The Story You're Not Hearing in the MSM: July 2014 SCOTUS Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

[Derideo_Te]

Behaviors aren't "minorities". So your premise fails before your argument even gets off the ground...

Onus is on YOU to PROVE that homosexuality is a "behavior".

Until you can your position is a non starter.

Nope, when trying to remove People's right to govern themselves, the onus is LGBT's to PROVE that homosexuality isn't just a limited set of deviant sexual behaviors.

And if for some reason the onus was in favor of the unproved argument seeking to whittle away at democracy, and I had to prove it was a behavior, I could. Easily. At my fingertips are over 300 peer-reviewed studies in the high eschelons of the research community that prove that not only is homosexuality a behavior, but that it can be passed on socially via social-learning. And that doubles the need for us to stay vigilant if we don't want it to become mainstreamed.

Your research is meaningless since we are dealing with the LAW. The onus remains on you to prove that homosexuals are not a protected class under the law.

Do you even understand the legal definition of a protected class?

 

[Silhouette]

Onus is on YOU to PROVE that homosexuality is a "behavior".

Until you can your position is a non starter.

Nope, when trying to remove People's right to govern themselves, the onus is LGBT's to PROVE that homosexuality isn't just a limited set of deviant sexual behaviors.

And if for some reason the onus was in favor of the unproved argument seeking to whittle away at democracy, and I had to prove it was a behavior, I could. Easily. At my fingertips are over 300 peer-reviewed studies in the high eschelons of the research community that prove that not only is homosexuality a behavior, but that it can be passed on socially via social-learning. And that doubles the need for us to stay vigilant if we don't want it to become mainstreamed.

Your research is meaningless since we are dealing with the LAW. The onus remains on you to prove that homosexuals are not a protected class under the law.

Do you even understand the legal definition of a protected class?

Here'e Derideo:

"You have to prove LGBT are behaviors"

Sil: "No I don't but if I did I can tap 300+ prestigious peer-reviewed studies to show it".

Derideo: "Your research is meaningless since we are dealing with the LAW".
***********

So when does the law rely on feelings to determine emperical facts? I understand what a protected class is. I also understand that behaviors don't qualify. FAIL.

Your premise is flawed. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nope, when trying to remove People's right to govern themselves, the onus is LGBT's to PROVE that homosexuality isn't just a limited set of deviant sexual behaviors.

And if for some reason the onus was in favor of the unproved argument seeking to whittle away at democracy, and I had to prove it was a behavior, I could. Easily. At my fingertips are over 300 peer-reviewed studies in the high eschelons of the research community that prove that not only is homosexuality a behavior, but that it can be passed on socially via social-learning. And that doubles the need for us to stay vigilant if we don't want it to become mainstreamed.

Your research is meaningless since we are dealing with the LAW. The onus remains on you to prove that homosexuals are not a protected class under the law.

Do you even understand the legal definition of a protected class?

Here'e Derideo:

"You have to prove LGBT are behaviors"

Sil: "No I don't but if I did I can tap 300+ prestigious peer-reviewed studies to show it".

Derideo: "Your research is meaningless since we are dealing with the LAW".
***********

So when does the law rely on feelings to determine emperical facts? I understand what a protected class is. I also understand that behaviors don't qualify. FAIL.

Your premise is flawed. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

Self referencing your own thread is the ultimate admission of failure on your part.

How about a link to the SCOTUS Windsor decision where Justice Kennedy defines homosexuality as a protected class because DOMA violates the Constitution by trying to illegally exclude one class of persons.

Supreme Court Declares Gays a Protected Class

Supreme Court Declares Gays a Protected Class

Instead, the five justices in the majority have made sexual orientation a full-fledged protected class under the 5th (and presumably 14th) Amendment. That is indeed truly historic.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Windsor...

By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.

DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't have the slightness confidence that the ban will be upheld by the SCOTUS. I don't think they care if the will of the people are suppressed nor voters are disenfranchised.

This is an unsurprisingly ignorant statement.

When the courts invalidate an un-Constitutional measure, they are in no way 'suppressing' the will of the people, nor are the voters being 'disenfranchised.'

