Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.

Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.

The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.

These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Romer v. Evans

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am actually quite concerned for Sil if the ruling doesn't go her way. She has deluded herself to the point that I am afraid she may do something drastic.

Such as continuing to start ridiculous, delusional threads about how the Supreme Court 'got it wrong.'

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder what makes more sense? The concise opinion of our highest court or the ramblings of a rabidly anti-gay internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one.

OK, so you agree with what the US Supreme Court said 56 times in Windsor 2013. Good, I'm glad you agree with them. Here's what they said 56 times in the Windsor Opinion: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And the part you consistently ignore from the ruling is that state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees/protections. You can pretend it doesn't exist but the SCOTUS isn't going ignore itself in favor of your delusions.

So 56 times the court avered that the question was and always has been up to the states. Just once they mentioned that "if Loving applies otherwise, there may be a slight chance we might find differently in the future". And then they ended saying "gay marriage according to how we awarded money to E. Windsor, is only legal in 11 states". And that's your vote of confidence and certainty that the Court will wrest power away from the states and shut the conversation down?

Did you read the transcripts of the questions Kennedy was asking your side just this Spring? You're taking them as a omen that "Kennedy is poised to shut the conversation down and force the newly-redacted proposal to the physical structure of the word "marriage" upon all 50 states" eh? OK, I guess you're an optimist. But as you're so fond of telling me, if the wind doesn't blow your way, just accept that you'll have a lot more work to do winning the hearts and minds of the majority who currently opposes gay marriage...or wait....they "support" it right? That's another area of odd confidence you have despite "the transcripts". But with such a clear "majority" supporting you, the states should fall like dominoes right into your lap if SCOTUS keeps the conversation open and reaffirms Windsor.

 

[dcraelin]

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.

Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.

The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.

These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Romer v. Evans

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

 

[Montrovant]

The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.

Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.

The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.

These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Romer v. Evans

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

 

[Silhouette]

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

How so when the case was denied hearing upon standing? There was no, as in ZERO substantive Ruling on the Prop 8 case. None! Yet California's corrupt officials proceeded as if there was and illegally overturned an intiative law there without the permission of the voters. California elected officials do not enjoy making society-altering policy without the expressed permission of the voters: especially when they seek to overturn a specifically named and outlined policy enacted by the voters, using a "Ruling" that had no substance on Prop 8 but PLENTY of substance (56 times times avered in Windsor) to say its citizenry rightly set the law by the current Ruling federal standing on who has that authority (the states). Currently, the State of California's officials have bifurcated that state from the Union and are now running a rogue non-constitutionally-conforming government. In other words, they simply just came out of the closet using the LGBT hinge and Brown/Harris declared an oligarchy there....even threatening County Clerks with punitive action if they did not go along with the coup...even upon their protest.

County clerks are sworn to uphold initiative law. And the law on the books in the CA constitution is "only a man and woman may marry". Any clerk issuing a license that says otherwise is in violation of his oath and is also guilty of sedition. They used to hang people for stuff like this back in the day as an example to other would-be traitors: "don't you try this!" And for good reason. You take away harsh punishment for usurping people's Constitutional rights and you might as well hang it up.

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.
Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".
I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

You had posted this just as I posted my reply. Bingo dcraelin.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder what makes more sense? The concise opinion of our highest court or the ramblings of a rabidly anti-gay internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one.

OK, so you agree with what the US Supreme Court said 56 times in Windsor 2013. Good, I'm glad you agree with them. Here's what they said 56 times in the Windsor Opinion: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And the part you consistently ignore from the ruling is that state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees/protections. You can pretend it doesn't exist but the SCOTUS isn't going ignore itself in favor of your delusions.

So 56 times the court avered that the question was and always has been up to the states. Just once they mentioned that "if Loving applies otherwise, there may be a slight chance we might find differently in the future".

That's not what the court said. This is:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Establishing a heirarchy beyond question:

1) Constitutional guaranees
2 State marriage laws
3) Federal marriage laws.

Not one time did the Windsor decision indicate that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. The court found instead, the exact opposite. The state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guaranteees.

Destroying your argument. As every single lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it. But you can't make us ignore it. Or the courts.

And then they ended saying "gay marriage according to how we awarded money to E. Windsor, is only legal in 11 states". And that's your vote of confidence and certainty that the Court will wrest power away from the states and shut the conversation down?

Its Scalia's argument in his dissent. He's the one that found that court's position against state same sex marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking'. And that the court applying the logic of the Windsor decision against state same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

You ignore the Windsor ruling and you ignore Scalia.

Overwhelmingly, the Federal judiciary didn't. Which is why your ilk lost 44 of 46 times. And are poised to lose a 45th in a matter of days.

 

[dcraelin]

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Romer v. Evans

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

 

[Skylar]

How so when the case was denied hearing upon standing?

The case wasn't denied standing with the Perry court. It was ruled upon by the federal judiciary which found state same sex marriage bans violate the constitution. And cited Romer to do it.

The USSC preserved this lower court ruling. As they preserved every lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans.

