LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[WorldWatcher]

So those married in the 3 states where gay marriage is legal can be recognized.

And you are still wrong. Even in Windsor the Supreme Court notes that there were 11 States (and DC) at the time of it's writing were SSCM was legal. And it became 13 jurisdictions that same day as they issued the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision that allowed the District Court Judges ruling reinstating SSCM in California to stand.

Of the eleven states and DC (at the time of their writing of the decision) where SSCM was legal you have:

Massachusetts – Judicially
Connecticut – Judicially
Iowa – Judicially
Vermont – Legislatively
New Hampshire – Legislatively
New York – Legislatively
Washington – Ballot
Maine – Ballot
Maryland – Ballot
Rhode Island - Legislatively
Deleware - Legislatively
District of Columbia – Legislatively​

You implication by saying "the 3 states where gay marriage is legal ..." is wrong as the SCOTUS acknowledged that there were 12 jurisdictions where it was legal at the time and those legal Civil Marriages were achieved judicially, legislatively, and at the ballot box.



>>>>

It's possible that the only part of Windsor they will redact is that one statement. And that is because if they aver that states have always had the right to define marriage and they reiterate their preference for that being done via the broadest consensus, then there are only 3 states where gay marriage is legal.

They don't have to redact any part of Windsor, as that case was not about States saying "yes" or "no". Windors was about when states say "yes" can the federal government say "no".

I know you dearly want it to be more, but better legal minds have noted that very thing unless one can assume:

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - who noted in court documents that - the Windsor decision DOES NOT address whether states can say "no" and only confirms that if States say "Yes" it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to say "No".

The California Supreme Court didn't understand the Windsor decision when they refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The California Governor and Attorney General allowed SSCM to resume in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The SCOTUS didn't understand it's own ruling in the Windsor decision when they refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The Federal Judge in Utah didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Oklahoma didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Kentucky didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Virginia didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Texas didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Ohio didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Michigan didn't understand the Windsor decision.​

They vacated the Perry issue because of the people's standing, not the merits of the case itself.

They vacated the 9th Circuit Courts decision to allow non-government entities acting in a private capacity to appeal. The District Court Judges decision was not vacated because the the government acted in it's capacity in defending the law and therefore acted in proper "standing" capacity.

It isn't. And that hard lesson is going to hit home very soon methinks.

One side or the other is going to be in for a rude awakening and to tell you the truth I'm not sure which side it will be, but consider.

1. The left wing of the court (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) were in the majority establishing Marriage Equality at the federal level (they have not addressed it at the state level).

2. The right wing of the court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) were in the minority.

3. The swing vote will again likely be the moderate which is Kennedy.

4. Kennedy was in the majority in (joining Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) to over turn DOMA and spearheaded the decision by writing it.

5. Kennedy was also in the majority and authored the Romer v. Evans decision overturning a Colorado ballot initiative discriminatory against homosexuals. (The decision BTW that puts a steak in the heart of your claim that homosexuality is a "behavior" and therefore they are not included in "All persons" under the 14th Amendment. Romer specifically cited the 14th in ruling Colorado's action as unconstitutional.)


I never claim that SSCM will be a slam dunk win at the SCOTUS, I don't claim it will be a slam dunk lose either. Personally I'd give odd's at about 60:40 SSCM wins, if the court grants review. I think they are going to do everything in their power to dodge the issue - but with multiple appeals working through multiple District Court of Appeals they probably won't.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

1. The left wing of the court (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) were in the majority establishing Marriage Equality at the federal level (they have not addressed it at the state level).

2. The right wing of the court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) were in the minority.

3. The swing vote will again likely be the moderate which is Kennedy.

4. Kennedy was in the majority in (joining Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) to over turn DOMA and spearheaded the decision by writing it.

5. Kennedy was also in the majority and authored the Romer v. Evans decision overturning a Colorado ballot initiative discriminatory against homosexuals. (The decision BTW that puts a steak in the heart of your claim that homosexuality is a "behavior" and therefore they are not included in "All persons" under the 14th Amendment. Romer specifically cited the 14th in ruling Colorado's action as unconstitutional.)


I never claim that SSCM will be a slam dunk win at the SCOTUS, I don't claim it will be a slam dunk lose either. Personally I'd give odd's at about 60:40 SSCM wins, if the court grants review. I think they are going to do everything in their power to dodge the issue - but with multiple appeals working through multiple District Court of Appeals they probably won't.



