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

[Derideo_Te]

Have you ever read the Windsor decision or Scalia's dissenting opinion? Even if you have you obviously don't understand any of it.

Scalia provided the wording that could be used to overturn the unconstitutional state bans on gay marriage in his dissenting opinion.

It is commonplace to quote SCOTUS Justices when rendering reasons for declaring a law to be unconstitutional.

The only difference here is that Scalia tried to be sarcastic and it has backfired on him. The basis for the state laws being unconstitutional in the 14th Amendment.

No amount of pretzel posts by you can refute the right of gay Americans to equality under the law.

The dissenting opinion was kabuki theater staged for the eyes of the liberal Justices. That's why Scalia's dissent seemed sarcastic. Because it was.

You will soon find out. It will become apparent. Scalia, weighing in for gay marriage? That should've been your first hint....your first red flag.. Oh how blind one can become when obsessed with a fever of "winning"..

Though it was very foolish of the conservative Justices to delay clarification for the Public. Now look at the mess they've caused. But then again, it will rake in a republican victory this Fall and next as the LGBT cult fascism becomes drunk with "winning". I think it was calculated by the conservative Justices precisely for that reason...the delay of the inevitable that is... Quite the vote-getter for the GOP you'll have to admit...

When was the last time your medications were checked?

If you believe that drivel then you have just destroyed your own credibility completely and utterly.

Have a nice day.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Important and potentially foreshadowing Decision with huge implications gets no press at all: (had to find this on a tiny local outlet). And it may mean that Prop 8 in California will be ruled on constitutionally finally as valid. See discussion below as to why that is important today.

U.S. Supreme Court grants Utah's appeal to stay gay marriage court order


Friday, July 18, 2014 4:22 p.m. CDT


(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to a request from Utah for an emergency stay of an appeals court order that told the state to recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages performed there pending an appeal.

The appeal for a stay by Utah's attorney general had been widely expected since the 10th Circuit appeals court left intact an existing temporary stay in order to give the state time to seek a lengthier injunction from a higher court.

(Reporting by Daniel Wallis in Denver; Editing by Eric Beech) U.S. Supreme Court grants Utah's appeal to stay gay marriage court order - News - KFGO The Mighty 790AM - Fargo Moorhead, ND

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

The AG of Utah cited [and apparently swayed with the argument that] Utah's voters' rights were in danger of being suppressed.

And that's why you're not hearing this story on MSNBC for sure. Not sure why it's being hidden on Fox but I have several theories.

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".

I'm pretty sure justice Sotomayor was overseeing this appeal. Might have been the whole panel, I'm not sure. But that would include Kennedy. Apparently the SCOTUS has read its own opinion on Windsor 2013... 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].

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. 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.

For more on the legal discussion visit this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ady-progression-of-sedition-and-contempt.html

Also: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

And: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html

Actually, this has been reported on by MSNBC . . . and by other new agencies, and this does not mean what you think it does.

As for the neo-liberal fascists' seditious and systematic destruction of the Republic, however, well, this is just one of many assaults.

Of course, the classical liberal doesn't care if homos marry. Go for it. But what homos demand is that the government impose their religion, their paganism, on the rest of us in violation of our natural and constitutional rights. Ultimately, marriage is a private affair with far-reaching sociopolitical and cultural ramifications touching on the concerns of liberty and social stability. The government has no business granting its official approbation to any form of sexual union that is contrary to nature. Only damn fools don't understand that such behavior on the part of the government can only destabilize the Republic, and only damn fools fail to grasp the truly equitable solution in this instance that would be in keeping with the imperatives of natural rights.

Homos are free to marry whomever they please. Who's stopping them? Homos are free to forge contractual agreements among themselves regarding the distribution of property as well. Who's stopping them?

The homofascist agenda of the left is not about marriage or fairness at all. It's about social engineering and oppression.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Bull! That caveat historically pertains to the inalienable humans rights of nature recognized in the Bill of Rights and to the fundamental political rights related to the franchise; not to positive, extra-constitutional rights/civil protections predicated on ideological/behavioral concerns. Ideological discrimination, i.e., the inalienable prerogatives of free-association and private property, is the essence of liberty.

Most leftists on this board are useful idiots who have never gotten beyond first drool. However, folks like you and Clayton Jones know better, you neo-fascist thug.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

What a lame statement. I heard on the TV that afternoon and evening, local and national channels.

To suggest otherwise is to deliberately craft a falsehood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, shut it, M. D., you can't even get the history on McCarthy accurately.

Sotomayor has at least a 7 - 2 majority and has carefully crafted the growing national consensus that the time for marriage equality has come.

Lawmakers are crafting statutes to criminalize the equating LGBT with pedophilia, etc., and will allow civil tort claims to be filed against those who make such claims.

