Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[Iceweasel]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you read the Constitution? And I don't care if your mind is poisoned.

 

[Iceweasel]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you? Because homosexuals are not in it

And that's where you're wrong. We're included in the "all persons" part just like ignorant rednecks.

No one said homosexuals weren't people. Just that there is no Constitutional basis for a federal definition of marriages. Sexual orientation is not a race no matter how badly you want it to be or how badly you hate people that disagree with you.

 

[Seawytch]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you read the Constitution? And I don't care if your mind is poisoned.

Not just read it, but every job I've had since I turned 18, I swore an oath on it. I want you to read this carefully:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Where is race, gender or religion specifically mentioned as you claimed?

And yet, as WW mentioned, that is what was specifically cited in Loving v Virginia, despite the opposition making the exact same argument you are making. Here it is, in print:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
The History Network
​

 

[Seawytch]

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you? Because homosexuals are not in it

And that's where you're wrong. We're included in the "all persons" part just like ignorant rednecks.

No one said homosexuals weren't people. Just that there is no Constitutional basis for a federal definition of marriages. Sexual orientation is not a race no matter how badly you want it to be or how badly you hate people that disagree with you.

Nobody has claimed that orientation is a race. Race and orientation are not being compared, the discrimination is. In 1967 the prevailing wisdom was that ant miscegenation laws were not discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. You want to argue that for gays there is no discrimination because we can still marry someone of the opposite sex. That is gender discrimination just as readily as the arguments prior to 1967 were racial discrimination. I don't want to marry a man. I'm happily married to a woman. You have no rational basis upon which to deny me a civil marriage (other than animus) than they did in 1967 to deny civil marriage to people who wanted to marry outside their race (also based on animus).

 

[Iceweasel]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you read the Constitution? And I don't care if your mind is poisoned.

Not just read it, but every job I've had since I turned 18, I swore an oath on it. I want you to read this carefully:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Where is race, gender or religion specifically mentioned as you claimed?

And yet, as WW mentioned, that is what was specifically cited in Loving v Virginia, despite the opposition making the exact same argument you are making. Here it is, in print:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
The History Network
​

Sexual orientation isn't a race. Repeating a ruling on racial discrimination doesn't make it a race. Wanting it to be a race doesn't make it a race. All men and all women are treated the same in traditional marriage states. Since the Constitution mentions gender and race they were aware of gender and race. Where does it say sexual orientation? It doesn't. No homosexuals, no bi-sexuals.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nobody has claimed that orientation is a race. Race and orientation are not being compared, the discrimination is.

All discrimination is not equal. You are using a racial argument. We discriminate against bi-sexuals in marriage laws, even in gay marriage states. They must pick one or the other. That's unfair if we allow gays to marry. They hypocrisy is all yours.

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody has claimed that orientation is a race. Race and orientation are not being compared, the discrimination is.

All discrimination is not equal. You are using a racial argument. We discriminate against bi-sexuals in marriage laws, even in gay marriage states. They must pick one or the other. That's unfair if we allow gays to marry. They hypocrisy is all yours.

You're welcome to make that argument, but it shows a deep misunderstanding of bisexuality to start with. Additionally, you'd have quite the uphill legal battle since it would require rewriting thousands of state and Federal marriage laws that limit civil marriage to a couple.

Best of luck!

 

[Seawytch]

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you read the Constitution? And I don't care if your mind is poisoned.

Not just read it, but every job I've had since I turned 18, I swore an oath on it. I want you to read this carefully:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Where is race, gender or religion specifically mentioned as you claimed?

And yet, as WW mentioned, that is what was specifically cited in Loving v Virginia, despite the opposition making the exact same argument you are making. Here it is, in print:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
The History Network
​

Sexual orientation isn't a race. Repeating a ruling on racial discrimination doesn't make it a race. Wanting it to be a race doesn't make it a race. All men and all women are treated the same in traditional marriage states. Since the Constitution mentions gender and race they were aware of gender and race. Where does it say sexual orientation? It doesn't. No homosexuals, no bi-sexuals.

And yet, oddly, 99.9% of the rulings on marriage equality have agreed with my argument, not yours. How come? Oh, right..."judicial activism!"

 

[thanatos144]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you? Because homosexuals are not in it

And that's where you're wrong. We're included in the "all persons" part just like ignorant rednecks.

Sexual proclivities is not a race or creed. Sorry but thats the truth. homosexuality is not genetic nor a religon.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nobody has claimed that orientation is a race. Race and orientation are not being compared, the discrimination is.

All discrimination is not equal. You are using a racial argument. We discriminate against bi-sexuals in marriage laws, even in gay marriage states. They must pick one or the other. That's unfair if we allow gays to marry. They hypocrisy is all yours.

You're welcome to make that argument, but it shows a deep misunderstanding of bisexuality to start with. Additionally, you'd have quite the uphill legal battle since it would require rewriting thousands of state and Federal marriage laws that limit civil marriage to a couple.

Best of luck!

