States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Winsor overturned DOMA.

The finding of Windsor 2013 said that the fed had to listen to states' determination of what marraige is or is not. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was overturned 3 months ago. Does this mean Ms. Windsor has to give her money back?

 

[Skylar]

Winsor overturned DOMA.

The finding of Windsor 2013 said that the fed had to listen to states' determination of what marraige is or is not. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It was overturned 3 months ago. Does this mean Ms. Windsor has to give her money back?

The findings of the Windsor decision included the fact that State marriage laws were subject to constituitional guarantees. You know, the part you always ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

How'd ignoring that part of Windsor work out for you again?

I forget.

 

[WorldWatcher]

'Defense of Marriage' Act

Repealing it just because you don't like it, as Obama did / had done after he refused to enforce the law because he didn't like it, is not justifiable.

Discuss....

(...backing quietly out of the room after throwing in the proverbial grenade... lol)

1. Obama didn't repeal it.

2. He didn't refuse to enforce it. He didn't defend it in court, but during the time it was being challenged it was still being enforced.


If you want to discuss something you should at least begin the description from a position of truth, not misconceptions.

(I can let you know this because I'm a registered Republican and didn't vote for him either time.)


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The findings of the Windsor decision included the fact that State marriage laws were subject to constituitional guarantees. You know, the part you always ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

How'd ignoring that part of Windsor work out for you again?

I forget.

No, the link I provided shows 56 references to the Court stating the fed had to listen to the states no matter what. They Found that Constitutionally while making one passing mention of "unless it violates constitutional guarantees" which was a finding they did not make at that time. So finding recently that denying gay marriage "violates constitutional guarantees" the Court, in the name, pitch and argument of "equality" has not only mandated gay marriage (a behavior getting protection) "the right to marry" but also any other behavior that wishes to marry...like incest...or polygamy. Those too are now legal in all 50 states according to the June 2015 Decision.

 

[Skylar]

The findings of the Windsor decision included the fact that State marriage laws were subject to constituitional guarantees. You know, the part you always ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

How'd ignoring that part of Windsor work out for you again?

I forget.

No, the link I provided shows 56 references to the Court stating the fed had to listen to the states no matter what.

And not one of the references indicated that the State could ignore constitutional guarantees. Which makes your omission of the portion of the Windsor ruling that states that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees all the more silly. The order of authority in terms of marriage laws recognized by the Windsor ruling were:

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

You pretended otherwise. And the Obergefell ruling just slapped you down. As it predictably placed constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws.

Exactly as we told you it would.

 

[Montrovant]

The findings of the Windsor decision included the fact that State marriage laws were subject to constituitional guarantees. You know, the part you always ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

How'd ignoring that part of Windsor work out for you again?

I forget.

No, the link I provided shows 56 references to the Court stating the fed had to listen to the states no matter what. They Found that Constitutionally while making one passing mention of "unless it violates constitutional guarantees" which was a finding they did not make at that time. So finding recently that denying gay marriage "violates constitutional guarantees" the Court, in the name, pitch and argument of "equality" has not only mandated gay marriage (a behavior getting protection) "the right to marry" but also any other behavior that wishes to marry...like incest...or polygamy. Those too are now legal in all 50 states according to the June 2015 Decision.

Are you as certain of this as you were that gay marriage bans would be upheld, or that the SCOTUS would impeach 2 justices for the Obergefell ruling?

 

[Skylar]

The findings of the Windsor decision included the fact that State marriage laws were subject to constituitional guarantees. You know, the part you always ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

How'd ignoring that part of Windsor work out for you again?

I forget.

No, the link I provided shows 56 references to the Court stating the fed had to listen to the states no matter what. They Found that Constitutionally while making one passing mention of "unless it violates constitutional guarantees" which was a finding they did not make at that time. So finding recently that denying gay marriage "violates constitutional guarantees" the Court, in the name, pitch and argument of "equality" has not only mandated gay marriage (a behavior getting protection) "the right to marry" but also any other behavior that wishes to marry...like incest...or polygamy. Those too are now legal in all 50 states according to the June 2015 Decision.

Are you as certain of this as you were that gay marriage bans would be upheld, or that the SCOTUS would impeach 2 justices for the Obergefell ruling?

It was the republican controlled congress that was supposed to impeach them. For treason.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Equal protection of the laws is in the Constitution. So if the law grants drivers licenses, it cannot exclude someone from getting a license just because you hate them.

