declared certain repugnant behaviors 'protected and untouchable' by the populace...such as gassing jews and political persecution.

Setting a precedent for protecting minority behaviors repugnant to the majority, using the 14th, would be like sending a torpedo right into the heart of American democracy...

We agree on both points.

Notwithstanding, the leftist members of the Court have in fact made statements here and there over the last several year that strongly suggest that they're open to the idea of dragging the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause into the fray, albeit, while simultaneously asserting what would necessarily be, as you rightly observe, an utterly arbitrary rationale to preclude the equal treatment of things like polygamy, though given the left's general hostility toward parental authority and the modern standard of the age of consent, even such a gesture of political expediency would be moot.

The obvious counter to this insanity would be to simply point out that since the plaintiff's state does not recognize "homo marriage," there's no basis for the plaintiff to demand that the federal government do so. What marriage? It's up to each state, not the federal government to "define" marriage.

Well, no, that's wrong, of course, but that rash of historical revisionism is now legally binding.

Most of the leftists on this forum think that the legal basis for the Court to declare that the federal government must necessarily recognize all "homo marriages" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been. Many even believe that the legal basis for the Court to declare that all states must recognize "homo marriage" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been, at least not in any sense that is consistent with the historical practice of stare decisis. There's a gap there that has yet to be bridged, a missing link in the chain of logic.

But lefty rarely does logic anyway.

Notwithstanding, if, suddenly, out of nowhere, any given state can, by default, via its decision to recognize "homo marriage", compel the federal government of all the people to recognize "homo marriage" in terms of federal laws and programs, that is to say, if in Windsor, the Court can jump off the rails of the Republic's historical sociopolitical track, what's stopping it from jumping of the rails of the track of standard stare decisis?

In this case, as we have both observed, much is stopping it from doing so, but that's no guarantee.

After all, with regard to the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all the people within its jurisdiction, why can't the Court now insist that the federal government do the same under the law for all the people within its jurisdiction, in spite of what any given state may assert about "homo marriage"? Essentially, the Court set up a system in Windsor in which the federal government does treat "married" homosexuals differently from state to state depending on the designation applied by the respective state. That's a rhetorical question. We already discussed the why. Again lefty still doesn't get it, especially the point of "what marriage?" in the case of those states that do not recognize it.

Under standard procedure, they would have no standing in the first place.

My only point here: see how convoluted things get once government starts redefining things that are determined by nature? And right or wrong, that will be the argument of the consistently leftist members of the Court should they attempt to go there.

Certainly those pea brains Ginsburg and Kagan would probably go there, while it is less certain that Sotomaryer or Beyer would be so foolish.

In truth, it's all nonsense from the jump, one non sequitur after another, but that's what happens when in practice absolutes are disregarded by relativistic jurisprudence, beginning with the nonsense that the several states' regulatory power over marriage is synonymous to the power to define what marriage is. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the state.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage,

And legal homo marriage provides for adoption, brainiac. They are not mutually exclusive. Mostly the opposite of that.

Next time try understanding the context before exposing your ignorance.

Next time reply to my post.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage,

And legal homo marriage provides for adoption, brainiac. They are not mutually exclusive. Mostly the opposite of that.

Next time try understanding the context before exposing your ignorance.

Next time reply to my post.

Ok, your post was a non sequitur.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Examining the question posted in the poll.

"I've read the Windsor 2013 & this is how I see things happening if it is reaffirmed in 2015:"

Windsor ruled on Section 3 of DOMA and as such will not need to be re-addressed in 2015. DOMA Section 3 is dead and there are no cases that would cause the SCOTUS to reexamine that decision.​

Some gay marriages will be legal but others won't in various states: ushering new lawsuits.

A possibility depending on how the court decides to act. The can accept one (or more) current cases in the pipeline or choose to reject any cases in the pipeline. Since all Circuit Court cases have all found SSCM bans to unconditional, the SCOTUS can choose to reject an appeal and do nothing. That makes the Appeals court rejection binding precedent within that jurisdiction. The 10th & 4th already ruling it's unconstitutional, after oral arguments the 7th looks likely to join the group, the 9th already ruled as such in Hollingsworth [vacated] but likely to rule the same in a new challenge, and SSCM is already legal in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Such a rejection would be a clear signal to the remaining Circuits that their decision was the correct one.​

The Court will freeze any appeals on "separate but equal" but leave existing marriages intact.

That's a tough one to call, very likely to hinge on if there was a stay in place at the time. The SCOTUS is unlikely to invalidate legal SSCM performed under the law. Similar to what happened in California after the re;Marriages decision and before the stay issued after the Prop 8 vote. Those Civil Marriages were not invalidated and those couples remain legally married today.​

The Court will need to annul marriages performed in contempt of Windsor just since 2013.