When the people act in bad faith, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution that seek to deny citizens their civil liberties, the courts are compelled and authorized by the Constitution to strike down such measures, where the people do not have the authority to defy the Constitution and its case law.

A citizen's civil liberties are not subject to 'majority rule,' or the 'will of the people'; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, as citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, because men are incapable of ruling justly – measures designed to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights are proof of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

prescisely defined constitutional rights that protect minorities against unconstitutional discriminatioin by the majority (voters or not}. SCOTUS has re-affirmed this many times. And with Kennedy (maybe the most ardent defender of gay rights on the Court) solidly aligned with the four "liberal" leaning justices PMH is right, the ship has sailed on the groups who want to codify discrimination.

Behaviors aren't "minorities". So your premise fails before your argument even gets off the ground...

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with 'behaviors,' the issue concerns the choice afforded to all Americans, protected by the Fifth Amendment's Liberty Clause, to define oneself as an individual absent interference from the state, a right afforded to homosexuals as a protected class of persons.

 

[SmedlyButler]

prescisely defined constitutional rights that protect minorities against unconstitutional discriminatioin by the majority (voters or not}. SCOTUS has re-affirmed this many times. And with Kennedy (maybe the most ardent defender of gay rights on the Court) solidly aligned with the four "liberal" leaning justices PMH is right, the ship has sailed on the groups who want to codify discrimination.

Behaviors aren't "minorities". So your premise fails before your argument even gets off the ground...

It's the position taken by the SCOTUS majority in Windsor. Try understanding this clip from Kennedy's Opinion....

DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its mar- riage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

Doesn't sound like anybody is going to convince him soon that Gays don't constitute a minority who's "personhood and dignity" aren't worthy of Constitutional protection.

 

[SmedlyButler]

This dog not only hunted "Paint" but it bit the Gay Agenda right in the butt July 18, 2014. The fight isn't over. In fact for your side the pendulum swing-back has only just begun.

Brace yourself for a series of legal setbacks. If that's what you call restoring the control of human behaviors and who may marry back to state level "a defeat". I consider it a victory for democracy.

A limited grouping of deviant sex behaviors-as-cult using the 14th Amendment to dictate to an unwilling majority is the dog that ain't gonna hunt friend...

prescisely defined constitutional rights that protect minorities against unconstitutional discriminatioin by the majority (voters or not}. SCOTUS has re-affirmed this many times. And with Kennedy (maybe the most ardent defender of gay rights on the Court) solidly aligned with the four "liberal" leaning justices PMH is right, the ship has sailed on the groups who want to codify discrimination.

Homosexuals are not a minority.

Everyone has the ability to claim to be a homosexual. Not everyone can lay claim to being an African-American, a Native American, of Latino origin, or a woman(though I don't consider them a minority).

in the larger picture of Constitutional law. It's an opinion you're entitled to of course, same as people were entitled to their opinion that women shouldn't have the right to vote or that black's somehow didn't deserve the status of "personhood".

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

prescisely defined constitutional rights that protect minorities against unconstitutional discriminatioin by the majority (voters or not}. SCOTUS has re-affirmed this many times. And with Kennedy (maybe the most ardent defender of gay rights on the Court) solidly aligned with the four "liberal" leaning justices PMH is right, the ship has sailed on the groups who want to codify discrimination.

Homosexuals are not a minority.

Everyone has the ability to claim to be a homosexual. Not everyone can lay claim to being an African-American, a Native American, of Latino origin, or a woman(though I don't consider them a minority).

in the larger picture of Constitutional law. It's an opinion you're entitled to of course, same as people were entitled to their opinion that women shouldn't have the right to vote or that black's somehow didn't deserve the status of "personhood".

Show me just one doctor, or scientist who can tell a homosexual from a heterosexual. Just one will do the trick. Like I said, anyone can claim to be a homosexual, that does not constitute a minority in Constitutional law.

Any doctor or scientist can pick a black person out from a white person, or a woman out from a man, so that argument is moot.

Plain and simple. Homosexuals are not a minority.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Homosexuals are not a minority.