 

[Silhouette]

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

What a lame statement. I heard on the TV that afternoon and evening, local and national channels.

To suggest otherwise is to deliberately craft a falsehood.

Links please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

What a lame statement. I heard on the TV that afternoon and evening, local and national channels.

To suggest otherwise is to deliberately craft a falsehood.

Links please.

nonsense

your OP is fabricated, has no proof of objectivity

if you have links by credible sources, produce them

otherwise, once again, you fail

 

[Skylar]

...Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Let's finish that sentence to reflect the truth in context of Windsor:

"Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation of people marrying if a state had said that they could."

The key point is whether or not a state said gay behaviors could marry.

The Windsor decision neither authorizes nor even mentions whether or not a State's ban on gay marriage is constitutional. I've challenged you at least half a dozen times to show us anywhere the courts say that gay marriage bans at the state level are constittional....and you've failed every time.

As the Windsor ruling just doesn't address the issue. Rendering your OP and thread title a steaming pile of rhetorical nonsense.

And the Windsor decision was widely publicized.

Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act - The Washington Post

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/26/us/annotated-supreme-court-decision-on-doma.html?_r=0

Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage hailed as historic victory - CNN.com

Remember, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And why didn't the press publicize that the USSC had upheld bans on gay marriage? Because they didn't. You literally hallucinated the entire thing. Windsor didn't rule on any State law, but instead Federal law. Which, of course, you know. But really hope we don't.

I defy you to show us any passage from the Windsor decision that indicates that such state bans on gay marriage are constitutional. I double dog dare you.

You won't....because no such passages exist. Keep running.

 

[Skylar]

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

What a lame statement. I heard on the TV that afternoon and evening, local and national channels.

To suggest otherwise is to deliberately craft a falsehood.

Links please.

nonsense

your OP is fabricated, has no proof of objectivity

if you have links by credible sources, produce them

otherwise, once again, you fail

If you want a real giggle, ask Siloette to cite the Windsor decision upholding any state ban on gay marriage as constitutional.

Just don't hold your breath.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oh, shut it, M. D., you can't even get the history on McCarthy accurately.

Sotomayor has at least a 7 - 2 majority and has carefully crafted the growing national consensus that the time for marriage equality has come.

Lawmakers are crafting statutes to criminalize the equating LGBT with pedophilia, etc., and will allow civil tort claims to be filed against those who make such claims.

What did I tell you about that crack pipe? Put it down and step away from the implement. You're not smarter than I. You never will be, and we both know that.

It's telling that you didn't quote Smedly and me.

Smedly: "[P]rescisely defined constitutional rights that protect minorities against unconstitutional discrimination by the majority."

He's alluding to the historical, constitutional principle in case law regarding the constitutional limits on majoritarianism relative to the Bill of Rights and the fundamental political rights related to the franchise . . . championed by the classical liberal, by the way!

Bull! That caveat historically pertains to the inalienable humans rights of nature recognized in the Bill of Rights and to the fundamental political rights related to the franchise; not to positive, extra-constitutional rights/civil protections predicated on ideological/behavioral concerns. Ideological discrimination, i.e., the inalienable prerogatives of free-association and private property, is the essence of liberty. —M.D. Rawlilng

The government has always officially recognized heterosexual marriage for reasons that should be obvious to someone even as silly as you. Making homo marriage equal to the sexual union of nature has far-reaching ramifications regarding natural and constitutional rights that no faction, whether it be a majority or not, has any legitimate right to violate. You are just too stupid to make the extrapolation, apparently; or like Smedley, you know what those ramifications are, and you too are a pagan thug . . . just like the five justices on the Court who also know what those ramifications are.

Wait! What am I saying? I already know you to be a political sociopath.

As for your bather about civil tort claims and the like, I'm not talking about the "discriminatory" ordinances or statutes of government. I'm talking about the ideological discrimination of a free people. Again, you're just too stupid to get that, aren't you? Indeed, what we have here is the typical obtuseness of the bootlicking statist mindset.

The government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

What a lame statement. I heard on the TV that afternoon and evening, local and national channels.

To suggest otherwise is to deliberately craft a falsehood.

Links please.

Silhouette, with all do respect, the top half of your OP is wrong. Okay? It's wrong, and there's no way to make it right.

The rest is okay, except the part about the tide turning your way. That ain't happenin'.

 

[Skylar]

The government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether.

So governments should recognize marriages of any kind?

 

[Silhouette]

The government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether.

So governments should recognize marriages of any kind?

Ha! Good point.

 

[Skylar]

The government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether.

So governments should recognize marriages of any kind?

Ha! Good point.

That's not a 'point'. That's a question. You can tell because of the question mark.

And can I take it from your latest and most utter failure to quote the portions of Windsor that say that state gay marriage bans are constitutional.......

....that you've abandoned the position.