>>>>

No, they are done dodging. The delay in clarity was done by the conservative Justices precisely to time the "bomb" to fall on the eve of the pivotal 2014 elections.

Bearing that in mind, how now do you think the Justices will Decide? I can guarantee you the decision will lay to rest the question of who gets to decided if gay marriage is legal or not. It has come to a head.

They will either have to completely rewrite Windsor and their conclusions that the broadest consensus possible is necessary to ratify gay marriage in each separate state, or they will have to reaffirm what they said as to that in Windsor.

In such a short time span, which do you think it will be? I'd put the odds 60:40 too, only against same sex marriage forcing itself via judicial fiat and rogue authority sedition in the several states. My bet is that it will be left up to each state's widest consensus and that gays will have to pitch their case state by state and if they succeed, THEN they will be legally married in that particular state but that doesn't mean they can be married in all 50 by extension of a non existent "civil right" to do so like in Loving.

Race, gender, country of origin and religion. Behaviors need not apply.. Kennedy is famous for kneejerk decisions and those not being well thought out. This Court is a funny bird in that because of their highly political leanings, they are having to mop up quite a few messes in not thinking through precedent. This behavioral question is one of those. If the Court sets a precedent for the 14th that behaviors are included, they cannot shut the door on other behaviors arbitrarily "because they are objectionable to the majority populace". This sets into place an extraordinarly erosive legal state where penal and civil codes across the nation will start to unravel as minority behavior groups that are objectionable to the majority will start demanding their day in Court as to the unwieldy and extraordinarily foolhardy precedent.

I think Kennedy will sit down and think that one through...he'd better.. Can you imagine unwittingly upsetting the entire penal and civil codes by a foolish & blind politicallly-correct mistake like that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. The left wing of the court (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) were in the majority establishing Marriage Equality at the federal level (they have not addressed it at the state level).

2. The right wing of the court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) were in the minority.

3. The swing vote will again likely be the moderate which is Kennedy.

4. Kennedy was in the majority in (joining Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) to over turn DOMA and spearheaded the decision by writing it.

5. Kennedy was also in the majority and authored the Romer v. Evans decision overturning a Colorado ballot initiative discriminatory against homosexuals. (The decision BTW that puts a steak in the heart of your claim that homosexuality is a "behavior" and therefore they are not included in "All persons" under the 14th Amendment. Romer specifically cited the 14th in ruling Colorado's action as unconstitutional.)


I never claim that SSCM will be a slam dunk win at the SCOTUS, I don't claim it will be a slam dunk lose either. Personally I'd give odd's at about 60:40 SSCM wins, if the court grants review. I think they are going to do everything in their power to dodge the issue - but with multiple appeals working through multiple District Court of Appeals they probably won't.



>>>>

Bearing that in mind, how now do you think the Justices will Decide?

See above.

I can guarantee you the decision will lay to rest the question of who gets to decided if gay marriage is legal or not. It has come to a head.

I think they'd like to dodge for a couple of more years, but I don't think they will be able to do that.

My guess is they will have appeals starting in the October 2014 term, given the time for briefs and responses it will be spring 2015 for oral arguments and they will not issue a decision until June 2015. But I could be wrong, they may expedite and issue an earlier decision.

They will either have to completely rewrite Windsor and their conclusions that the broadest consensus possible is necessary to ratify gay marriage in each separate state, or they will have to reaffirm what they said as to that in Windsor.

No they won't as Windor had nothing to do with whether states could say "No", you can try to twist the dicta, :shurg: knock yourself out. The fact remains that the court said in Windsor that state actions were still bound by Constitutional guarentees, whether those guarentees apply to same-sex couples as it applied to Civil Marriage - the court did not address.

Race, gender, country of origin and religion. Behaviors need not apply..

Romer v. Evans shows that the 14th does apply to homoseuxals.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

They will either have to completely rewrite Windsor and their conclusions that the broadest consensus possible is necessary to ratify gay marriage in each separate state, or they will have to reaffirm what they said as to that in Windsor.

No they won't as Windor had nothing to do with whether states could say "No", you can try to twist the dicta, :shurg: knock yourself out. The fact remains that the court said in Windsor that state actions were still bound by Constitutional guarentees, whether those guarentees apply to same-sex couples as it applied to Civil Marriage - the court did not address.



