Oklahoma/Utah 10th Circuit May Lean To State Choice On Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Here's a helpful link you should read before you vote in the poll: http://www.scribd.com/doc/150138202/United-States-v-Windsor
In a possible echo of the latest Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action, it appears the 10th circuit might be taking a cue on state's right to govern themselves:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Lawyers for two Oklahoma women and the county clerk who would not give them a marriage license go before a federal appeals court with a familiar question for the judges: Did the state’s voters single out gay people for unfair treatment when they defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard similar issues in a Utah case last week, giving Oklahoma lawyers a preview of what questions they might face.

“Essentially, (the cases) are not that different,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Byron Babione, who is representing Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith. “Both of them involve challenges to state marriage amendments that were passed by an overwhelming majority of the people.”..

..U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who asked whether Utah’s same-sex marriage ban was similar to Virginia’s former ban on interracial marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ban 47 years ago.

Holmes also said, however, that gay marriages are a new concept for courts to address and that perhaps it is best to defer to the democratic process unless there is a compelling reason to step in.

...The Utah and Oklahoma cases are very similar: both involve bans on same-sex marriage passed by a majority of voters in 2004 - 76 percent in Oklahoma and 66 percent in Utah - and both bans were struck down by federal judges within a month of one another in December and January. The legal arguments for and against the ban are also similar.
Oklahoma gay-marriage case before U.S. appeals court - Washington Times

It seems to me the echo of Windsor is being heard in the halls of the 10th. Maybe the general public hasn't read Windsor. But it's remotely possible that the 10th District circuit judges have?

Windsor was clear. It said that gay marriage was a very new concept after thousands of years of traditional marriage being the definition of marriage. Holmes asked if the gay marriage issue was the same as Loving. Perhaps he wanted lawyers for the gay crowd to clarify how they felt race and sexual behaviors are one and the same and both applicable to Loving?

Now this is an odd thing too. How is it that a county clerk from Oklahoma was allowed to have standing to appeal to the 10th district on the question of denying a marriage license to two women and county clerks simultaneously in California were not allowed to appeal the Prop 8 quagmire?

 

[Avatar4321]

You mean they are actually going to listen to the 10th amendment? Im shocked.

 

[BlackFlag]

How is it that a county clerk from Oklahoma was allowed to have standing to appeal to the 10th district on the question of denying a marriage license to two women and county clerks simultaneously in California were not allowed to appeal the Prop 8 quagmire?

Perhaps because no ones rights were being trampled on in the case of prop 8?

 

[Silhouette]

Not just the 10th Amendment but also Windsor. Windsor declared states get to choose via the broadest consensus possible, retroactive to the founding of the country. The poll is really a test to see how well read the poster is on the Windsor case.

 

[Silhouette]

How is it that a county clerk from Oklahoma was allowed to have standing to appeal to the 10th district on the question of denying a marriage license to two women and county clerks simultaneously in California were not allowed to appeal the Prop 8 quagmire?

Perhaps because no ones rights were being trampled on in the case of prop 8?

Gays are trying to say they were being singled out by Prop 8. But they were not. "A man and a woman" means no polygamists either, nor minors. I believe also brothers and sisters mothers/son father/daughters cannot be married there either,

 

[Silhouette]

You mean they are actually going to listen to the 10th amendment? Im shocked.

“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931) . About the Tenth Amendment | Tenth Amendment Center

One of the Supreme Court Justices in the twin Windsor/Prop 8 cases reminded the attorneys for the LGBT culture that nowhere in the Constitution was it stated that the federal government controls who may or may not get married. Hopefuls for Loving would have to prove race equivalent to compulsive behaviors. Just some of them. For surely "LGBT" doesn't cover the gamut of potential future litigants when it comes to exceptions to state-defined "between a man and a woman"..

Equality is equality right? For everyone. Not JUST LGBT exceptions to the rule..

 

[Silhouette]

It's funny but the second Affirmative Action was left up to each state, the Seawytch, Jake Starkey, bodecea, Worldwatcher, C Clayton Jones gang in unison, dropped off the map on the gay marriage topic.

Green Bean noticed it over at the other thread to. Like someone threw a lght switch.

 

[GreenBean]

It's funny but the second Affirmative Action was left up to each state, the Seawytch, Jake Starkey, bodecea, Worldwatcher, C Clayton Jones gang in unison, dropped off the map on the gay marriage topic.

Green Bean noticed it over at the other thread to. Like someone threw a lght switch.

When presented will eloquent factual data, the Gay Mafia on USMB runs with their tails between their legs -it happens time and time again. To stand their ground risks further exposure of the depravity of their cause. It's dark side, and the damage their vile agenda is unleashing on society.

The Gay Mafia and it's Liberal lapdogs are not willing to accept a Democratic Society , they can't win under true Democracy - which is why they prefer to continuoslly push the ticket to an increasingly socio-fascist legal system. As silhouette has repeatedly pointed out - whenever and where ever the gay issue is put before the people - the perverts lose.

