Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

All of it really? Even my citations and links?

Cite for me how many times in Windsor 2013 the federal Court mentions how states have the final say on marraige under the specific question of same-sex marriage. My count is 56 times in 26 pages.

That's 56 citations in Windsor of State marriage law being supreme over Federal Marriage law.

But that's not the basis of the challenges to same sex marriage bans that the USSC is hearing this year. The violation of constitutional guarantees is the basis of every such challenge...

Exactly where in the Constitution is it mentioned that any conceivable lifestyle has the "civil right" to marry across all 50 states as a mandate? If your attorneys cite cases about race, be advised, the Anne Heche problem is going to come up...along with the reasons why states are involved in incentivizing marriage to begin with: to incentivize the best known formative environment for kids. See Prince's Trust study for details on how kids without their own gender represented as a daily adult role model can be damaging to them.

Wolves can raise kids. So can single parents and polygamists. That doesn't mean those alternative "parents" should be incentivized by a given state's discreet community without the majority weighing in on the new proposed "lifestyle experiment". There are kids to consider. And into the unforseen future. They will be discussed at this Hearing..

 

[Skylar]

Exactly where in the Constitution is it mentioned that any conceivable lifestyle has the "civil right" to marry across all 50 states as a mandate.

The constitution mandates that citizens receive equal protection under the law. With the 14th amendment holding the very constitutional guarantees that the court will address in their upcoming ruling in June.

As for how the court is going to rule, riddle me this, batman: Who wrote the following about the inevitability of the USSC overturning state gay marriage bans, using the same logic in Windsor?

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion ante, at 22:

“This state law’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages constitution-ally protected sexual relationships, see Lawrence, and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like govern-mental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And this state law contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State enjoying constitutionally protected sexual relationships, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.”

This person not only feels that the Windsor ruling indicates that the USSC will overturn gay marriage bans by the State, but that SCOTUS will use the legal reasoning of the Windsor decision to do it. He has concluded that such an outcome is inevitable.

Name that source!

 

[Syriusly]

All of it really? Even my citations and links?

Cite for me how many times in Windsor 2013 the federal Court mentions how states have the final say on marraige under the specific question of same-sex marriage. My count is 56 times in 26 pages.

That's 56 citations in Windsor of State marriage law being supreme over Federal Marriage law.

But that's not the basis of the challenges to same sex marriage bans that the USSC is hearing this year. The violation of constitutional guarantees is the basis of every such challenge...

Exactly where in the Constitution is it mentioned that any conceivable lifestyle has the "civil right" to marry across all 50 states as a mandate? ..

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. But marriage is a right.

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Nothing more- nothing less.

 

[danielpalos]

All of it really? Even my citations and links?

Cite for me how many times in Windsor 2013 the federal Court mentions how states have the final say on marraige under the specific question of same-sex marriage. My count is 56 times in 26 pages.

That's 56 citations in Windsor of State marriage law being supreme over Federal Marriage law.

But that's not the basis of the challenges to same sex marriage bans that the USSC is hearing this year. The violation of constitutional guarantees is the basis of every such challenge...

Exactly where in the Constitution is it mentioned that any conceivable lifestyle has the "civil right" to marry across all 50 states as a mandate? ..

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. But marriage is a right.

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Nothing more- nothing less.

Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in Any conflict of laws under the authority of the United States.

 

[Silhouette]

Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in Any conflict of laws under the authority of the United States.

Here's what that says (I'll provide the text and the link when y'all won't) Article IV - National Constitution Center

SECTION. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

So the privelege of marriage shall be extended to any conceivable combination of consenting adults. Children too I suppose, since they also are citizens. Right? Or are some more equal than others?

The problem you are going to run into is that each state gets to define marriage. Then, once defined, all people in that region may enjoy that definition. It is also a privelege to drive, but doing so while legally blind means you will cause harm to others while driving. Being of the same gender "as a couple or group" means that you are not going to be doing parenting adequately. So your "union" will cause harm to others: namely children who depend upon marriage meaning "both adult genders as parents/role models", not just one of them.