There is no "contempt of Windsor" that exists. Windsor did not address a states ability to say "no" to SSCM, it only addressed whether the Federal government could not accept as valid SSCM's performed when the State said "yes".​

The Court needs to annul all gay marriages in states where voters said no: retroactive to the 1700s.

Won't happen. California alone shows that's not a possible outcome. SSCM was legal from (IIRC) June through the vote in November 2008. Those couples legally married will remain legally married as the SCOTUS didn't invalidate them at the time it decided Hollingsworth.​

I haven't read Windsor because Windsor doesn't matter on how gay marriage is legal in states.

This option makes no sense because it conflicts with the opening sentence so basiclaly the first part says "I've read Windsor..." and then goes on to say "I haven't read Windsor..." both can't be true.​

*******************************************************


Notice that SIL didn't include an option that says "I've read Windsor as the court notes in it's decision and understand what the court said when it said 'This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.'. The meaning of which is clear, the Windsor case was a Federal case under the 5th amendment and did not rule on whether States could say 'no' under the 14th Amendment."



>>>>

 

[daws101]

the poll is extremely bias !

 

[Silhouette]

Notwithstanding, the leftist members of the Court have in fact made statements here and there over the last several year that strongly suggest that they're open to the idea of dragging the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause into the fray, albeit, while simultaneously asserting what would necessarily be, as you rightly observe, an utterly arbitrary rationale to preclude the equal treatment of things like polygamy, though given the left's general hostility toward parental authority and the modern standard of the age of consent, even such a gesture of political expediency would be moot.

The obvious counter to this insanity would be to simply point out that since the plaintiff's state does not recognize "homo marriage," there's no basis for the plaintiff to demand that the federal government do so. What marriage? It's up to each state, not the federal government to "define" marriage.

Well, no, that's wrong, of course, but that rash of historical revisionism is now legally binding.

Most of the leftists on this forum think that the legal basis for the Court to declare that the federal government must necessarily recognize all "homo marriages" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been. Many even believe that the legal basis for the Court to declare that all states must recognize "homo marriage" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been, at least not in any sense that is consistent with the historical practice of stare decisis. There's a gap there that has yet to be bridged, a missing link in the chain of logic.

But lefty rarely does logic anyway.

Notwithstanding, if, suddenly, out of nowhere, any given state can, by default, via its decision to recognize "homo marriage", compel the federal government of all the people to recognize "homo marriage" in terms of federal laws and programs, that is to say, if in Windsor, the Court can jump off the rails of the Republic's historical sociopolitical track, what's stopping it from jumping of the rails of the track of standard stare decisis?

In this case, as we have both observed, much is stopping it from doing so, but that's no guarantee.

After all, with regard to the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all the people within its jurisdiction, why can't the Court now insist that the federal government do the same under the law for all the people within its jurisdiction, in spite of what any given state may assert about "homo marriage"? Essentially, the Court set up a system in Windsor in which the federal government does treat "married" homosexuals differently from state to state depending on the designation applied by the respective state. That's a rhetorical question. We already discussed the why. Again lefty still doesn't get it, especially the point of "what marriage?" in the case of those states that do not recognize it.

Under standard procedure, they would have no standing in the first place.

My only point here: see how convoluted things get once government starts redefining things that are determined by nature? And right or wrong, that will be the argument of the consistently leftist members of the Court should they attempt to go there.

Certainly those pea brains Ginsburg and Kagan would probably go there, while it is less certain that Sotomaryer or Beyer would be so foolish.

In truth, it's all nonsense from the jump, one non sequitur after another, but that's what happens when in practice absolutes are disregarded by relativistic jurisprudence, beginning with the nonsense that the several states' regulatory power over marriage is synonymous to the power to define what marriage is. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the state.

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

 

[daws101]

Notwithstanding, the leftist members of the Court have in fact made statements here and there over the last several year that strongly suggest that they're open to the idea of dragging the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause into the fray, albeit, while simultaneously asserting what would necessarily be, as you rightly observe, an utterly arbitrary rationale to preclude the equal treatment of things like polygamy, though given the left's general hostility toward parental authority and the modern standard of the age of consent, even such a gesture of political expediency would be moot.

The obvious counter to this insanity would be to simply point out that since the plaintiff's state does not recognize "homo marriage," there's no basis for the plaintiff to demand that the federal government do so. What marriage? It's up to each state, not the federal government to "define" marriage.