 

[Silhouette]

So governments should recognize marriages of any kind?

Ha! Good point.

That's not a 'point'. That's a question. You can tell because of the question mark.

And can I take it from your latest and most utter failure to quote the portions of Windsor that say that state gay marriage bans are constitutional.......

....that you've abandoned the position.

Yeah, as if.

Good try though captain ad hominem.

Windsor is precisely what California voters should cite when appealing their civil right to have their vote count equal to Utahan's civil right to have their votes count on "one man/one woman"...

 

[Skylar]

Ha! Good point.

That's not a 'point'. That's a question. You can tell because of the question mark.

And can I take it from your latest and most utter failure to quote the portions of Windsor that say that state gay marriage bans are constitutional.......

....that you've abandoned the position.

Yeah, as if.

Good try though captain ad hominem.

Windsor is precisely what California voters should cite when appealing their civil right to have their vote count equal to Utahan's civil right to have their votes count on "one man/one woman"...

"ad hominem"? I don't think you know what that means. As I'm not attacking you in the post you're quoting. I'm pointing out the lack of supporting evidence. Watch, I'll do it again:

And what part of Windsor should they be quoting exactly? I've asked you at least 10 times to offering us a direct quote of the portion where the USSC says that state gay marriage bans are constitutional.

.....and you've failed every time. Seems the only Windsor decision that says what you believe it does....is the one you've imagined. And your imagination has no legal relevance to any case.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The government needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether.

So governments should recognize marriages of any kind?

You see. This is what I'm talking about. Oh, the irony!

Why are you asking me that absurdity?

You're the one who wrote the following as one who mindlessly ate up the Court's hogwash, as if the Court's recent pronouncement were not in fact new law made up out of whole cloth without a shred of historical precedent, as if for more than two-hundred years the government of the people had not done precisely the opposite of the Court now declares it can't do, indeed, as if it never did, as if this nation were not founded on the imperatives of natural law:

The people do not have, nor have ever had the authority to vote to abrogate the rights of minorities. The federal judiciary has found that Prop 8 does exactly that. And thus ruled it was unconstitutional.

The issue has been fully adjudicated in the federal courts, with an explicit finding by those courts that Prop 8 was an illegal abrogation of rights. THe USSC allowed this ruling to stand.You simply ignore the ruling. And then ignoring it, pretend that it doesn't exist.

California doesn't have the luxury of your imagination. They are bound to the federal judiciary's ruling on Prop 8. Its illegal to implement any portion of Prop 8 in CA. That's not a 'suppression of civil rights'. That's the people passing a law that suppressed civil rights and being checked by the Federal Judiciary.

Hence, Einstein, according to you, there can be no limits on civil rights, apparently not even the boundaries of the inalienable human rights of nature. But because you do not grasp what is at stake, the logical implications of the Court's hogwash fly right over your head.

Essentially, you're the one asserting that government must officially recognize and compel the people to accommodate just any ol' kind of marital arrangement that two or more consenting adults take a notion to embrace in violation of the prerogatives of free-association and private property, indeed, in violation of the Bill of Rights, though, no doubt, you don't grasp why that’s so.

Indeed, eventually, say goodbye to parental consent and authority. We might as well turn our children over to the state now as is the case in much of socialist Western Europe. But, now doubt, in this wise, the ramifications elude you as well.

Divorce constitutional law from the ontological foundation of liberty, the natural law of this nation's founding, and there are no legal restraints by which the people may check the government short of exercising the ultimate remedy: armed revolt. Your blather is not progress, freedom, justice or even tolerance. It's the decline and fall of America.

And since it is you, not I, who thumbs his nose at the only ontologically absolute and, therefore, logically defensible foundation for a government of the people within the parameters of natural law, real liberty, not your fantasy, take your rhetorical question, turn to the mirror and give answer . . . with more of the same arbitrary, ill-defined hogwash you're mindlessly defending.

You're one of those men who hasn't "learned to tell human rights from a punch in the nose."

 

[Silhouette]

And what part of Windsor should they be quoting exactly? I've asked you at least 10 times to offering us a direct quote of the portion where the USSC says that state gay marriage bans are constitutional.

These parts might be a good place to start.....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/150138202/United-States-v-Windsor

OPINION

page 17: “[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

page 18: "The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”...The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism

page 14: Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage... After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

page 19: In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.

ie: a state's "sovereign authority" in California defaults to the initiative system and ergo, Proposition 8.... So the last question begging and I'll cut you off before you even get started by answering is "Which court is more dominant? The 9th district court of appeals or SCOTUS?"

The answer is SCOTUS. The answer is Proposition 8 is law. They held Prop 8 and Windsor hearings at the same Sitting. They didn't even need to find constitutionally on Prop 8 BECAUSE THEY DID SO IN WINDSOR.