Consult the Prince's Trust study for details. http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Children have civil rights too; perhaps the most important of all since they cannot vote to affect their circumstances. They aren't possessions or slaves that are "of a secondary consideration" when defining marriage. They are in fact the primary concern of marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in Any conflict of laws under the authority of the United States.

Here's what that says (I'll provide the text and the link when y'all won't) Article IV - National Constitution Center

SECTION. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

So the privelege of marriage shall be extended to any conceivable combination of consenting adults. Children too I suppose, since they also are citizens. Right? Or are some more equal than others?

The problem you are going to run into is that each state gets to define marriage. Then, once defined, all people in that region may enjoy that definition. It is also a privelege to drive, but doing so while legally blind means you will cause harm to others while driving. Being of the same gender "as a couple or group" means that you are not going to be doing parenting adequately. So your "union" will cause harm to others: namely children who depend upon marriage meaning "both adult genders as parents/role models", not just one of them.

Consult the Prince's Trust study for details. http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Children have civil rights too; perhaps the most important of all since they cannot vote to affect their circumstances. They aren't possessions or slaves that are "of a secondary consideration" when defining marriage. They are in fact the primary concern of marriage.

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Silhouette]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

Which races may marry each other didn't disrupt the structure that has always been "marriage". Same-sex marriage and other lifestyles seek to dismantle the structure of the word marriage since they are about lifestyles and not races. As such, a massive change to the essential structure of marriage needs the weigh-in of the Governed and not some lofty mandate handed down from five people of which the majority numbering in the 100s of millions disapprove of and find utterly repugnant.

 

[Syriusly]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?.

Because the Supreme Court qualified the references and said 'subject to Constitutional guarantees' referencing Loving v. Virginia as an example.

 

[danielpalos]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

Which races may marry each other didn't disrupt the structure that has always been "marriage". Same-sex marriage and other lifestyles seek to dismantle the structure of the word marriage since they are about lifestyles and not races. As such, a massive change to the essential structure of marriage needs the weigh-in of the Governed and not some lofty mandate handed down from five people of which the majority numbering in the 100s of millions disapprove of and find utterly repugnant.

Because they don't mind appealing to ignorance to see how many of their juniors, fall for it. It is an open book test.

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is commuted public, merely for the convenience of Statism through public Acts.

 

[Silhouette]

Because they don't mind appealing to ignorance to see how many of their juniors, fall for it. It is an open book test.

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is commuted public, merely for the convenience of Statism through public Acts.

You really think so? Because the Jrs on the Court are all liberals. You could be right but not in the direction you're thinking. Marriage outside law is whatever you want. When the state gets involved and gives you tax breaks etc. etc., it's for the good of the children involved: incentivizing the best formative structure for them in the home. and that, of course, is man/woman father/mother.

I think it really was an open book test for the liberal newbies on the Court. I think it was to see if they could count to 56 actually..

 

[Skylar]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

With every of those '56' referencing finding that State marriage law trumped federal marriage law. But that's not the question that the USSC is addressing in this years ruling on same sex marriage, is it?

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

This is.

And on the issue of constitutional guarantees, like those protected in the 14th amendment, the WIndsor ruling was quite clear that State marriage laws were subject to them.

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.

And its these constitutional guarantees that are the basis of every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the USSC this year.

Yet oddly....you ignore such constitutional guarantees and omit any mention of them in any of your citations of Windsor. Surely you realize that just because you ignore those constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court can't see them.

Right?

 

[Skylar]

Because they don't mind appealing to ignorance to see how many of their juniors, fall for it. It is an open book test.

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is commuted public, merely for the convenience of Statism through public Acts.

You really think so? Because the Jrs on the Court are all liberals. You could be right but not in the direction you're thinking. Marriage outside law is whatever you want. When the state gets involved and gives you tax breaks etc. etc., it's for the good of the children involved: incentivizing the best formative structure for them in the home. and that, of course, is man/woman father/mother.

The court took a pretty firm opinion on the children of same sex couples, and what the lack of recognition of the marriages of their parents did to them:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor V. US

Its highly unlikely that the SCOTUS is going to ignore itself and instead adopt whatever it is you choose to believe.

 

[Silhouette]

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples....