>>>>

You are abosolutely 100% wrong about that pal. They avered that each state could define via a broad consensus who may or may not marry within their boundaries. And they Avered that retroactively to the founding of the country. They defined that gay marriage is a weird new idea that is testing the waters of social acceptance; that traditional marriage outweighed it in the minds of the populace for some thousands of years.

They even specified repeatedly that a state's "unquestioned authority" as to gay marriage was "central to" Windsor's conclusions. A consensus does not mean "the mandate to always say yes". It is a CHOICE to say yes OR no.

So unless you are saying they're going to undo the premise that state's have the unquestioned authority as to marriage, you are going to have to accept that their conclusion on Windsor based on that is not going to be so hastily undone.

Windsor has EVERYTHING to do with avering state's rights to choose yes or no. It was declared as the central theme of Windsor.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They will either have to completely rewrite Windsor and their conclusions that the broadest consensus possible is necessary to ratify gay marriage in each separate state, or they will have to reaffirm what they said as to that in Windsor.

No they won't as Windor had nothing to do with whether states could say "No", you can try to twist the dicta, :shurg: knock yourself out. The fact remains that the court said in Windsor that state actions were still bound by Constitutional guarentees, whether those guarentees apply to same-sex couples as it applied to Civil Marriage - the court did not address.



>>>>

You are abosolutely 100% wrong about that pal.

It's not my opinion, that is the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. If you have a problem with that you might want to correspond with Chief Justice Roberts:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to
point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does
not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not
decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage."​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Windsor has EVERYTHING to do with avering state's rights to choose yes or no. It was declared as the central theme of Windsor.

Incorrect, the "central theme" (as in the question before the court) was - to paraphrase - if a State says "Yes" to SSCM can the Federal government discriminate against those couples and say "No"? Windsor answered that question, and that question only and the decision was "No they can't".


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Incorrect, the "central theme" (as in the question before the court) was - to paraphrase - if a State says "Yes" to SSCM can the Federal government discriminate against those couples and say "No"? Windsor answered that question, and that question only and the decision was "No they can't".


>>>>

Pray tell, how does a State say "yes" to gay marriage? You actually don't need to answer that because the US Supreme Court did in Windsor:

United States v. Windsor

Page 14

After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood."

That is a broad consensus. They had more to say about that here:

Page 16

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,see , e.g., Loving v.Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”..

..[page 17]

...(“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”...

. [page 18]

...The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”...

...Against this background DOMA rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next. Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

[page 19]

...In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other.

So the large-swath of the public getting together in a given state and voting in gay marriage is what won the day in Windsor. Period. It was and is pivotal in how that case was resolved.

A consensus is not also going to be redefined in the dictionary by the church of LGBT is it? Because you well know that a consensus in any given state is a CHOICE on a given topic to say "yes" or "no" to it.

The Court has spoken. The only thing that would grant the cult of LGBT the right across 50 to marry would be the 14th. And since they've not applied for official federal recognition as a religion, they don't qualify on any other account. Besides, the Court brought up Loving in Windsor and then went on to say that gay marriage as of its Decision was "only allowed" "in some states"... There's your sign..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Pray tell, how does a State say "yes" to gay marriage?

The same way the 12 Jurisdiction noted in Windsor did:

1. At the ballot box

2. By legislative action

3. By Judicial action when discriminatory laws are found in violation of the governing law. This has happened in two "modes" if you will. In some cases State discriminatory laws were found in violation of their own State's Constitution. In the case of Prop 8 it was found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution.


The "State" said "yes", the only aspect that the Windsor decision addressed. At least according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Pray tell, how does a State say "yes" to gay marriage?

The same way the 12 Jurisdiction noted in Windsor did:

1. At the ballot box

2. By legislative action

3. By Judicial action when discriminatory laws are found in violation of the governing law. This has happened in two "modes" if you will. In some cases State discriminatory laws were found in violation of their own State's Constitution. In the case of Prop 8 it was found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution.


The "State" said "yes", the only aspect that the Windsor decision addressed. At least according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

>>>>

Bullshit. You will not read what Windsor actually said? It said after a long deliberation involving the public, New York decided to say 'yes' to gay marriage and that THAT was the right way to determine it as constitutionally-protected and avered. It specifically mentioned how New York came to its decision and it went into great detail that a wide chunk of the public needs to be involved because the concept of gay marriage is new and weird. Read DOMA. I guarantee you that if you don't read DOMA, Utah's lawyers will and will be intimately familiar with it since they cited it in their appeal directly.