I don't rely on luck but gays don't mind rewriting laws when it suits them. Why is that an issue? And a bi-sexual cannot love and want to marry a man and woman? Says who?

 

[Iceweasel]

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you read the Constitution? And I don't care if your mind is poisoned.

Not just read it, but every job I've had since I turned 18, I swore an oath on it. I want you to read this carefully:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Where is race, gender or religion specifically mentioned as you claimed?

And yet, as WW mentioned, that is what was specifically cited in Loving v Virginia, despite the opposition making the exact same argument you are making. Here it is, in print:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
The History Network
​

Sexual orientation isn't a race. Repeating a ruling on racial discrimination doesn't make it a race. Wanting it to be a race doesn't make it a race. All men and all women are treated the same in traditional marriage states. Since the Constitution mentions gender and race they were aware of gender and race. Where does it say sexual orientation? It doesn't. No homosexuals, no bi-sexuals.

And yet, oddly, 99.9% of the rulings on marriage equality have agreed with my argument, not yours. How come? Oh, right..."judicial activism!"

Sometimes. Other times the legislators didn't think to clarify that in state law, so the judge would have been an activist to include words that weren't there. Nobody took this seriously until very recently in our history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you read the Constitution? And I don't care if your mind is poisoned.

Not just read it, but every job I've had since I turned 18, I swore an oath on it. I want you to read this carefully:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Where is race, gender or religion specifically mentioned as you claimed?

And yet, as WW mentioned, that is what was specifically cited in Loving v Virginia, despite the opposition making the exact same argument you are making. Here it is, in print:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
The History Network
​

Sexual orientation isn't a race. Repeating a ruling on racial discrimination doesn't make it a race. Wanting it to be a race doesn't make it a race. All men and all women are treated the same in traditional marriage states. Since the Constitution mentions gender and race they were aware of gender and race. Where does it say sexual orientation? It doesn't. No homosexuals, no bi-sexuals.

And yet, oddly, 99.9% of the rulings on marriage equality have agreed with my argument, not yours. How come? Oh, right..."judicial activism!"

Sometimes. Other times the legislators didn't think to clarify that in state law, so the judge would have been an activist to include words that weren't there. Nobody took this seriously until very recently in our history.

Nonsense.

Lawmakers enact laws knowing full-well that those laws will be subject to interpretation by government administrators responsible for implementing the law and the courts; indeed, lawmakers fully expect the courts to flesh-out the details of laws through the judicial process, via hearings and trials concerning both civil and criminal law.

We've seen this process recently unfold with laws such as Florida's self-defense statutes, where the George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn cases established precedent providing guidance to law enforcement and the courts as how to address future similar cases, where this process in no way involves 'activism,' 'judicial' or otherwise.

 

[Iceweasel]

Have you read the Constitution? And I don't care if your mind is poisoned.

Not just read it, but every job I've had since I turned 18, I swore an oath on it. I want you to read this carefully:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Where is race, gender or religion specifically mentioned as you claimed?

And yet, as WW mentioned, that is what was specifically cited in Loving v Virginia, despite the opposition making the exact same argument you are making. Here it is, in print:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
The History Network
​

Sexual orientation isn't a race. Repeating a ruling on racial discrimination doesn't make it a race. Wanting it to be a race doesn't make it a race. All men and all women are treated the same in traditional marriage states. Since the Constitution mentions gender and race they were aware of gender and race. Where does it say sexual orientation? It doesn't. No homosexuals, no bi-sexuals.

And yet, oddly, 99.9% of the rulings on marriage equality have agreed with my argument, not yours. How come? Oh, right..."judicial activism!"

Sometimes. Other times the legislators didn't think to clarify that in state law, so the judge would have been an activist to include words that weren't there. Nobody took this seriously until very recently in our history.

Nonsense.

Lawmakers enact laws knowing full-well that those laws will be subject to interpretation by government administrators responsible for implementing the law and the courts; indeed, lawmakers fully expect the courts to flesh-out the details of laws through the judicial process, via hearings and trials concerning both civil and criminal law.

We've seen this process recently unfold with laws such as Florida's self-defense statutes, where the George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn cases established precedent providing guidance to law enforcement and the courts as how to address future similar cases, where this process in no way involves 'activism,' 'judicial' or otherwise.

Nonsense.

Laws aren't written to be argued over. The arguments happen if they didn't address every seen or unforeseen detail to come along. Or if it's just badly written. Or if it goes too far.

 

[Silhouette]

Laws aren't written to be argued over. The arguments happen if they didn't address every seen or unforeseen detail to come along. Or if it's just badly written. Or if it goes too far.

Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit federal court of appeals addresses just those points here: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Page 8
Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution. Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..

..now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations

CLEARLY the lower courts that stripped away states' powers on marriage did so in violation of federal procedure. The judges involved should be impeached. They do not enjoy the luxury of overturning either Baker or Windsor from underneath.....most especially and insidiously, (seditiously) when that aim is to disenfranchise 100s of millions of Citizens to govern themselves within their states' borders.