And likewise, denied stays to every state that sought to protect same sex marriage bans. Without exception. And you fully recognize the implications of both, as you've already lost your shit accusing the Supreme Court of 'treason' for telegraphing their position on same sex marriage through which cases they preserved and which stays they denied.

If you need help remembering, I'll gladly link you to your 'shadow bias' meltdown where you completely lost it.

There was no, as in ZERO substantive Ruling on the Prop 8 case. None!

Wrong. The federal judiciary already ruled in the Perry decision. And the Supreme Court preserved that ruling. There is no appeal on the matter. Remember, just because you ignore a ruling or a given piece of precedent doesn't mean it magically disappears.

 

[Silhouette]

There was NO substantive ruling on prop 8!

 

[Skylar]

Establishing a heirarchy beyond question:

1) Constitutional guarantees
2 State marriage laws
3) Federal marriage laws.

Not one time did the Windsor decision indicate that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. The court found instead, the exact opposite. The state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guaranteees....Destroying your argument.

Then why did the Court end Windsor making a point to say that gay marriage was only legal in 11 states as of its Writing?

It didn't. You're hallucinating again. Remember, you're in full delusion mode now. You're literally just making shit up that never happened. You've invented your own 14th amendment, complete with imaginary 'categories' it never mentions. You've imagined 'static status' gibberish onto the Romer ruling. And now this.

Back in reality, this was the court's actual finding....about half way through the ruling:

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons.

Windsor v. US.

Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The case was about who has the authority on gay marriage legal/not legal (the states, unquestioned, since the dawn of the country) and whether or not the fed could override that authority using DOMA.

The court found that state marriage laws trump federal marriage laws. And that constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws. Remember the hierarchy the court established:

1) Constitutional guarantees
2) State marriage laws
3) Federal marriage laws.

Your argument breaks on constitutional guarantees. As you're insisting that state marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. Something the Windsor ruling never says. And something the Windsor ruling explicitly contradicts, placing constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws.

And 'poof', your entire argument disappears.

As every single lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Without exception. And in perfect accordance with the Windsor ruling which found that state marriage laws were subject to those exact constitutional guarantees.

 

[Silhouette]

...And Windsor 2013 TRUMPS ALL THOSE LOWER COURT RULINGS unless/until SCOTUS SAYS OTHERWISE!

There was no substantive preservation of the Prop 8 lower ruling Skylar. The appeal was denied standing. PERIOD. Further, the unnecessary, but included statement about gay marriage only being legal in 11 states at the twin-Finding of Windsor WAS THE SUBSTANTIVE RULING ON PROP 8. The only way it could not be concluded as such would be to declare that California was no longer a state.

Establishing a heirarchy beyond question:
1) Constitutional guaranees
2 State marriage laws
3) Federal marriage laws.
Not one time did the Windsor decision indicate that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. The court found instead, the exact opposite. The state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guaranteees....Destroying your argument.

Then why did the Court end Windsor making a point to say that gay marriage was only legal in 11 states as of its Writing? That was a wholly unnecessary inclusion in Windsor's writing. The case was about who has the authority on gay marriage legal/not legal (the states, unquestioned, since the dawn of the country) and whether or not the fed could override that authority using DOMA. The finding was that states were dominant to the fed on this quesiton of law. It was not necessary for them to say anything about any other state besides New York on that finding. Yet they did. They brought up other states and the current status of their laws. They said that of all the remaining 49 states outside New York, only 10 (New York made the 11th) of them had legal gay marriage. Why do you suppose they ended Windsor saying that? Because it was their vote of confidence that "gays (as undefined, fluid, misunderstood behaviors) have constitutional guarantees to marriage? Or that states have a trump over that card?

And that part about California no longer being a state is on the face of things exactly how conditions are today. Two people, Governor Brown and AG Harris there have discarded that state's initiative law system and overturned the Will of the People without their consent. That's tyranny and sedition. That state no longer abides by the US Constitutions guarantee of government by, for and of the People.

Furthermore, Brown and Harris did so knowingly of the conclusions in Windsor that states as of that writing and Finding were the last word on the gay marriage issue, until further notice from the Highest Court. That notice has not come. And the interim time between, California has been ruled by King Gerry Brown and Queen Kamala Harris.

LOWER COURTS IN THE FEDERAL APPEALS SYSTEM DO NOT ENJOY THE RIGHT TO WILFULLY MISINTERPRET THE 56 TIMES IN WINDSOR 2013 THAT SCOTUS SAID STATES HAVE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON THIS QUESTION...OR THAT THEY SAID "ONLY 11 STATES AS OF THIS WRITING" HAVE LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE.

 

[Skylar]

...And Windsor 2013 TRUMPS ALL THOSE LOWER COURT RULINGS unless/until SCOTUS SAYS OTHERWISE!

Exactly. And the Windsor ruling found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. With every lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of those constitutional guarantees.

Making every such lower ruling perfectly consistent with the Windsor ruling. Which might explain why the same Supreme Court has preserved every such ruling overturning same sex marriage bans. And denied stays to every state trying to preserve them.

Without exception.

Just because you arbitrarily ignore constitutional guarantees doesn't mean that the federal judiciary must ignore them too.