A state cannot be simultaneously allowed and instructed as to its "unquestioned authority" to a consensus on gay marriage and at the same time judges allowed to overrule that unquestioned preeminance on a whim in violation of the "unquestioned authority" Finding.

It was a constitutional Finding BTW. Lower courts may not pass rulings in direct conflict with the US Supreme Court.

Any state where a judge attempted to overturn the sovereignty of a state with regards to this question on gay marriage and rightful consensus of that state is a state who has had their rights illegally removed from them by one person. That is the definition of sedition. And is a rightful cause to remove that judge from the bench. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Worse, knowledge of the law and an active willful attempt to circumvent it and rightful democracy by such a person in a position of power is sedition.

If I was one of these activist judges, I'd be very, very nervous for my job.. Their actions do not trump lawful consensus. Any state where such a thing happened has no legal gay marriage. That will come out in the wash. If there is a question as to legality in any given state, the weight was given to a "consensus" arriving at that decision. Legislatures and judicial actions are inferior to the consensus. Read DOMA. Pages 14-22 for sure at least in the "Opinion of the Court". The Court came down specifically and heavily on the side of the widest possible cross section of the public weighing in on gay marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Pray tell, how does a State say "yes" to gay marriage?

The same way the 12 Jurisdiction noted in Windsor did:

1. At the ballot box

2. By legislative action

3. By Judicial action when discriminatory laws are found in violation of the governing law. This has happened in two "modes" if you will. In some cases State discriminatory laws were found in violation of their own State's Constitution. In the case of Prop 8 it was found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution.


The "State" said "yes", the only aspect that the Windsor decision addressed. At least according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

>>>>

Bullshit. You will not read what Windsor actually said?

The court acknowledged that SSCM was legal in New York and 11 other states and DC. Those states had legal same-sex Civil Marriage achieved in different ways: some judicially, some legislatively, and some at the ballot box.

Under your premise (that SSCM can only achieved at the ballot box) then the Court would have dismissed the case because New York passed SSCM legislatively and would NOT have been included in the 3 states that passed in at the ballot box.

Yet the court recognized it as legal in New York.

"Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of
New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for
same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment
to one another before their children, their family, their
friends, and their community. And so New York recognized
same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then
it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same
-sex marriage. 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. After a
statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to
discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-
sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of
marriage to correct what its citizens and elected repre
-sentatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not
earlier known or understood. See Marriage Equality Act,
2011 N. Y. Laws 749 (codified at N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law Ann.
§§10–a, 10–b, 13 (West 2013))"​

It was a constitutional Finding BTW. Lower courts may not pass rulings in direct conflict with the US Supreme Court.

No court has issued a ruling in conflict with Windsor as Windsor did not rule on whether a State can say "Yes" or "No" to SSCM. Windsor only ruled on the issue of when a State says "Yes" can the Federal government discriminate against those legally married couples. Their answer was "No".

If you think anything else, write a letter to the Chief Justice who said that very thing, maybe he can explain it better to you.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

But because 14 year old cousins can get married in Alabama, doesn't mean that therefore "all 14 year old cousins can get married in all 50 states".



Each state sets its own rules for who can marry. Currently only 3 states have legal gay marriage according to the objective rendering of the Windsor Ruling.

That's not what I said. 14 year old 1st cousins that marry in Alabama where it is legal are still married in California where it is not legally to marry your 14 year old 1st cousin.



I'd be fine if SSM were exactly like 1st cousin and 14 year old marriages...the state can choose whether or not to perform such marriages, but not whether or not to recognize them.

Well that's a good thing because that's how it is and how it will be. You understand of course that you just said "I'd be happy knowing I wasn't legally married in California" where I assume you were since you live there. By the state-consensus definition, gay marriage has never been legal in California. And there are going to be a lot of folks very disappointed that judicial sedition was not a successful legislative attempt. There are ways that laws are made and there are ways that they are not. Successfully haven stolen something when a judge said "free theft is legal now despite the laws" doesn't mean you don't have to give the merchandise back when the sedition is overruled.