Everyone has the ability to claim to be a homosexual. Not everyone can lay claim to being an African-American, a Native American, of Latino origin, or a woman(though I don't consider them a minority).

in the larger picture of Constitutional law. It's an opinion you're entitled to of course, same as people were entitled to their opinion that women shouldn't have the right to vote or that black's somehow didn't deserve the status of "personhood".

Show me just one doctor, or scientist who can tell a homosexual from a heterosexual. Just one will do the trick. Like I said, anyone can claim to be a homosexual, that does not constitute a minority in Constitutional law.

Any doctor or scientist can pick a black person out from a white person, or a woman out from a man, so that argument is moot.

Plain and simple. Homosexuals are not a minority.

There isn't a single doctor or scientist that can pick out if someone is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Atheist either. Does that mean that you can discriminate on the basis of religion?

How about national origin? Can a doctor or a scientist pick out someone who was born in Japan versus someone who is Japanese-American? Does that mean that you can discriminate on the basis of national origin?

The law states that everyone is equal. You don't get to discriminate on the basis of your personal animus.

 

[Yurt]

a stay is not banning gay marriage

and it was all over the news

 

[SmedlyButler]

Homosexuals are not a minority.

Everyone has the ability to claim to be a homosexual. Not everyone can lay claim to being an African-American, a Native American, of Latino origin, or a woman(though I don't consider them a minority).

in the larger picture of Constitutional law. It's an opinion you're entitled to of course, same as people were entitled to their opinion that women shouldn't have the right to vote or that black's somehow didn't deserve the status of "personhood".

Show me just one doctor, or scientist who can tell a homosexual from a heterosexual. Just one will do the trick. Like I said, anyone can claim to be a homosexual, that does not constitute a minority in Constitutional law.

Any doctor or scientist can pick a black person out from a white person, or a woman out from a man, so that argument is moot.

Plain and simple. Homosexuals are not a minority.

it's a more concise and to-the-point reply than mine was going to be.

 

[Silhouette]

it's a more concise and to-the-point reply than mine was going to be.

Well, but the topic of this thread is how the story of Utah's stay being granted is suppressed in the media.

Barely a blip of a mention and *poof* gone...but it is one of the most consequential legal Rulings SCOTUS has made on the gay marriage issue since it Upheld "state's choice" in Windsor 2013. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-stays-in-interim-apply-to-all-50-states.html

 

[Derideo_Te]

it's a more concise and to-the-point reply than mine was going to be.

Well, but the topic of this thread is how the story of Utah's stay being granted is suppressed in the media.

Barely a blip of a mention and *poof* gone...but it is one of the most consequential legal Rulings SCOTUS has made on the gay marriage issue since it Upheld "state's choice" in Windsor 2013. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-stays-in-interim-apply-to-all-50-states.html

Nothing is being suppressed and there is nothing significant about a routine legal stay pending an appeal.

That has been established several times already and you have not provided anything to refute it.

Repeating your mistake says volumes.

 

[Silhouette]

Nothing is being suppressed and there is nothing significant about a routine legal stay pending an appeal.

That has been established several times already and you have not provided anything to refute it.

Repeating your mistake says volumes.

Only that this particular stay was pled on the grounds of Utah's voters' civil rights to govern themselves in the interim with the identical law to Prop 8 & others, and was granted on those pleadings.

And that civil rights cannot be Upheld for any length of time for only just one state and none/only some of the others...

You know about how federal law applies equally to the 50 states. Why play dumb?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nothing is being suppressed and there is nothing significant about a routine legal stay pending an appeal.

That has been established several times already and you have not provided anything to refute it.

Repeating your mistake says volumes.

Only that this particular stay was pled on the grounds of Utah's voters' civil rights to govern themselves in the interim with the identical law to Prop 8 & others, and was granted on those pleadings.

And that civil rights cannot be Upheld for any length of time for only just one state and none/only some of the others...

You know about how federal law applies equally to the 50 states. Why play dumb?

The stay ONLY applies to UTAH's unconstitutional denial of equal rights.

Conflating federal law with state law merely exposes your confusion and ignorance.

