Was The Windsor/Obergefell Reversal A De Facto Fed Established Religion Move?

[Silhouette]

From post # 281 here: Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

Christians are already protected by PA laws and the USSC has already declared PA laws Constitutional....so your only route is to get them repealed at the state level.

Well we've seen the lightening speed with which the USSC reverses its own decisions. Case in point, Windsor 2013 said 56 times that the right to set marriage constructs rests with the states; and on that premise, Windsor was awarded her money. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? Then just two years later, in Obergefell they said "oh, now, we changed our mind, now that power rests with the fed".

There was no mind-changing between those two ruling.

Well there was a fundamental change in law however in that five lawyers in the USSC said "we no longer believe as we did with Windsor that states have the right to set marriage parameters. We now believe that just we five have that exclusive right now when it comes to stripping children in the marriage institution of both a mother and father."

They used states' rights to set parameters for marriage AS THE REASON they awarded Windsor her money. Then five rogue un-elected lawyers turned on their heel and said two years later "well we said the fed had no business in telling states who may or may not marry, (the logic they used to strike DOMA) but now we're saying the fed DOES have the right to tell states who may or may not marry". That is EXACTLY what the five rogue lawyers on the USSC said.

Essentially they said "when Christian values at the fed level want to ban gay marriage, it isn't allowed, it's up to the states. But when gay values at the fed level want to force gay marriage on the states who don't want it, then the states have no rights." Thereby Obergefell established de facto an official position on moral values by the fed, one over the other. The Windsor/Obergefell forced-cult-values situation can be overturned on the 1st Amendment banning the government using preference in moral values over another. The same logic that struck DOMA can be used to strike Obergefell.

Windsor/Obergefell was a COMPLETE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL REVERSAL in just two years time that was justified by a government sponsoring one set of moral values over another. (No wonder Scalia lost his shit and died just months after Obergefell. His body just shut down after his mind was completely blown? )

 

[Syriusly]

From post # 281 here: Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

Christians are already protected by PA laws and the USSC has already declared PA laws Constitutional....so your only route is to get them repealed at the state level.

Well we've seen the lightening speed with which the USSC reverses its own decisions. Case in point, Windsor 2013 said 56 times that the right to set marriage constructs rests with the states; and on that premise, Windsor was awarded her money. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? Then just two years later, in Obergefell they said "oh, now, we changed our mind, now that power rests with the fed".

)

Obergefell cited Windsor repeatedly. Not only did Obergefell not reverse Windsor, Windsor was explicitly part of the Obergefell decision.

Because Windsor specifically notes the very legal exception that Obergefell used:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see
, e.g., Lovingv.Virginia, 388 U. S. 1,
“regulation of domestic relations” is “an areathat has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,”Sosnav.Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404

 

[Silhouette]

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? Yes, it's up to the states to decide. Until Obergefell overturned that in 2015, when the five rogue un-elected lawyers on the USSC said that the judicial-fed has unilateral rights to legislate marriage values against the states' wishes. (their own gay version of DOMA with teeth)

 

[mdk]

Yes, allowing gays to marry has clearly established a religion. Now I can enjoy tax-exempt status and be served queer cake in every state. Hallelujah and Gaymen!

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, allowing gays to marry has clearly established a religion. Now I can enjoy tax-exempt status and be served queer cake in every state. Hallelujah and Gaymen!

Forcing (not allowing) states to ratify gay marriage is an establishment of one set of morals (gay morals) over the voting public majority's values (Christian/DOMA). Obergefell was the gay-DOMA of forced-values on states.

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
The OP raises a good philosophical point, but not a legal point.
`

 

[mdk]

Yes, allowing gays to marry has clearly established a religion. Now I can enjoy tax-exempt status and be served queer cake in every state. Hallelujah and Gaymen!

Forcing (not allowing) states to ratify gay marriage is an establishment of one set of morals (gay morals) over the voting public majority's values (Christian/DOMA). Obergefell was the gay-DOMA of forced-values on states.

You've been throwing silly legal nonsense against the wall since Obergefell was handed down. What makes you think this retarded bullshit will be any more successful when all the others you've tried have failed so miserably? It has been well over a year and there isn't even a case on the docket that is using your legal gibberish to overturn Obergefell. Why do you think that is, Sil? I think we both know the answer to that question.

 

[Silhouette]

`
`
The OP raises a good philosophical point, but not a legal point.
`

Perhaps you weren't aware that Windsor was found in her favor because the USSC said that because New York chose on its own to ratify motherless/fatherless (gay) marriage, that was the right they had in law. And that the fed had no right via DOMA to impose a given value system on the governed of a state.

Then just two years later in Obergefell, it fundamentally changed that position to say "yes the fed does have a right to impose a given value system on the governed of a state if that value system includes deviant sex behaviors". (which have no expressed protections in the Constitution since they ARE NOT equivalent to race.)

These points are not philosophical. They are logical distillations of reasoned argument and knowledge of why Windsor won (fed can establish no official set of values to impose on states) and knowledge of Obergefell's outcome which said fed CAN establish an official set of values to impose on states. Obergefell defies the Windsor decision and established a gay-DOMA which is imposed on the states against their will. California still says in its Constitution that marriage is only between one man and one woman. And it still says that because that state is mandated to follow the initiative system of its People who voted TWICE to not allow gay marriage. In order to erase that from their Constitution, the People would have to submit a new vote in an election that reverses it.

Behaviors ARE NOT equal to race and have no expressed protections in the Constitution. Unless the cult of LGBT is an established religion, they cannot cite the Constitution for protections. Loving never anticipated butt sex. Sorry.