So those married in the 3 states where gay marriage is legal can be recognized. Those poor 3 states might though quite quickly repeal their laws if they recognize the red carpet they just rolled out for the LGBT cult. I hope they have excellent healthcare programs there. The "G" component of LGBT gets very pricey on healthcare at a very young age usually. And then statistically they become indigent...so there's that too. And of course the "B" component of LGBT will make sure that the disease quickly spreads into the hetero population there. So a drastic increase in disease and preventable death, expensive medicines and a lingering pricey illness rate will all be part of the "economic boon" to these states supposedly going to be "made rich" by gay marriage revenues..



In fact a friend of mine worked with a gay guy, flamer, liked to dress up in women's clothes on his off hours at the bars. He was constantly calling in sick. Kept having to see his "special doctor", kept getting thinner and thinner, not throwing off colds and flus like everyone else. He finally had to quit just recently and told people he was going in the peace corp. Calls from a friend of his show that he didn't do that and that instead he's likely becoming homeless where they tracked him down. The truth is he was too weak to work anymore. Too sick. He's in his mid-20s. He will linger on for several more years, maybe. Probably been on the expensive medicines for 10 years now if he got HIV like the upswing trend is now in boys ages 13-24 when he was very young. This is what normalizing gay will bring to the state who legalizes "gay marriage". Buyer beware..

No, that's not "how it is" but it will be when the rest of DOMA is struck down.

 

[Silhouette]

No, that's not "how it is" but it will be when the rest of DOMA is struck down.

For L, G, B & T? How about P? or I? Minors? What makes LGBT so exclusive anyway?

These are questions that will come up. You really think this SCOTUS is going to be the one to legalize polygamy in Utah eh?

I have my doubts..

 

[Silhouette]

No court has issued a ruling in conflict with Windsor as Windsor did not rule on whether a State can say "Yes" or "No" to SSCM. Windsor only ruled on the issue of when a State says "Yes" can the Federal government discriminate against those legally married couples. Their answer was "No".

Wrong. They ruled constitutionally and specifically on HOW New York arrived at its decision, not just that it arrived at a decision. In fact it was the Court's avid interest in its opinion to delineate just exactly how they felt a decision should be best arrived at on gay marriage in each state and WHY they delineated it this way. They said a broad swath should be involved because gay marriage is weird and new, preceded by thousands of years' tradition of normal marriage:

United States v. Windsor

[Page 13]

..It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it,became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight....

[Various pages from 14-22]

......it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

...In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v.United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other....

......For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State [New York] acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State [New York] worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality....

...The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion...

..After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood....

The defiance is in several judges who know how to read the above and who took it upon themselves to remove the constituitonal finding in DOMA that each state's citizens are entitled to weigh in via a consensus on gay marriage. Even when those states HAD ALREADY weighed in via constitutionally-protected consensus; and passed laws defining the privelege of marriage to exclude gays, polygamists and others, judges simply became dictators and told those states "your laws born from your constitutionally-protected right to consensus as to defining marriage, Upheld in Windsor, are no longer valid. I am the law now".

People used to get strung up by their neckties for this level of defiance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. They ruled constitutionally and specifically on HOW New York arrived at its decision, not just that it arrived at a decision.

You've said in previous post that SSCM is only legal in 3 states, one would assume you are referring to those ballot initiatives passed.

The SCOTUS in Windsor recognized the 12 States + DC. New York was not one of the states with a ballot initiative and of the other's there were 3 with ballot intiatives, some with legislative passage, and some with Judicial action. The SCOTUS recognized them all as valid.

The defiance is in several judges who know how to read the above and who took it upon themselves to remove the constituitonal finding in DOMA that each state's citizens are entitled to weigh in via a consensus on gay marriage. Even when those states HAD ALREADY weighed in via constitutionally-protected consensus; and passed laws defining the privelege of marriage to exclude gays, polygamists and others, judges simply became dictators and told those states "your laws born from your constitutionally-protected right to consensus as to defining marriage, Upheld in Windsor, are no longer valid. I am the law now".

People used to get strung up by their neckties for this level of defiance.

See that is where you are wrong. Everyone doesn't understand the Windsor ruling except for Silhouette.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - who noted in court documents that - the Windsor decision DOES NOT address whether states can say "no" and only confirms that if States say "Yes" it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to say "No".

The California Supreme Court didn't understand the Windsor decision when they refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The California Governor and Attorney General allowed SSCM to resume in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The SCOTUS didn't understand it's own ruling in the Windsor decision when they refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The Federal Judge in Utah didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Oklahoma didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Kentucky didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Virginia didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Texas didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Ohio didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Michigan didn't understand the Windsor decision.​

See, they are all wrong, from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to state officials and to District Court Judges. None have the legal acumen to match those of Sil. She's right, everyone else is wrong.



