All Eyes On 6th District Appeals Court For Polygamy/gay Marriage/adoption

[Skylar]

1. I know that in Windsor a state's right to define marriage for itself was called its "unquestioned authority" in many different ways, many different times. In fact it was this precise premise that the Court used to justify striking out part of DOMA.

Windsor was about a conflict between State law and Federal law in defining marriage. State law wins. You're confusing State supremacy in a State marriage law v. Federal marriage law conflict with State marriage law being above judicial review. Windsor never says that State marriage law is beyond judicial review. And Loving demonstrates that State law can be judicially reviewed.

Robbing your argument of any legal basis and then killing it.

I know that in Windsor, "Loving v Virginia" was cited not THAT it applied but IF it applied. De facto at the end of Windsor the Court stated matter-of-factly "gay marriage is only allowed in some states as of this writing". If Loving applied in the Court's mind, it would have simply said "Loving applies". It hasn't been tested yet in other words. But a state's right was. And it won. Evidence by Edie Windsor getting her money.

The courts never address the constitutionality of the gay marriage bans in the States, as the constitutionality of such bans wasn't the issue being adjudicated in Windsor. The supremacy of State marriage law v. Federal marriage law is. You're arguing that since the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of such bans in a case that isn't about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, that means that the bans must be constitutional.

That dog won't hunt. Windsor never finds that gay marriage bans are constitutional or even addresses the topic.

You're projecting your beliefs onto the courts, assuming that they must think just like you do. Um, not. There is no such mandate.

et in the interim, somehow, we have federal judges saying "no, states didn't win". So in effect they are saying all of DOMA still applies, only retooled to mean the fed can impose upon a state a type of marriage its majority does not want.

You were simply wrong on what the courts affirmed with the Windsor decision. The Windsor decision did NOT find that gay marriage bans by the State are constitutional. The Windsor decision did NOT find that State marriage laws are beyond judicial review. The decision never even addresses those two topics. You imagined it, projecting your beliefs onto the court.

And you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

And no, they're not 'in effect saying that DOMA still applies'. That would be you saying that DOMA still applies. Citing you. The Courts have overruled the portions of DOMA defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

So SCOTUS' silence on the obvious misinterpretation by lower court judges in the interim, as appeals pend, is damaging and undermining their own Decision.

You merely assume the lower court decisions are in conflict with the Windsor ruling as you assume that the Windsor ruling affirmed the constitutionality of gay marriage bans by the State and put State marriage laws beyond judicial review.

You're wrong. The Windsor ruling never says either one of those things. You imagined it. The lower court rulings aren't conflicting with the Windsor ruling. The lower court rulings are conflicting with the made up nonsense that you imagined was in the Windsor ruling.

And your imagination means exactly dick, legally speaking.

It is fostering an illegal "marry-in" in violation of states' laws it just said it upheld in Windsor....with the fed holding a club over states' heads by denying them stays in the interim as the side yet to prove their case [gays] appeals. The state's rights to define marriage for themselves to this question was Affirmed in Windsor. The question is the gay marriage one, not the state's-right one. So stays are MUST in the interim.

You're obviously wrong. As the stays are being denied and the lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans are being allowed to stand. The USSC has preserved every circuit appealant court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, without exception. Demonstrating elegantly that your claims of what 'must' happen are just pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand what stays are. You don't understand how they are applied. You don't understand the legal principles under which they're issued. And the obligations that you insist the Supreme Court is bound to.....don't actually exist. You pulled them sideways out of your ass. And the rectal database establishes no binding precedent.

Yet the stays are not there. This is the fascism part of what SCOTUS is doing by remaining silent. It knows full well the erosion of law and its own Windsor 2013 Decision that is happening as it sits on its hands, looking the other way and whistling a tune..denying protection for a right it has just tested and granted [state's rights to define marriage re: Windsor] vs a question it has NOT tested and knows will be before its bench ["gay marriage" as a "federal right"].

There's a much simpler explanation: you were simply wrong. You were wrong on the Windsor ruling finding that the gay marriage bans were constitutional. You were wrong on the Windsor rulings putting State marriage laws beyond judicial review. You were wrong on what stays and how they are applied.

As the SCOTUS so elegantly demonstrates with their every denial of stay for the implementation of gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Did or did not Windsor use the hinge of a state's right to define marriage for itself as the means to undo DOMA and awared Edie Windsor her money?

Yes, or no?

 

[Syriusly]

Did or did not Windsor use the hinge of a state's right to define marriage for itself as the means to undo DOMA and awared Edie Windsor her money?

Yes, or no?