 

[Silhouette]

The stay ONLY applies to UTAH's unconstitutional denial of equal rights.

Conflating federal law with state law merely exposes your confusion and ignorance.

Nope.

Let me put it to you this way....

The 10th district federal court of appeals denied Utah's request for a stay upon their recent Decision. They cited that "the civil rights of gays no longer can be denied"...or words to that effect when they ruled.

Then the Utah AG appealed that finding on the grounds that Utah's voters' rights outweighed that decision: citing Windsor 2013 as his reference.

Then reading that, SCOTUS OVERTURNED the 10th's denial of a stay....

...with me so far?....

That means that the highest Court in our land to which there is no further appeal, agreed with Utah's AG that the citizens there must have the power of their vote protected in the interim as appeals are pending on the man/woman law of marriage in that state.

So, having thus Found in the interim, all other lower federal courts that are in conflict with that Finding in the interim, are now OVERRULED. The Highest Court has spoken on the plea that the civil right to have one's vote counted, at least for now, is paramount to "the civil rights of gays to marry right away".

With me so far?

Now apply the equal mandates for Federal Findings on civil rights across the 50 states.

Prop 8 is now once again valid law....because Utah's AG had standing......and at least for now, voters' undeniable civil rights to self-govern is dominant law to supposed "civil rights of gay behaviors to marry"...! Everywhere....in all 50 states because you cannot have just one state having civil rights protected while the citizens of the other 49 languish without that protection.. The civil right to have one's vote counted is easily, hands down THE most important civil right an American has. And it should only be removed on a particular question only upon the final Decision of the Highest Court in our nation. And then only after unbelievable scrutiny. So sacred is this civil right. The Default must ALWAYS be to protect the power of a citizen's vote.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1. "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled Monday that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The 2-1 ruling upheld a previous decision issued earlier this year by a Virginia district court, which struck down the state's ban on gay marriages.

"Virginia has failed to advance a compelling state interest justifying its definition of marriage as between only a man and a woman," reads the ruling. "Virginia's laws declining to recognize same-sex marriage infringe the fundamental right to marriage and are therefore unconstitutional."
Appeals Court Strikes Down Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban

2. A federal appeals court ruling striking down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is reverberating across the state's border.

Roy Cooper, North Carolina's Democratic attorney general, said at a Monday press conference that he would no longer defend his state's constitutional ban, citing the precedent the Virginia ruling had set.

"Our attorneys have vigorously argued this case every step of the way," Cooper said. "But the 4th Circuit has ruled and the 4th Circuit is clear. There are really no arguments left to be made."

Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit also has jurisdiction over North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia, Cooper predicted his state's ban would face a similar fate.

"Today we know our law almost certainly will be overturned as well," he said at the press conference. "
North Carolina Attorney General To Stop Defending State's Gay Marriage Ban

3. More rainbow wedding cake Sil, or would you prefer to cry in your keepsake champagne glass?

 

[Skylar]

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

Um, you do realize you're quoting a Reuters article, yes? That's about MSM as it gets. You're imagining a media black out because it feeds your imaginary conspiracy.

Others might want to read it too in order to cipher what's is potentially coming: restoration of Prop 8 [which was never ruled on constitutionally and is still law in CA].

Nonsense. Prop 8 was found unconstitutional by the Federal judiciary almost 4 years ago. The USSC allowed the lower court ruling to stand. There are no appeals for Prop 8, no pending cases on Prop 8. Its been adjudicated.

You just don't like the ruling, so pretend its invalid. ALas, California doesn't have the luxury of pretending with you, as its illegal to enforce any portion of Prop 8 in the State. The CA legislatures are simply bringing our laws into compliance with Federal rulings on the matter, and removing the language of Prop 8 that the federal judiciary ruled unconstitutional.

And I point that out because now as we speak, CA rogue officials are currently gutting subservient laws [Family Code ruled by Prop 8's definition] in violation of 7 million voters' state and federal constitutional rights to have the weight of their vote counted in democracy

All nonsense. You know quite well that the federal judiciary already ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. You even know that the USSC allowed the lower court ruling to stand, and that there are no appeals or cases involving Prop 8, the proposition now fully adjudicated.