>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong. They ruled constitutionally and specifically on HOW New York arrived at its decision, not just that it arrived at a decision.

You've said in previous post that SSCM is only legal in 3 states, one would assume you are referring to those ballot initiatives passed.

The SCOTUS in Windsor recognized the 12 States + DC. New York was not one of the states with a ballot initiative and of the other's there were 3 with ballot intiatives, some with legislative passage, and some with Judicial action. The SCOTUS recognized them all as valid.

Good points. The Court though cannot enjoy the luxury of both Upholding that each sovereign state has a constitutional-right retroactive to the founding of the country to a consensus on defining marriage AND at the same time qualify to have that right taken away from them.

They will have to clarify which diametrially opposed statement they meant to be binding. I can venture a guess though. It's probably the one where they said "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"...for all the reasons they stated from the Windsor quote in my last post..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. They ruled constitutionally and specifically on HOW New York arrived at its decision, not just that it arrived at a decision.

You've said in previous post that SSCM is only legal in 3 states, one would assume you are referring to those ballot initiatives passed.

The SCOTUS in Windsor recognized the 12 States + DC. New York was not one of the states with a ballot initiative and of the other's there were 3 with ballot intiatives, some with legislative passage, and some with Judicial action. The SCOTUS recognized them all as valid.

Good points. The Court though cannot enjoy the luxury of both Upholding that each sovereign state has a constitutional-right retroactive to the founding of the country to a consensus on defining marriage AND at the same time qualify to have that right taken away from them.

They will have to clarify which diametrially opposed statement they meant to be binding. I can venture a guess though. It's probably the one where they said "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"...for all the reasons they stated from the Windsor quote in my last post..

There is no "diametrical" opposition here. For someone that reads the briefs and reads the decision in the context of the questions being asked - Windsor is very consistent. A State extended Civil Marriage to same-sex couples resulting in legally married couples being treated differently by the Federal government due to DOMA. Different-sex couples were treated one way, same-sex couples were treated a different way (basically their legal status was ignored). What the court said was that when the State says "Yes", the Fed's can't say "No" just so they can discriminate against homosexuals.

That is what the Chief Justice indicated in his writing on the opinion. The issue of whether State can discriminate against homosexuals in the realm of Civil Marriage is still open as the court did not address that at all. That will be another case, likely one (or a combined) case currently working through the Circuit Court level.

The only "diametric" conflict exists for those taking small snippets out of context in an attempt to take dicta and turn it into stare decisis. As Justice Kennedy wrote (page 2 of the opinion) "Section 3 is the issue here" referring to Section 3 of DOMA. The case revolved around federal law, not state law.

Whether states are violating the "Constitutional guarantees" of equal treatment (a limit that still applies, as noted in the Windsor decision) is a question not yet answered at the SCOTUS level. However every District Court (and there are multiple) that has examined the issue since the Windsor decision defined that the Federal government can't discriminate against homosexuals has applied the logic of Windsor in ruling State bans as also unconstitutional.

Now it's just a waiting game. The SCOTUS will either say, no - you got the interpretation of Windsor wrong - and here is why. Or they will affirm that homosexuals are included under "All persons" the the requirement for equal treatment under the law. In the near future it's going to go one way or the other, they won't be able to "punt" like they did with the Prop 8 decision allowing SSCM to remain legal in California by dismissing the appeal based on standing.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

You've said in previous post that SSCM is only legal in 3 states, one would assume you are referring to those ballot initiatives passed.

The SCOTUS in Windsor recognized the 12 States + DC. New York was not one of the states with a ballot initiative and of the other's there were 3 with ballot intiatives, some with legislative passage, and some with Judicial action. The SCOTUS recognized them all as valid.

Good points. The Court though cannot enjoy the luxury of both Upholding that each sovereign state has a constitutional-right retroactive to the founding of the country to a consensus on defining marriage AND at the same time qualify to have that right taken away from them.

They will have to clarify which diametrially opposed statement they meant to be binding. I can venture a guess though. It's probably the one where they said "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"...for all the reasons they stated from the Windsor quote in my last post..