But what if I hated blind people? You see, my hate or non-hate is irrelevant to the topic. Blind people cannot drive, ergo they do not get a license to drive unless states want to take that risk. People doing "gay" cannot provide a man and wife (more importantly father & mother) in marriage, so they cannot get a marriage license unless states want to take that risk.

More than just the blind driver implicity share the road. More than just two people married (children) share the marriage contract implicitly. 5 people in DC cannot mandate such widespread damage to the states without their consent.

Long ago when I was in the Navy, the term that applied to your type was "Sea Lawyer". They could talk a few folks into believing that a pile of shit could be converted into a ball of manure which made the pretty little flowers grow! The problem was that when the gullible tried it, they wound up IN a pile of shit! The moral is don't believe a Sea Lawyer because he don't know shit from Shinola!

 

[paravani]

SCOTUS determined that civil marriage was a civil right. Civil marriage is regarded by the government as a contract, like a business contract. (It should probably be called "civil partnership" and reserve the word "marriage" only for religious liaisons, but that's another issue.)

At any rate, if the issue were phrased as "should states be able to vote on the right of gay people to create corporations?" or "should states be able to vote on the right of black people to enter marriage?", the issue would become patently clear to anyone and everyone.

There are, by the way, numerous studies showing that children raised by gay parents are MORE stable, MORE emotionally secure, and MORE likely to succeed in school than the children of straight parents. Presumably that's because, as minorities who are discriminated against, gay parents who decide to form a family are much more committed to that family than straight parents who may have gotten married simply because they "had" to...

*shrugs*

At any rate, those studies are the reason why all the appeals of Prop 8 proponents were unable to convince the California supreme court to uphold it. They could not prove that there was any legitimate, practical reason to deny gays this important civil right, the right to be married.

-- Paravani

 

[Silhouette]

At any rate, if the issue were phrased as "should states be able to vote on the right of gay people to create corporations?" or "should states be able to vote on the right of black people to enter marriage?", the issue would become patently clear to anyone and everyone.

Except that black is something you are and gay is something you DO. That key hinge will be revisited as the false premise race = behavior, upon which all false conclusions were arrived at by the Felonious Five..

 

[Skylar]

At any rate, if the issue were phrased as "should states be able to vote on the right of gay people to create corporations?" or "should states be able to vote on the right of black people to enter marriage?", the issue would become patently clear to anyone and everyone.

Except that black is something you are and gay is something you DO.

And? Speech is something that you do. Practicing religion is something that you do. Bearing arms is something that you do. And they're all protected.

Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

 

[mdk]

At any rate, if the issue were phrased as "should states be able to vote on the right of gay people to create corporations?" or "should states be able to vote on the right of black people to enter marriage?", the issue would become patently clear to anyone and everyone.

Except that black is something you are and gay is something you DO.

And? Speech is something that you do. Practicing religion is something that you do. Bearing arms is something that you do. And they're all protected.

Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

I know why. Hating gays is far more important to Sil than her integrity, her honor, and, even her health. It is all consuming obsession.

 

[Skylar]

At any rate, if the issue were phrased as "should states be able to vote on the right of gay people to create corporations?" or "should states be able to vote on the right of black people to enter marriage?", the issue would become patently clear to anyone and everyone.

Except that black is something you are and gay is something you DO.

And? Speech is something that you do. Practicing religion is something that you do. Bearing arms is something that you do. And they're all protected.

Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

I know why. Hating gays is far more important to Sil than her integrity, her honor, and, even her health. It is all consuming obsession.

Oh, absolutely. But you rarely get to see a meltdown in such minute detail and this close up.

I mean a perfect record of failure. Every single prediction wrong. The law of averages alone mandates that mathmatically she must eventually get something right. Guessing would produce as much.

But no, her process is so bad that she always finds a way to fail. None of her legal predictions have ever worked.

You....you can't teach that.

 

[Silhouette]

...Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

Because it ain't over until the fat lady sings. You noticed I hadn't been posting all that regularly recently. It wasn't due to health, it was due to curiosity. And as I sat back and watched you all run with your victory, a Christian was jailed less than 3 months after it, for merely passively refusing to discard her faith in favor of bowing at the new rainbow altar.

Then, I got reanimated again. And I'm not alone..

 

[Skylar]

...Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

Because it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

The fat lady sung. And you were wrong. Your every prediction was wrong. There wasn't a single case, not a single legal principle, not a single argument, not a single outcome that you correctly predicted.