You just really hope we don't know this. Your entire argument is based on the ignorance of your audience. If they have an even superficial familiarity with with the case, they know you're mispresenting it.

In reality, to enact any portion of Prop 8 in California is illegal. Its not a violation of the federal constitution to follow the rulings of the federal judiciary. And the federal judiciary has ruled: Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

. That state has a constitutional statute that says no initiative law may be erased or altered in any way [including potency to rule lower code laws it defines] without another referendum from the voters. This is de facto sedition with no mitigating sugar coat.

You still don't have the slightest clue what sedition is. And slathering it with latin doesn't make your misapplication of the term any less egregious. PRop 8 is unconstitutional per the federal judiciary, as you well know.

CA doesn't have the ability to simply ignore federal judiciary rulings on issues of constitutional significance. And prop 8 violates rights per the federal judiciary, making the application of any part of Prop 8 illegal.

Updating our laws to reflect the federal judiciary's ruling isn't 'sedition'. Or a 'coup'. Or 'treason'. Or any of the other melodramatic terms you clearly don't know the meaning of.

 

[Skylar]

That means that the highest Court in our land to which there is no further appeal, agreed with Utah's AG that the citizens there must have the power of their vote protected in the interim as appeals are pending on the man/woman law of marriage in that state.

So, having thus Found in the interim, all other lower federal courts that are in conflict with that Finding in the interim, are now OVERRULED. The Highest Court has spoken on the plea that the civil right to have one's vote counted, at least for now, is paramount to "the civil rights of gays to marry right away".

Nope. The ruling applies only to Utah. It doesn't apply to any other state, nor create any binding precedent. You simply don't know what you're talking about. The USSC already rejected a stay of gay marriage in Oregon. If your logic were sound, then there would be no stays in any state, as the Oregon rejection of a stay would apply to all States.

But it didn't. It applied only to Oregon. Petitions for stays do not create any form of binding precedent nor have any relevance to any other case. They apply only to the state that is making the petition for a stay. Nixing your entire argument.

Hell, today the 4th circuit just ruled that a gay marriage ban in Virginia was unconstitutional. Something they wouldn't have been able to do if a stay of implementation in Utah overruled all lower courts for every state.

You're simply confused, imagining a version of the law that says what you want to believe. Rather than recognizing the actual law and court rulings, which are almost universally at odds with your position.

Alas, your imagination has no legal weight.

Now apply the equal mandates for Federal Findings on civil rights across the 50 states.

There's no such mandate. The stay applied only to the petition being addressed; Utah's. Not to every petition by every state. You have no idea how the federal judiciary works.

Worse, there is no petition for stays by California. So how could a denial of stay that was *never sought* nor *ever issued* be overruled?

Obviously, you're confused.

Prop 8 is now once again valid law....because Utah's AG had standing......and at least for now, voters' undeniable civil rights to self-govern is dominant law to supposed "civil rights of gay behaviors to marry"...!

Nope. You're not even close. You've imagined universal jurisdiction where it doesn't exist. Binding precedent where it doesn't exist. Granting a petition applies only to that petition. Not to every petition everywhere from every state.

Worse for your claims, the CA AG isn't petitioning the USSC for a stay of implementation of the federal judiciary's ruling. With the USSC already ruling that individual citizens in CA have no standing on Prop 8 unless directly harmed. Prop 8 remains explicitly illegal to implement in the State of California. And there's no one with standing in CA that is challenging the court ruling.

California has nothing to do with the stay granted the Utah AG.

But hey, sprinkle some more faux latin on it. Your claims will still be just as irrelevant, but it might look less debunked to a casual observer.

 

[sameech]

....

This is big news. This is HUGE news. This is the US Supreme Court saying "we are letting the public know that we at least are considering the heavy weight of voters' rights to define marriage for themselves in each state".

Considering? That has largely been the SCOTUS position toward marriage from 1789. I don't really care one way or the other, but I think all the folks of the left who think this is a done deal for gay marriage are going to be sadly mistaken.