 

[KNB]

States don't have a right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual lifestyle unless there is a crime being involved. Being gay isn't a crime and gay marriage is not illegal, so gay marriage is allowed and no state can adopt a law banning it based on religion. Since there is no scientific justification for outlawing gay marriage, the only laws banning gay marriage have to be based on religious dogma.

States cannot adopt legislation that discriminates against citizens based on what is not a crime. The religious Republican right might not like that, but no one gives a shit what right-wing Republicans like because you're a bunch of god-damned traitors who drew guns against your country to defend a racist criminal.

 

[Silhouette]

States don't have a right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual lifestyle unless there is a crime being involved. Being gay isn't a crime and gay marriage is not illegal, so gay marriage is allowed and no state can adopt a law banning it based on religion. Since there is no scientific justification for outlawing gay marriage, the only laws banning gay marriage have to be based on religious dogma.

States cannot adopt legislation that discriminates against citizens based on what is not a crime. The religious Republican right might not like that, but no one gives a shit what right-wing Republicans like because you're a bunch of god-damned traitors who drew guns against your country to defend a racist criminal.

Then by your logic, polygamists and incest arrangements can also be married. Also minors. Being a polygamist isn't a crime. Neither is being a minor.

States can regulate marriage according to the behavior of those seeking to be married. Not race, behavior. Read Windsor. The Court isn't likely to overturn itself in such a short time. They said states get to decide.

 

[elektra]

I get to sell Oranges, as Lemons. I can make more money this way, and all Citrus is the same, and definitions mean nothing, so if you pay more thinking you're buying lemons, when I sold you oranges, its all good, yes?

marriage? gayrriage? are two men the same as a man and a woman?

why are we being dictated to, that we are to call things that are different the same thing?

 

[JoeB131]

You mean they are actually going to listen to the 10th amendment? Im shocked.

Not a tenth amendment issue. Marriage has already been found to be a constitutional right under Loving v. Virginia.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

States don't have a right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual lifestyle unless there is a crime being involved. Being gay isn't a crime and gay marriage is not illegal, so gay marriage is allowed and no state can adopt a law banning it based on religion. Since there is no scientific justification for outlawing gay marriage, the only laws banning gay marriage have to be based on religious dogma.

States cannot adopt legislation that discriminates against citizens based on what is not a crime. The religious Republican right might not like that, but no one gives a shit what right-wing Republicans like because you're a bunch of god-damned traitors who drew guns against your country to defend a racist criminal.

Youre completely incorrect in your thinking. No one is being discriminated against.

 

[Seawytch]

States don't have a right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual lifestyle unless there is a crime being involved. Being gay isn't a crime and gay marriage is not illegal, so gay marriage is allowed and no state can adopt a law banning it based on religion. Since there is no scientific justification for outlawing gay marriage, the only laws banning gay marriage have to be based on religious dogma.

States cannot adopt legislation that discriminates against citizens based on what is not a crime. The religious Republican right might not like that, but no one gives a shit what right-wing Republicans like because you're a bunch of god-damned traitors who drew guns against your country to defend a racist criminal.

Youre completely incorrect in your thinking. No one is being discriminated against.

Really? So all these Federal Courts that are finding anti gay marriage laws to be discriminatory are what...lying?

 

[Seawytch]

You mean they are actually going to listen to the 10th amendment? Im shocked.

Not a tenth amendment issue. Marriage has already been found to be a constitutional right under Loving v. Virginia.

True Joe, but I would be perfectly okay if Same Sex marriage were treated like legal 1st cousin or underage marriages. Let the states that allow them perform them, but they have to be legal in all 50, just like those underage 1st cousin marriages they perform in Alabama.

 

[Silhouette]

You mean they are actually going to listen to the 10th amendment? Im shocked.

Not a tenth amendment issue. Marriage has already been found to be a constitutional right under Loving v. Virginia.

A constitutional right for blacks and other races to marry each other. Not deviant sexual behavioral cults to rewrite the actual base description of marriage: "man and woman".

Behaviors aren't race. And apparently the US Supreme Court agrees. They mentioned Loving in Windsor and went on to Declare that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states". That's not a Loving victory, sorry to inform you..

 

[Silhouette]

States don't have a right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual lifestyle unless there is a crime being involved. Being gay isn't a crime and gay marriage is not illegal, so gay marriage is allowed and no state can adopt a law banning it based on religion. Since there is no scientific justification for outlawing gay marriage, the only laws banning gay marriage have to be based on religious dogma.

States cannot adopt legislation that discriminates against citizens based on what is not a crime. The religious Republican right might not like that, but no one gives a shit what right-wing Republicans like because you're a bunch of god-damned traitors who drew guns against your country to defend a racist criminal.

Youre completely incorrect in your thinking. No one is being discriminated against.