Well, no, that's wrong, of course, but that rash of historical revisionism is now legally binding.

Most of the leftists on this forum think that the legal basis for the Court to declare that the federal government must necessarily recognize all "homo marriages" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been. Many even believe that the legal basis for the Court to declare that all states must recognize "homo marriage" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been, at least not in any sense that is consistent with the historical practice of stare decisis. There's a gap there that has yet to be bridged, a missing link in the chain of logic.

But lefty rarely does logic anyway.

Notwithstanding, if, suddenly, out of nowhere, any given state can, by default, via its decision to recognize "homo marriage", compel the federal government of all the people to recognize "homo marriage" in terms of federal laws and programs, that is to say, if in Windsor, the Court can jump off the rails of the Republic's historical sociopolitical track, what's stopping it from jumping of the rails of the track of standard stare decisis?

In this case, as we have both observed, much is stopping it from doing so, but that's no guarantee.

After all, with regard to the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all the people within its jurisdiction, why can't the Court now insist that the federal government do the same under the law for all the people within its jurisdiction, in spite of what any given state may assert about "homo marriage"? Essentially, the Court set up a system in Windsor in which the federal government does treat "married" homosexuals differently from state to state depending on the designation applied by the respective state. That's a rhetorical question. We already discussed the why. Again lefty still doesn't get it, especially the point of "what marriage?" in the case of those states that do not recognize it.

Under standard procedure, they would have no standing in the first place.

My only point here: see how convoluted things get once government starts redefining things that are determined by nature? And right or wrong, that will be the argument of the consistently leftist members of the Court should they attempt to go there.

Certainly those pea brains Ginsburg and Kagan would probably go there, while it is less certain that Sotomaryer or Beyer would be so foolish.

In truth, it's all nonsense from the jump, one non sequitur after another, but that's what happens when in practice absolutes are disregarded by relativistic jurisprudence, beginning with the nonsense that the several states' regulatory power over marriage is synonymous to the power to define what marriage is. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the state.

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

same sex marriage will be, very shortly the law of the land.
sorry silly wet god did not invent marriage, man did .
so as always your're talking out your ass.
or to put it another way .you'd have been the leader of the candle and gaslight lobby at the end of the 19th century decrying the horrors of electricity..
we all know how that turned out.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Notwithstanding, the leftist members of the Court have in fact made statements here and there over the last several year that strongly suggest that they're open to the idea of dragging the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause into the fray, albeit, while simultaneously asserting what would necessarily be, as you rightly observe, an utterly arbitrary rationale to preclude the equal treatment of things like polygamy, though given the left's general hostility toward parental authority and the modern standard of the age of consent, even such a gesture of political expediency would be moot.

The obvious counter to this insanity would be to simply point out that since the plaintiff's state does not recognize "homo marriage," there's no basis for the plaintiff to demand that the federal government do so. What marriage? It's up to each state, not the federal government to "define" marriage.

Well, no, that's wrong, of course, but that rash of historical revisionism is now legally binding.

Most of the leftists on this forum think that the legal basis for the Court to declare that the federal government must necessarily recognize all "homo marriages" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been. Many even believe that the legal basis for the Court to declare that all states must recognize "homo marriage" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been, at least not in any sense that is consistent with the historical practice of stare decisis. There's a gap there that has yet to be bridged, a missing link in the chain of logic.

But lefty rarely does logic anyway.

Notwithstanding, if, suddenly, out of nowhere, any given state can, by default, via its decision to recognize "homo marriage", compel the federal government of all the people to recognize "homo marriage" in terms of federal laws and programs, that is to say, if in Windsor, the Court can jump off the rails of the Republic's historical sociopolitical track, what's stopping it from jumping of the rails of the track of standard stare decisis?

In this case, as we have both observed, much is stopping it from doing so, but that's no guarantee.

After all, with regard to the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all the people within its jurisdiction, why can't the Court now insist that the federal government do the same under the law for all the people within its jurisdiction, in spite of what any given state may assert about "homo marriage"? Essentially, the Court set up a system in Windsor in which the federal government does treat "married" homosexuals differently from state to state depending on the designation applied by the respective state. That's a rhetorical question. We already discussed the why. Again lefty still doesn't get it, especially the point of "what marriage?" in the case of those states that do not recognize it.

Under standard procedure, they would have no standing in the first place.

My only point here: see how convoluted things get once government starts redefining things that are determined by nature? And right or wrong, that will be the argument of the consistently leftist members of the Court should they attempt to go there.

Certainly those pea brains Ginsburg and Kagan would probably go there, while it is less certain that Sotomaryer or Beyer would be so foolish.