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
The OP raises a good philosophical point, but not a legal point.
`

Perhaps you weren't aware that Windsor was found in her favor because the USSC said that because New York chose on its own to ratify motherless/fatherless (gay) marriage, that was the right they had in law. And that the fed had no right via DOMA to impose a given value system on the governed of a state.

Then just two years later in Obergefell, it fundamentally changed that position to say "yes the fed does have a right to impose a given value system on the governed of a state if that value system includes deviant sex behaviors". (which have no expressed protections in the Constitution since they ARE NOT equivalent to race.)

These points are not philosophical. They are logical distillations of reasoned argument and knowledge of why Windsor won (fed can establish no official set of values to impose on states) and knowledge of Obergefell's outcome which said fed CAN establish an official set of values to impose on states. Obergefell defies the Windsor decision and established a gay-DOMA which is imposed on the states against their will. California still says in its Constitution that marriage is only between one man and one woman. And it still says that because that state is mandated to follow the initiative system of its People who voted TWICE to not allow gay marriage. In order to erase that from their Constitution, the People would have to submit a new vote in an election that reverses it.

Behaviors ARE NOT equal to race and have no expressed protections in the Constitution. Unless the cult of LGBT is an established religion, they cannot cite the Constitution for protections. Loving never anticipated butt sex. Sorry.

 

[Windparadox]

<snip/unsnip>Behaviors ARE NOT equal to race and have no expressed protections in the Constitution. Unless the cult of LGBT is an established religion, they cannot cite the Constitution for protections. Loving never anticipated butt sex. Sorry.

`
`
Your opinions are just subjective, or as I said, philosophical points. A lawyer, you are not.
`

 

[Syriusly]

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

Obergefell was the fourth example of the Supreme Court finding that State's had violated the constitution with its marriage laws or regulations.

Obergefell cited both Windsor and Loving as part of its conclusions that states that denied marriage to same gender couples were violating their constitutional rights- just like Virginia did to the Lovings.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, allowing gays to marry has clearly established a religion. Now I can enjoy tax-exempt status and be served queer cake in every state. Hallelujah and Gaymen!

Forcing (not allowing) states to ratify gay marriage is an establishment of one set of morals (gay morals) over the voting public majority's values (Christian/DOMA). Obergefell was the gay-DOMA of forced-values on states.

Obergefell was the 'gay' Loving of Constitutional rights.

 

[Syriusly]

`
`
The OP raises a good philosophical point, but not a legal point.
`

Perhaps you weren't aware that Windsor was found in her favor because the USSC said that because New York chose on its own to ratify motherless/fatherless (gay) marriage, that was the right they had in law. And that the fed had no right via DOMA to impose a given value system on the governed of a state.y.

How can someone be aware of something Windsor didn't say? The Supreme Court didn't mention 'motherless/fatherless/(gay) marriage in Windsor- that is again your projection.

Windsor established that Federal legislation cannot overrule state marriage laws.
Loving established that State marriage laws are limited by Constitutional rights.
Obergefell established that same gender couples have Constitutional rights also.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Loving never anticipated butt sex. Sorry.

You are obsessed with butt sex.

 

[Silhouette]

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" (via five unelected lawyers from the Judiciary and not the Legislature) to limit states rights to establish marriage laws from a gay-dogma perspective. Gay sex habits are usually acquired early (imprinted, like addictions) and are behavioral.

That perspective, by the way, was earth-shattering in that for the first time in human history, marriage, which has always implied children, now systematically strips them of either a mother or father for life. "Gay marriage" is actually like "anti-marriage" if you accept that the original meaning of the word meant "to establish a bond between potential mother and father for the benefit of the children". No woman can substitute for a father. No man can substitute for a mother. The words "father" and "mother" maintain their full force and historical meanings throughout and are immutable.

Also then you'd agree that when Obergefell is overturned (don't laugh, Windsor was fundamentally overturned in just two years), the Legislative branch cannot dictate to states the type of marriage they allow (outside of race, country of origin and religion).

 

[mdk]

We need to stop gays from marrying! Doing so will magically make the children they are raising have a mother and a father.

Tell me, Sil. Have you married yet? Who is the father your single parent household?

 

[Lysistrata]

Not all Christians believe the same way on this issue. Some Christians support same-sex marriage and others don't. But this is only about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

Yes, DOMA sought via the Legislative-elected-representative fed power to limit states rights to establish marriage laws too; using Christian principles. Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) established a fed "right" .

No- regardless how many times you lie about what Obergefell stated- or accomplished- Obergefell was merely the latest of 4 different times that the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws for being unconsitutional.
Loving - Zablocki- Turner- and now Obergefell.

All cases that the Supreme Court ruled that State marriage laws were unconstitutional and overturned.

 

[Silhouette]

"Lie"? Is that what you call an opposing opinion?

 

[Syriusly]

What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors, legally? )

Nothing- which is just one more reasons all of your arguments are so idiotic.

You just refuse to accept that Windsor established two points very clearly:
a) That States have the (Limited) right to establish marriage laws without the interference of Federal legislation and
b) That States are limited by the Constitution- which was established in the precedent of Loving v. Virginia- when the State's marriage law was found to be unconstitutional.

.

That perspective, by the way, was earth-shattering in that for the first time in human history, marriage, which has always implied children,.

Except of course that marriage law has never 'implied children'.

Which is why States welcome 70 year olds marrying- without any implication that they will bear children.