Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The courts bypassed the role of states in setting their rules, as you correctly quote in Windsor, and instead substituted some vague 14th A of rights.Actually most of the lower courts got it wrong. They should have listened to the Supreme COurt in Windsor, which ruled states have the power to decide these things.Last month they "said" the lower courts got it right. Now they have an issue, a lower court got it wrong.To late they already spoke on this issue Remember last month?When the SC rules against you Sil, and they will, what then?Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe I mistook the headline. It said that the 6th upheld the bans on so-called "gay marriage" in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee
Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. 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,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
And did not have the stones to source it either. That is called plagiriasm.
However, Sil, has not been honest from day one on the boards about this issue.
SCOTUS does not get the case until the full 6th makes a decision to support the new ruling.
Has that happened?
It's a Bush appointee so color me shocked I guess.
Either way, it comes down to whether it's okay to deny a social right based on a characteristic of a human being? The precedent is no. (Brown v. Board), (Lawrence v. Texas), (Roe v. Wade), etc.
They do in New Hampshire.Alert Alert Alert: Sil is failing to confuse the issue thought she tries a fallacy of false comparison.
13 year old Americans do not have a right a constitutional right to marry at 13.
Americans do have a constitutional right to marry the individual they wish.
What federal standards would you impose to keep 13 year olds or others from marrying in the various states? DOMA?
What characteristics do homosexuals have?It's a Bush appointee so color me shocked I guess.
Either way, it comes down to whether it's okay to deny a social right based on a characteristic of a human being? The precedent is no. (Brown v. Board), (Lawrence v. Texas), (Roe v. Wade), etc.
And did not have the stones to source it either. That is called plagiriasm.
However, Sil, has not been honest from day one on the boards about this issue.
SCOTUS does not get the case until the full 6th makes a decision to support the new ruling.
Has that happened?
Hey dumb fuck. Check pages 12 & 13 for the link to Sutton's Opinion on Scribd. & the lengthy excerpts directly taken from it..
Pretty sure the 6th circuit or Judge Sutton are not going to sue a member of the public for quoting public records.
Not true in many states. Merely living together, sometimes for a specific period, makes a couple married.It makes no sense to complain that gov't should stay out of marriage while clamoring for gov't recognition of marriage.So why do those same consenting adults suddenly need a piece of paper from government to be legitimate?In answer to the poll, of course not.
Marriage is not the business of government, local or national.
If its between consenting adults and harms no one, MYOB.
?
Because that is how a married couple becomes legally legitimately married- that is how my wife and my marriage became legitimate.
Without that piece of paper you are, in the words of that famous harlot- just shacking up.
My marriage was legitimate when I completed the Jewish marriage ceremony. The state license was a formality.
I don't argue that the government should stay out of marriage.
I point out that without a marriage licence, legally you and your wife would just be shacking up.
Because that is how a married couple becomes legally legitimately married- that is how my wife and my marriage became legitimate.
If you want to end government involvement in marriage, well then you can argue for that- but as long as there is a marriage license, then that is the legal way to establish a marriage.
It's a Bush appointee so color me shocked I guess.
Either way, it comes down to whether it's okay to deny a social right based on a characteristic of a human being? The precedent is no. (Brown v. Board), (Lawrence v. Texas), (Roe v. Wade), etc.
Sutton addressed all of those and shot them all down like skeet with his various reasonings.
Thinking people realize LGBTs are not a state of being. They are a cult arbitrarily surrounding very particular sexual behaviors repugnant to the majority [but not others]
Only, they don't, since I married the one I loved, and they, until recently, didn't get to. See how that works? If not when you're a grownup you will.The courts bypassed the role of states in setting their rules, as you correctly quote in Windsor, and instead substituted some vague 14th A of rights.
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
It's a Bush appointee so color me shocked I guess.
Either way, it comes down to whether it's okay to deny a social right based on a characteristic of a human being? The precedent is no. (Brown v. Board), (Lawrence v. Texas), (Roe v. Wade), etc.
Sutton addressed all of those and shot them all down like skeet with his various reasonings.
Thinking people realize LGBTs are not a state of being. They are a cult arbitrarily surrounding very particular sexual behaviors repugnant to the majority [but not others]
No, I dont see that. I couldnt marry a man either if I wanted to, regardless of whether I loved him or not.Only, they don't, since I married the one I loved, and they, until recently, didn't get to. See how that works? If not when you're a grownup you will.The courts bypassed the role of states in setting their rules, as you correctly quote in Windsor, and instead substituted some vague 14th A of rights.