The lower courts that did that have violated the civil rights of over 100 million people. These actions by those judges are one of the largest torpedos launched at our Constitution since the founding of the country. It is no small matter to turn to an entire state, in violation of most recently Upheld Constitutional Law (Windsor 2013) and say "sorry, we two judges are removing your civil rights to democracy and self rule because we feel like it". (not from precedent certainly)

 

[Skylar]

Laws aren't written to be argued over. The arguments happen if they didn't address every seen or unforeseen detail to come along. Or if it's just badly written. Or if it goes too far.

Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit federal court of appeals addresses just those points here: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Page 8
Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution. Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..

..now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations

Baker was a denial of cert. By those standards, any of the denials of cert for any of the lower court rulings that overturned gay marriage bans resolved the issue.

Clearly, neither Baker nor any of the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage did.

 

[Syriusly]

..Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.

People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

"Marriage equality" for lifestyles like homosexual,

Marriage equality for same gender couples is what the Court will be deciding.

Nothing more- nothing less.

 

[Syriusly]

I have heard some conservatives -- one of whom, in particular, I greatly admire -- make the claim that the "issue" of "gay marriage" should NOT be decided judicially -- particularly by the Federal Judicial Branch. The claim is that it is a political concern of the respective STATES.

I hate to buck the conservative tide, but not only have I concluded that I don't personally care whether folks who are gay are married, but I have also come to the conclusion that it is a perfectly appropriate topic for the Courts to take up. The danger, of course, is that they might decide wrong. A 5-4 vote one way or the other would become the effective constitutional law of the land. And it could too easily go the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.

That said, I HOPE the SCOTUS ultimately does rule on this case and that the decision is that a ban on gay marriage constitutes a denial of equal protection..

And the civil rights of children to have two genders as parents? (See my last post)

So do you think that the State should force single parents to give up their kids?

You are speaking of what you claim are civil rights of children- then the real issue obviously are the millions of single parents depriving their children of their 'rights'......

Oh wait- you dont' care unless the parents are gay....

 

[Syriusly]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states can ban gay marriage under the Constitution. The landmark civil rights and cultural decision is scheduled to arrive by the end of June.
In a court order on Friday, justices announced they would hear cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, all four of which have banned gay marriage within their states. In total, 14 states still have gay marriage bans on the books.
Hearings regarding the case will begin in April, the Supreme Court said. Justices will need to rule not only on whether state bans are constitutional, but also on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states.
Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.
People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

I think you are delusional.

The Supreme Court punted in 2013 on this issue, but it was pretty clear from their statements that they were inclined to uphold marriage equality if push came to shove.

Now gay marriage is the law in 36 states. Generally, the court doesn't buck the tide of public opinion.

Most of those states have faghadist marriage because of court orders, if the supremes vote the right way and leave marriage to the states those orders will be nullified.

Do you belive that the most of Americans don't support gay marriage in the states? Does it mean that homophobia will survive and live in the USA? I suppose that people have the right to decide what is normal and legal an what is not.

Most everywhere gay marriage was put up to a vote it has been defeated, even in liberal California. A society has a right to decide what is or is not acceptable social norms. Gays have had the right and have been getting married for ever under the traditional definition. So there was no discrimination. There are only two genders, male and female, gays were always afforded the rights of their gender. Now they want to be treated special because of a lifestyle choice and most Americans aren't buying it. Call it anything you want, I call it reality.

The last three states to vote on gay marriage voted for it.

Same gender couples want to be able to marry exactly like my wife and I are legally married.

And that is the reality.

 

[Syriusly]

This issue is a canard. It is a ruse to used to usurp more power from us the people. Homosexuals who support such actions are damn fools for giving up there own power for something as small as the illusion that people will think them normal. Why do so many ignorantly give up thier power for selfish childish reasons?

You mean why should people give up the right of people like you to treat them like shit?

Frankly, I have to ask, why does gay marriage effect your life at all.

Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted homosexual marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough.

Let me rephrase what you said- so we can put it in perspective:

"Look facist the truth is if the people in certain states wanted mixed-race marriage it woud have won in the election. It didnt. Forcing it on those who dont want it is not how this country is founded. Now like all tragic abuses of power little fasict fucks like you use this to make a less free country. Trust me brown shirt when your socialist paradise comes about your stupid ass will be living in abject poverty hoping the overseers dont kill you because your not bowing deep enough"

Swapping out just one word puts your rant in perspective.

Or maybe you really think forcing states to allow mixed race marriages was 'fascism' also?

And finally- what is it with Conservatives and foul language? Is it just a general lack of education and/or vocabulary?

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage from a child-development point of view offers no different of a formative enviroment structure than single parent homes.

Clearly that is wrong- financial and food insecurity is a major issue with single parent homes- two parent homes offer both more financial security, but there are twice the number of parents to go to parent teacher conferences, basketball games and be waiting at home when the kids come home after school.