Then why did the Court end Windsor making a point to say that gay marriage was only legal in 11 states as of its Writing?

Again, it didn't. This is what the Windsor ruling actually found.....about half way through the ruling:

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons.

Windsor v. US.

You don't know what you're talking about, Sil. And you're literally hallucinating your own version of the Windsor ruling. Hallucinate away. Your inventions have no relevance to the law or the outcome of any court case.

 

[Silhouette]

Why did the Court feel compelled to include the "11 states" comment AT ALL, during ANY of the language in Windsor 2013???

As a statement they felt lower circuit judges could overturn state laws at their whim?

 

[Skylar]

Why did the Court feel compelled to include the "11 states" comment AT ALL, during ANY of the language in Windsor 2013???

If you have an argument to make, make it. Just realize that I'm very familiar with the Windsor ruling. So if you make up shit that isn't in it....I'm gonna call you on it.

Feel free to make your case as to why the court included the '11 states' comment.

And note that you can't refute (or at this point, even address) the fact that the Windsor decision establishes the following hierarchy:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State Marriage Laws
3) Federal Marriage Laws.

Which simply destroys your argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Romer v. Evans

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

For conservatives it's something that has always gone on.

 

[Montrovant]

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

Didn't that study suggest that all Supreme Court rulings, not just those which touch on gay marriage, are based on the political leanings of the justices?

 

[Silhouette]

Why did the Court feel compelled to include the "11 states" comment AT ALL, during ANY of the language in Windsor 2013???

If you have an argument to make, make it. Just realize that I'm very familiar with the Windsor ruling. So if you make up shit that isn't in it....I'm gonna call you on it.

Feel free to make your case as to why the court included the '11 states' comment. .

Nice dodge. Let's try again. Note that I already made my case for the 11 states comment. I was asking you to make your case for explaning what the Court meant by adding it in a way that supports your stance that it was the Court's intent in Windsor to say "the question of gay marriage is not up to the states". Defend that point, if you can. Don't foist it back on me as a dodge.

 

[Skylar]

Why did the Court feel compelled to include the "11 states" comment AT ALL, during ANY of the language in Windsor 2013???

If you have an argument to make, make it. Just realize that I'm very familiar with the Windsor ruling. So if you make up shit that isn't in it....I'm gonna call you on it.

Feel free to make your case as to why the court included the '11 states' comment. .

Nice dodge. Let's try again. Note that I already made my case for the 11 states comment.

No, you lied about 11 state comment, insisting that the court ended on it. Which they obviously didn't. It was one of a myriad of points, coming about halfway through the ruling:

New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons.

Windsor v. US.

The court is affirming the state's authority to authorize same sex marriage. Not just in NY but in any state that authorizes it. Even DC.

The court never even mentions same sex marriage bans. Nor ever finds that they are constitutional. You imagined all of that. The court instead found that marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Establishing a hierarchy that utterly destroys your entire argument:

1) Constitutional Guarantees.
2) State Marriage Laws.
3) Federal Marriage Laws.

And every lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. You can ignore this fact. But it changes nothing about their rulings, or the USSC's preservation of them.

You're stuck, Sil. Right at the same place your argument always breaks: Constitutional Guarantees.

I was asking you to make your case for explaning what the Court meant by adding it in a way that supports your stance that it was the Court's intent in Windsor to say "the question of gay marriage is not up to the states". Defend that point, if you can. Don't foist it back on me as a dodge.

Strawman. I'm arguing what the Windsor court has argued:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

If the States violate constitutional guarantees, their marriage laws are invalid. And I've already defended the argument. You'll have to find a way around constitutional guarantees.

And you can't. You're stuck fast. As your argument breaks upon them. You have no way around. And I'm not going to stop breaking your argument on the same point.

 

[dcraelin]

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.

From the Proposition 8 ruling:

'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'

PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw

Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.

As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.

Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.'

There is something devious and deceptive with activist courts making rulings that the people disagree with, thus forcing the public's hand, as in both Colorado and California, and then nitpicking with questionable "doctrines" the resulting backlash from the public.

Romer certainly did not figure in the final outcome of the prop 8 case...as that rested on yet another dubious "doctrine" that in a supposed republic, 7 million or so Californians can effectively be denied standing....an idiotic,and very dangerous idea.....that you should worry far more about than the prospect of not getting gay "marriage".

I noticed you ignored the question of orientation and innateness tho you've been braying about that for quote a few posts

Is any court which rules against majority opinion an 'activist court'?

I did not think that the courts were supposed to rule based on popular opinion at the moment, but rather on their understanding of the law and constitution.

I wonder if accusing judges and courts of being 'activist' is a recent phenomenon or something that has always gone on?

no of course not, for one thing a lot of court issues the public cares little about.

yes, and their various rulings on gay marriage have not been. I have a link of a study which shows that a few posts back.

well, at the time of our founding the people rightfully worried about the courts being merely a wing of the aristocracy.

Didn't that study suggest that all Supreme Court rulings, not just those which touch on gay marriage, are based on the political leanings of the justices?

yes