What about the children of monosexuals who by circumstances or choice wish to remain without a relationship? Or those of polysexuals (polygamists)?

In your opinion, are they being humilated too and what is the remedy for that? Their parent(s) changing their sexual orientation per chance?

You see the problems here.

Then there's the problem of marriage being the environment states incentivize for the best formation of children within it. Not just now, but for generations unseen, following any new precedent set to the structure of marriage itself being changed. Is it your position that we should use children of homosexual, monosexual and polysexual relationships to "see if it all works out over time"? Or do we listen to the Prince's Trust study that shows the detrimental effects of a child growing up in a home without his or her gender represented as an adult/parent?

 

[Skylar]

What about the children of monosexuals who by circumstances or choice wish to remain without a relationship? Or those of polysexuals (polygamists)?

Kennedy never mentions 'monosexuals', probably because that terms means those who have sex with only one gender. Nor has he ever mentioned 'polysexuals'. As that means someone who has sex with two genders.

Kennedy did say this, however:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor V. US

You seem rather eager to ignore Kennedy on the effects that denying gay marriage has on children. Its unlikely Kennedy is going to ignore himself, though.

Then there's the problem of marriage being the environment states incentivize for the best formation of children within it. Not just now, but for generations unseen, following any new precedent set to the structure of marriage itself being changed.

Your failing to note one rather enormous hole in your reasoning: gays and lesbians are having children anyway. If they're married, if they're not married, they're still having kids. Children exist in either scenario. So the question becomes......is it better for those children to have parents who are married, or parents who are not.

And the courts have definitely taken a side on this issue, citing all the harm done to children if they're parents aren't allowed to marry.

You can ignore the courts if you wish. Its unlikely they'll ignore themselves. So unlikely in fact, that we've come back to our Mystery Man who predicts that state gay marriage bans being overturned are 'inevitable'. And that the SCOTUS will use the logic of the Windsor decision to do it.

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Whoo is that Mystery Man. I've already told you he wears a black mu-mu professionally. That he's *really* well acquanted with the USSC and how they will likely vote. I'll give you two more hints.

He's bald! And his name sort of rhymes with 'Tortilla'.

Who is that Mystery Man?

 

[danielpalos]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

With every of those '56' referencing finding that State marriage law trumped federal marriage law. But that's not the question that the USSC is addressing in this years ruling on same sex marriage, is it?

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

This is.

And on the issue of constitutional guarantees, like those protected in the 14th amendment, the WIndsor ruling was quite clear that State marriage laws were subject to them.

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.

And its these constitutional guarantees that are the basis of every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the USSC this year.

Yet oddly....you ignore such constitutional guarantees and omit any mention of them in any of your citations of Windsor. Surely you realize that just because you ignore those constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court can't see them.

Right?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land, as declared and expressed, in Article 4, Section 2.

 

[danielpalos]

Because they don't mind appealing to ignorance to see how many of their juniors, fall for it. It is an open book test.

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is commuted public, merely for the convenience of Statism through public Acts.

You really think so? Because the Jrs on the Court are all liberals. You could be right but not in the direction you're thinking. Marriage outside law is whatever you want. When the state gets involved and gives you tax breaks etc. etc., it's for the good of the children involved: incentivizing the best formative structure for them in the home. and that, of course, is man/woman father/mother.

The court took a pretty firm opinion on the children of same sex couples, and what the lack of recognition of the marriages of their parents did to them:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor V. US

Its highly unlikely that the SCOTUS is going to ignore itself and instead adopt whatever it is you choose to believe.

It is Only any Appeal to Ignorance of the law that failed them. There is no "passing the buck" regarding Appeals to Ignorance of the law.

 

[Skylar]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

With every of those '56' referencing finding that State marriage law trumped federal marriage law. But that's not the question that the USSC is addressing in this years ruling on same sex marriage, is it?

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

This is.

And on the issue of constitutional guarantees, like those protected in the 14th amendment, the WIndsor ruling was quite clear that State marriage laws were subject to them.

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.

And its these constitutional guarantees that are the basis of every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the USSC this year.