In truth, it's all nonsense from the jump, one non sequitur after another, but that's what happens when in practice absolutes are disregarded by relativistic jurisprudence, beginning with the nonsense that the several states' regulatory power over marriage is synonymous to the power to define what marriage is. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the state.

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

Actually, none of this is my logic. I'm talking about the potential logic of the leftists on the Court. My allusion to parental authority and the age of consent doesn't directly pertain to the issue of "homo marriage." I expect it's going to go down just as you say. Indeed, opening this up to the Fourteenth is opening up a can of worms. It's highly unlikely that the Court will do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did so either. It will be interesting to see who the truly nutty justices are though.

 

[daws101]

Notwithstanding, the leftist members of the Court have in fact made statements here and there over the last several year that strongly suggest that they're open to the idea of dragging the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause into the fray, albeit, while simultaneously asserting what would necessarily be, as you rightly observe, an utterly arbitrary rationale to preclude the equal treatment of things like polygamy, though given the left's general hostility toward parental authority and the modern standard of the age of consent, even such a gesture of political expediency would be moot.

The obvious counter to this insanity would be to simply point out that since the plaintiff's state does not recognize "homo marriage," there's no basis for the plaintiff to demand that the federal government do so. What marriage? It's up to each state, not the federal government to "define" marriage.

Well, no, that's wrong, of course, but that rash of historical revisionism is now legally binding.

Most of the leftists on this forum think that the legal basis for the Court to declare that the federal government must necessarily recognize all "homo marriages" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been. Many even believe that the legal basis for the Court to declare that all states must recognize "homo marriage" has been put down, when in fact it hasn't been, at least not in any sense that is consistent with the historical practice of stare decisis. There's a gap there that has yet to be bridged, a missing link in the chain of logic.

But lefty rarely does logic anyway.

Notwithstanding, if, suddenly, out of nowhere, any given state can, by default, via its decision to recognize "homo marriage", compel the federal government of all the people to recognize "homo marriage" in terms of federal laws and programs, that is to say, if in Windsor, the Court can jump off the rails of the Republic's historical sociopolitical track, what's stopping it from jumping of the rails of the track of standard stare decisis?

In this case, as we have both observed, much is stopping it from doing so, but that's no guarantee.

After all, with regard to the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all the people within its jurisdiction, why can't the Court now insist that the federal government do the same under the law for all the people within its jurisdiction, in spite of what any given state may assert about "homo marriage"? Essentially, the Court set up a system in Windsor in which the federal government does treat "married" homosexuals differently from state to state depending on the designation applied by the respective state. That's a rhetorical question. We already discussed the why. Again lefty still doesn't get it, especially the point of "what marriage?" in the case of those states that do not recognize it.

Under standard procedure, they would have no standing in the first place.

My only point here: see how convoluted things get once government starts redefining things that are determined by nature? And right or wrong, that will be the argument of the consistently leftist members of the Court should they attempt to go there.

Certainly those pea brains Ginsburg and Kagan would probably go there, while it is less certain that Sotomaryer or Beyer would be so foolish.

In truth, it's all nonsense from the jump, one non sequitur after another, but that's what happens when in practice absolutes are disregarded by relativistic jurisprudence, beginning with the nonsense that the several states' regulatory power over marriage is synonymous to the power to define what marriage is. Marriage is defined by nature and nature's God, not by the state.

I don't think the Court is going to get as convoluted as you paint here. They said it simply and succinctly. Marriage is up to the states unless the 14th applies. The question that remains is if the 14th can be applied to behaviors [just some in LGBT's case] in addition to race, gender, religion and country of origin. And as I've said, that's a can of worms.

They mentioned 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. Using your logic, would all 13 year olds across the nation then be able to have standing to petition that they too qualify for legal marriage? If the fed recognizes married 13 year olds from New Hampshire, does that mean that automatically all 13 year olds in the US may marry?

No, of course not. I think their deliberations are going to be much simpler than you think on this matter. It's the reason they made the 13-year old comparison. I think they are very simply going to reiterate Windsor and remind everyone that gay marriage is up to each state as their discreet community sees fit or not. And if they were serious about that choice being retroactive to the founding of the country with respect to which couples may marry, then that also will be binding law.

Actually, none of this is my logic. I'm talking about the potential logic of the leftists on the Court. My allusion to parental authority and the age of consent doesn't directly pertain to the issue of "homo marriage." I expect it's going to go down just as you say. Indeed, opening this up to the Fourteenth is opening up a can of worms. It's highly unlikely that the Court will do that. It will be interesting to see who the truly nutty justices are though.

homo marriage? that must knock um dead at the trailer park!