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
.Actually most of the lower courts got it wrong. They should have listened to the Supreme COurt in Windsor, which ruled states have the power to decide these things.Last month they "said" the lower courts got it right. Now they have an issue, a lower court got it wrong.To late they already spoke on this issue Remember last month?When the SC rules against you Sil, and they will, what then?
Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. 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,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl..Actually most of the lower courts got it wrong. They should have listened to the Supreme COurt in Windsor, which ruled states have the power to decide these things.Last month they "said" the lower courts got it right. Now they have an issue, a lower court got it wrong.To late they already spoke on this issue Remember last month?
Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. 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,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
They can still punt, but they probably won't. They can do this in two stages if they like. Ruling that you have to recognize gay marriages from another state, which would be a new case, and ruling that gay marriage is legal in all states. These guys play by their own rules so let's wait and see.
They already spelled out why they won't do that Paint. In Windsor, the Justices were wisely looking forward to that angle. And so, they compared gay marriage to 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire..
They can still punt, but they probably won't. They can do this in two stages if they like. Ruling that you have to recognize gay marriages from another state, which would be a new case, and ruling that gay marriage is legal in all states. These guys play by their own rules so let's wait and see.
They already spelled out why they won't do that Paint. In Windsor, the Justices were wisely looking forward to that angle. And so, they compared gay marriage to 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. They may order other states to recognize 13-year old marrieds from New Hampshire, but they will not extend that to say that "all other 49 states must now allow 13 year olds to marry." Won't be done. Can't be done. It would violate state's rights to define marriage for themselves..
Stage one does not automatically mean stage two. They'll shut it down after stage one and leave it up to the individual states. No one state may dictate a repugnant type of marriage to another state.
The way you can tell whether or not he said those things would be to read the excerpts from his Opinion on page 12 & 13 of this thread.Sutton addressed all of those and shot them all down like skeet with his various reasonings.
And of course Sutton said none of those things.
No citizen is denied the right to marry. I dont know where you get that. I can't marry a man if I wanted to. I cant marry a woman because Im already married. I can't marry a woman who is already married. I cant marry my sister. I can't marry a 13yr old girl..Actually most of the lower courts got it wrong. They should have listened to the Supreme COurt in Windsor, which ruled states have the power to decide these things.Last month they "said" the lower courts got it right. Now they have an issue, a lower court got it wrong.
Virtually all of the courts looked to Windsor for guidance- and as Windsor very clearly states:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. 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,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
The courts all made their rulings based upon constitutional guarantees
Homosexuals do not have rights.
Heterosexuals do not have rights.
Citizens have rights. And all citizens have the same rights in that regard.
Absolutely- and that is why the majority have rule in favor of citizens rights when ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny some citizens the right to marry.
There are many situations where marriage cannot take place. This is one of them and it applies to everyone.
The way you can tell whether or not he said those things would be to read the excerpts from his Opinion on page 12 & 13 of this thread.Sutton addressed all of those and shot them all down like skeet with his various reasonings.
And of course Sutton said none of those things.
The "definition" of gay marriage should not be left to the states.Thursday, November 06, 2014 5:05 p.m. EST Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday bucked a recent trend of pro-gay marriage decisions by upholding state bans or restrictions in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, pressuring the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.
The 2-1 ruling, by the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, is the first ruling by a federal appeals court that upholds bans on same-sex marriage. Gay marriage advocates said they would immediately seek U.S. Supreme Court review. Appeals court upholds gay marriage bans reversing trend - News - 1450 WHTC Holland s News Leader
That's not quite true. I hate it when the LGBT machine suppresses the truth..
In Puerto Rico October 22, 2014..
Gay marriage may be sweeping the nation, but in Puerto Rico it remains against the law.
A federal district judge late Tuesday rejected the reasoning used in at least 14 other decisions and said his hands were tied by a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Minnesota same-sex marriage ban "for want of a substantial federal question."
"This court is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court that are directly on point," District Court Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez ruled. "Only the Supreme Court may exercise the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." Puerto Rico judge upholds gay marriage ban
Discuss