Really? So all these Federal Courts that are finding anti gay marriage laws to be discriminatory are what...lying?

The only court that's gonna matter on this question is the US Supreme Court, to which "all these Federal Courts" are going to have to obey once that decision is more clarified than it was in Windsor...or rather, more advertised. Windsor is clear: states get to decide. These federal judges cannot claim ignorance of the law. It's because they haven't read Windsor or don't understand the chain of command in the federal system. Which makes you wonder how they're drawing a paycheck. You'd think in law school they'd teach them to read a recent SCOTUS decision's fine print to see if and how their own decision stands in either support or defiance of it. They know who is boss. They are teetering on contempt of the US Supreme Court. Some of them have declared that they are wilfully in contempt of it.

All these cases are culminating to do when they reach SCOTUS is for SCOTUS to reiterate what it already said in Windsor. ie: that Loving v Virginia doesn't apply to LGBT [and all other deviant sexualities that cult definition left out]. And that gay marriage is a new concept, too new to force on the People, and so states get to decide.

SCOTUS brought up Loving and went on to say at the end of it all that gay marriage is "only allowed" "in some states". And that number of states is, by Windsor's definition of how a large consensus must weigh in because of the newness and strangeness of gay marriage, 3. Just three states have allowed their citizens to ponder the issue, vote on it and approve a redefining of marriage at its core to allow two people of the same gender to role-play "husband and wife" "father and mother"... Just three.

The only thing SCOTUS will have to sort out with the new Hearing is why they said "only 11 states" at the time since according to their own definition and constitutional-upholding of a broad consensus within a state defining marriage, only 3 states qualified. I believe they will clarify that or amend what they said. That's probably the only thing you're going to see change from Windsor to the new Decision. Essentially, either they'll have to knock that number back down to 3 or make gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Because as each state tests on the consensus-definition, groups in each state can and will sue to make their larger voice heard. So in the future if the broad-consensus idea is reaffirmed from Windsor, a state who had its legislature or some judge try to force gay marriage upon it against the Will of the larger consensus will always have the larger consensus' Will win by default.

And all that, mind you, was stated in Windsor as retroactive to the founding of the country, as "the Framers of the Constitution" intended. So the question of "when" a state's consensus had the right to define marriage as a man and a woman dates back to the 1700s. If and when those tests come up.

 

[OKTexas]

You mean they are actually going to listen to the 10th amendment? Im shocked.

Not a tenth amendment issue. Marriage has already been found to be a constitutional right under Loving v. Virginia.

True Joe, but I would be perfectly okay if Same Sex marriage were treated like legal 1st cousin or underage marriages. Let the states that allow them perform them, but they have to be legal in all 50, just like those underage 1st cousin marriages they perform in Alabama.

I'll buy that, just as soon as my concealed carry license is good in all states and territories. If states can ignore one license they can ignore any they chose.

 

[GreenBean]

States don't have a right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual lifestyle unless there is a crime being involved. Being gay isn't a crime and gay marriage is not illegal, so gay marriage is allowed and no state can adopt a law banning it based on religion. Since there is no scientific justification for outlawing gay marriage, the only laws banning gay marriage have to be based on religious dogma.

States cannot adopt legislation that discriminates against citizens based on what is not a crime. The religious Republican right might not like that, but no one gives a shit what right-wing Republicans like because you're a bunch of god-damned traitors who drew guns against your country to defend a racist criminal.

Youre completely incorrect in your thinking. No one is being discriminated against.

Really? So all these Federal Courts that are finding anti gay marriage laws to be discriminatory are what...lying?

When you exclude the fox from the hen house are you discriminating against the Fox ?

When you exclude the wolf from the sheeps pasture are you discriminating against the Wolf ?

When you exclude the Nazi from the Synagogue are you discriminating against the Nazi ?

When you exclude the Pedophile from a Boy Scout Troop are you discriminating against the Pedophile ?

When you exclude a Retard from Mensa are you discriminating against the Retard ?
[ Sorry seawythch - I know Mensa is discrimninating against you ]

When you exclude Homosexual Propagandists from Public Schools are you discriminating against the Gays ?
When you allow them into the schools are you discriminating against the kids Parents ?

 

[Seawytch]

Not a tenth amendment issue. Marriage has already been found to be a constitutional right under Loving v. Virginia.

True Joe, but I would be perfectly okay if Same Sex marriage were treated like legal 1st cousin or underage marriages. Let the states that allow them perform them, but they have to be legal in all 50, just like those underage 1st cousin marriages they perform in Alabama.

I'll buy that, just as soon as my concealed carry license is good in all states and territories. If states can ignore one license they can ignore any they chose.

You're arguing for reciprocity where there is none already. There IS reciprocity with a marriage license is there not? If you marry your underage 1st cousin in Alabama, you're married in California. However, my legal marriage license from California is "good" in fewer than half the states, yours all 50. See where there is not being treated equally under the law?