And after a record of failure so perfect that you defy the laws of mathmatics with how consistently you were wrong....

.......this time its different? No Sil...nothing changed. Your claims are still nonsense. Your assertions still utterly irrelevant. And the process that birthed nothing but failure and inaccuracy for you....will continue to spew the same.

As you still base your argument entirely on your imagination. And ignore anything happening outside you.

 

[Silhouette]

...Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

Because it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

The fat lady sung. And you were wrong. Your every prediction was wrong. There wasn't a single case, not a single legal principle, not a single argument, not a single outcome that you correctly predicted.

So you believe there has been no animation in people who were sitting passively by watching this whole thing unfold to a Christian being jailed less than 3 months after your "big victory" came down? Just ho hum and on with life eh? I think you could be wrong about that. The word on the street is "outrage". Even non-Christians are outraged that a person could be jailed for refusing to play along with fake mommies and fake daddies...

 

[Skylar]

...Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

Because it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

The fat lady sung. And you were wrong. Your every prediction was wrong. There wasn't a single case, not a single legal principle, not a single argument, not a single outcome that you correctly predicted.

So you believe there has been no animation in people who were sitting passively by watching this whole thing unfold to a Christian being jailed less than 3 months after your "big victory" came down?

Christians are jailed all the time: every time they break the law. Davis defied a lawful court order and tried to use the State to force people to obey her religion.

She was checked. And now Rowan county issues marriage licenses to same sex couples. Just like everywhere else.

Get used to the idea. You, like Kim Davis, were just wrong.

Just ho hum and on with life eh? I think you could be wrong about that.

And you thought the Windsor ruling meant that same sex marriage bans were constitutional. Clearly 'what you think' doesn't amount to much. As you consistently replace evidence with whatever you want to believe. And that's not the way reality works.

That's the way delusion works.

The word on the street is "outrage".

The word in your head is 'outrage'. And your hatred of homosexuals doesn't fuel the majority of folks. You simply don't have the numbers. Not for an amendment. Not to even call a vote for an amendment.

And if you're talking about straight up thuggery, check the demographics of where your support lies. Its overwhelmingly senior citizens. The fighting age folks....support same sex marriage by about 80%.

And you're obviously not fighting. Which leaves....nothing. Vague, anonymous predictions with a perfect record of failure. Your bread and butter.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

...Your 'behaviors can't be protected by the constitution' nonsense is just ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even have a command of the basic constitutional principles we're discussing.

This is why your *every* prediction is wrong. Every single time. Nothing you've predicted about this issue has ever actually happened. And yet you cling to the exact same process that has produced a perfect record of failure.

Why?

Because it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

The fat lady sung. And you were wrong. Your every prediction was wrong. There wasn't a single case, not a single legal principle, not a single argument, not a single outcome that you correctly predicted.

So you believe there has been no animation in people who were sitting passively by watching this whole thing unfold to a Christian being jailed less than 3 months after your "big victory" came down? Just ho hum and on with life eh? I think you could be wrong about that. The word on the street is "outrage". Even non-Christians are outraged that a person could be jailed for refusing to play along with fake mommies and fake daddies...

Davis was sent to jail for contempt, in that she refused to follow an order of the Court as an ELECTED OFFICIAL! She was not jailed for the BS you claim. Get it straight and try to understand the LAW!

 

[mdk]

Free Warren Jeffs. He is a poor Christian locked up for his faith and for following his deeply held beliefs. The higher authority he answer to allows him to **** children. Where is The Liberty Counsel when you need them?

 

[Montrovant]

At any rate, if the issue were phrased as "should states be able to vote on the right of gay people to create corporations?" or "should states be able to vote on the right of black people to enter marriage?", the issue would become patently clear to anyone and everyone.

Except that black is something you are and gay is something you DO. That key hinge will be revisited as the false premise race = behavior, upon which all false conclusions were arrived at by the Felonious Five..

Actually, gay is something you are. You equate homosexuality to sexual intercourse, but they are not the same thing. If a heterosexual person is celibate, would you say they are not heterosexual? It is the same for homosexuals. It is a matter of sexual attraction, not sexual acts. Admittedly, for the vast majority of people, the attraction leads to the act, but it is not a requirement.

Of course, you are the one who claimed homosexuality is a verb in your sig line for a long time.....