There is no "diametrical" opposition here. For someone that reads the briefs and reads the decision in the context of the questions being asked - Windsor is very consistent. A State extended Civil Marriage to same-sex couples resulting in legally married couples being treated differently by the Federal government due to DOMA. Different-sex couples were treated one way, same-sex couples were treated a different way (basically their legal status was ignored). What the court said was that when the State says "Yes", the Fed's can't say "No" just so they can discriminate against homosexuals.

That is what the Chief Justice indicated in his writing on the opinion. The issue of whether State can discriminate against homosexuals in the realm of Civil Marriage is still open as the court did not address that at all. That will be another case, likely one (or a combined) case currently working through the Circuit Court level.

The only "diametric" conflict exists for those taking small snippets out of context in an attempt to take dicta and turn it into stare decisis. As Justice Kennedy wrote (page 2 of the opinion) "Section 3 is the issue here" referring to Section 3 of DOMA. The case revolved around federal law, not state law.

Whether states are violating the "Constitutional guarantees" of equal treatment (a limit that still applies, as noted in the Windsor decision) is a question not yet answered at the SCOTUS level. However every District Court (and there are multiple) that has examined the issue since the Windsor decision defined that the Federal government can't discriminate against homosexuals has applied the logic of Windsor in ruling State bans as also unconstitutional.

Now it's just a waiting game. The SCOTUS will either say, no - you got the interpretation of Windsor wrong - and here is why. Or they will affirm that homosexuals are included under "All persons" the the requirement for equal treatment under the law. In the near future it's going to go one way or the other, they won't be able to "punt" like they did with the Prop 8 decision allowing SSCM to remain legal in California by dismissing the appeal based on standing.



>>>>

And now it's just a race to see who gets to be first. Some states are trying to Fast Track...

Full Court Review Of Michigan Gay Marriage Decision Sought By State AG Bill Schuette

I really don't know which state I'm rooting for since I haven't looked at each individual challenge, but the poetic justice of Virginia being the state that makes it to the SCOTUS first is compelling.

 

[Silhouette]

I really don't know which state I'm rooting for since I haven't looked at each individual challenge, but the poetic justice of Virginia being the state that makes it to the SCOTUS first is compelling.

So in spite of the following, you still believe that gay marriage is just a rubber stamp away from being shoved on the 50 states, right?

[Page 13]

..It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it,became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight....

[Various pages from 14-22]

......it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

...In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v.United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other....

......For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State [New York] acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State [New York] worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality....

...The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion...

..After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood.... United States v. Windsor

From reading what They said in Windsor, I'm thinking when weighing who gets the say on gay marriage and how it's arrived at will fall more heavily on the side of a state's consensus instead of one activist judge or a few legislators overriding the Will of their Governed..

 

[Seawytch]

See...Virginia!

Virginia Gay Marriage Fight Echoes Past Battle Over Interracial Marriage

Hirschkop, now 77 and living in Lorton, Va., represented the Lovings before the Supreme Court along with Bernard S. Cohen. He said that case and the same-sex case represented the culmination of a change in societal attitude.

"Loving had reached its time. Enough was enough at that point," he said. "And that's the story of the same-sex marriage now. It's reached its time."

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Remember all the comments about how "behavior" isn't protected under the law. (Ignoring the fact that religion is a behavior and wanting to Civilly Marry someone of a differnt race is a behavior.)


The Supreme Court today ruled that it would not review the New Mexico Photographer case which validates New Mexico's Public Accommodation law that includes race, religion, ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation as reasons for which businesses cannot deny full and equal goods and services.


Under the "Rule of 4" it only takes 4 justices to hear a case. That means amongst the conservative wing of the court at least one (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or Scalia) voted not to review the case.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>

Remember all the comments about how "behavior" isn't protected under the law. (Ignoring the fact that religion is a behavior and wanting to Civilly Marry someone of a differnt race is a behavior.)

Where's your application for federal recognition and tax-exempt status? LGBT is a religion, or more properly a cult. But it isn't federally recognized, so... all you have left in the 14th is race, gender or country of origin. Fail, fail and fail.

So you're stuck trying to make a class status for a group of compulsive behaviors turned into a faith of sorts. And that's going to be a tricky pitch. Giving special status to a group of behaviors that the majority finds objectionable could set a very dangerous precedent for other behaviors objectionable to the majority to follow.

You're advocating the demolishing of democracy and majority rule. What else is there for the majority to pass laws regarding if not human behaviors?