Yet oddly....you ignore such constitutional guarantees and omit any mention of them in any of your citations of Windsor. Surely you realize that just because you ignore those constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court can't see them.

Right?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land, as declared and expressed, in Article 4, Section 2.

Article 4 section 2 is ambiguous.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

The court has interpretted this to mean that a state may not favor the citizens of its state over the citizens of another. Texas couldn't impose a California tax on residents of California who moved to Texas to become reisdents. Those new Texas citizens had to be treated the same as any other Texas citizen.

While that finding may have some relevance to married same sex couples moving into a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, it would have no applicability to marriages performed within a state.

Which is one of the big questions facing the court.

What you call an appeal to ignorance is simply a lack of applicable legal precedent to be relevant to the big questions that the court faces this year with gay marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

With every of those '56' referencing finding that State marriage law trumped federal marriage law. But that's not the question that the USSC is addressing in this years ruling on same sex marriage, is it?

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

This is.

And on the issue of constitutional guarantees, like those protected in the 14th amendment, the WIndsor ruling was quite clear that State marriage laws were subject to them.

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.

And its these constitutional guarantees that are the basis of every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the USSC this year.

Yet oddly....you ignore such constitutional guarantees and omit any mention of them in any of your citations of Windsor. Surely you realize that just because you ignore those constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court can't see them.

Right?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land, as declared and expressed, in Article 4, Section 2.

Article 4 section 2 is ambiguous.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

The court has interpretted this to mean that a state may not favor the citizens of its state over the citizens of another. Texas couldn't impose a California tax on residents of California who moved to Texas to become reisdents. Those new Texas citizens had to be treated the same as any other Texas citizen.

While that finding may have some relevance to married same sex couples moving into a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, it would have no applicability to marriages performed within a state.

Which is one of the big questions facing the court.

What you call an appeal to ignorance is simply a lack of applicable legal precedent to be relevant to the big questions that the court faces this year with gay marriage.

Article 4, Section 2 is not ambiguous at all; it is only the appeals to ignorance of it that are ambiguous, since it was ratified by the several States and therefore, ceded as a sovereign State power.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"Marriage Equality"

Another comical leftist phraseiological construct we are supposed to embrace....NOT

 

[Skylar]

No. States don't get to define marriage. Article 4, Section 2 (which was ratified by the several States) and its State equivalents are more rational as any choice of law in Any conflict of laws, especially with this "mission statement" for civil Persons in our republic:

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

With every of those '56' referencing finding that State marriage law trumped federal marriage law. But that's not the question that the USSC is addressing in this years ruling on same sex marriage, is it?

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

This is.

And on the issue of constitutional guarantees, like those protected in the 14th amendment, the WIndsor ruling was quite clear that State marriage laws were subject to them.

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.

And its these constitutional guarantees that are the basis of every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the USSC this year.

Yet oddly....you ignore such constitutional guarantees and omit any mention of them in any of your citations of Windsor. Surely you realize that just because you ignore those constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court can't see them.

Right?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land, as declared and expressed, in Article 4, Section 2.

Article 4 section 2 is ambiguous.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

The court has interpretted this to mean that a state may not favor the citizens of its state over the citizens of another. Texas couldn't impose a California tax on residents of California who moved to Texas to become reisdents. Those new Texas citizens had to be treated the same as any other Texas citizen.

While that finding may have some relevance to married same sex couples moving into a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, it would have no applicability to marriages performed within a state.

Which is one of the big questions facing the court.

What you call an appeal to ignorance is simply a lack of applicable legal precedent to be relevant to the big questions that the court faces this year with gay marriage.

Article 4, Section 2 is not ambiguous at all; it is only the appeals to ignorance of it that are ambiguous, since it was ratified by the several States and therefore, ceded as a sovereign State power.

The disparate and wildly contradictory interpretations of its meaning throughout the history of our nation says otherwise. You can pretend that everyone has the same interpretation as you do if you'd like. But it simply isn't true.

And in terms of legal applicability, the interpretation of the court is authoritative. That you disagree with the court is legally irrelevant. As your personal opinion is not the basis by which we determine legal definitions or interpret the constitution. We use the judgement of the legislatures and the judiciary.