Lets go with the actual language of Windsor for that answer:

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,

 

[Skylar]

Did or did not Windsor use the hinge of a state's right to define marriage for itself as the means to undo DOMA and awared Edie Windsor her money?

Yes, or no?

Of course it did. Windsor found that in a contest between State marriage law and Federal marriage law, the State's marriage law won.

Your mistake is in assuming that such a determination meant that the State marriage laws were above judicial review by the Supreme Court. Or that the USSC ruled they were constitutional. The USSC did neither in the Windsor ruling, nor even discussed such topics. You imagined the whole thing.

And the Loving decision makes it ludicrously clear that the State marriage laws are not above judicial review. And if state marriage laws violate the rights of Federal citizens, they can be overturned by the SCOTUS. The example was so obvious that the Windsor decision actually cites Loving as an example of the 'constitutional guarantees' that State marriage laws are subject to.

Remember Silo.....and this is very important: You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

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,

Point. Set. Match.

 

[Syriusly]

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,

Point. Set. Match.

It doesn't get much clearer- and it is the reason Silhouette never accurately quotes Windsor.

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,

States have the right to regulate marriage- unless those regulations are unconstitutional- for example Loving v. Virginia- if the law is unconstitutional then the Federal Government can take action.

 

[Skylar]

States have the right to regulate marriage- unless those regulations are unconstitutional- for example Loving v. Virginia- if the law is unconstitutional then the Federal Government can take action.

Exactly. State marriage law v. Federal marriage law = State win. State marriage law. v. the Constitution = Constitution win.

Its not that complicated. Yet it utterly confounds some conservatives.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course it did. Windsor found that in a contest between State marriage law and Federal marriage law, the State's marriage law won.

Your mistake is in assuming that such a determination meant that the State marriage laws were above judicial review by the Supreme Court. Or that the USSC ruled they were constitutional. The USSC did neither in the Windsor ruling, nor even discussed such topics. You imagined the whole thing....

Then why at the end of their Windsor Ruling did they say "as of this writing, gay marriage is only allowed in some states."? Did the fed determine that or the states?

The states, most of them, chose man/woman marriage only. That's why the Court reiterated that. If Loving was to apply right then and there, it would've applied. But it didn't. So in the interim, states' CHOICE rules. A choice means opting between yes or no when it comes to this question. A choice is not "the right to only say yes".

 

[Skylar]

hen why at the end of their Windsor Ruling did they say "as of this writing, gay marriage is only allowed in some states."? Did the fed determine that or the states?

Because as of the writing of the Windsor ruling, gay marriage was only allowed in some states.

If Loving was to apply right then and there, it would've applied. But it didn't. So in the interim, states' CHOICE rules. A choice means opting between yes or no when it comes to this question. A choice is not "the right to only say yes".

Says you citing you. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Windsor decision doesn't discuss the constitutionality of gay marriage bans in any state. The Constitutionality of State marriage law has nothing to do with the Windsor case. Making your bizarre insistence that the courts 'would have' ruled on the constitutionality of State marriage laws all the more awkward and meaningless. The Windsor decision was about State marriage laws vs. Federal Marriage laws. And the State marriage laws won. You predictably blunder yet again when you insist that the ruling somehow means that the States marriage laws are exempted from constitutional guarantees. The Windsor court explicitly disabuses you this fallacious notion:

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,

Demonstrating elegantly that oh-yes, the State marriage laws are indeed subject to constitutional guarantees that you insist the ruling made the States exempt from. Again, you clueless. You have no idea what you're talking about. The States can't choose to violate these constitutional guarantees. The states choices only trump Federal marriage law. They don't make the State marriage law exempt from judicial review. And they don't trump constitutional guarantees.

As Loving makes comically obvious.

 

[Silhouette]

The Windsor case tested state's rights to define marriage weighed against the fed. It was found that states get the say-so...for now. And that is the tested decision. The UNtested case is that of gays saying they are equal to race a la Loving v Virgina. That's why they left it hanging saying "gay marriage is only allowed in some states" at the end of the Decision. Because they knew it hadn't been tested in front of them. And it still hasn't. The only firm thing right now is the fed has to respect what state's say about marriage. That's why Edie Windsor won. That is the precise reason Edie Windsor won. Would you reverse her win?

 

[Skylar]

The Windsor case tested state's rights to define marriage weighed against the fed.

The Windsor case tests state's rights to define marriage laws when weighed against federal marriage LAW. If State marriage law says one thing and federal marriage law says another, the States win. The case has NOTHING to do with the constitutionality of State gay marriage bans. It has NOTHING to do with the States marriage laws somehow being exempt from judicial review or able to violate constitutional guarantees.

The Windsor court utterly destroys the very notion with this passage:

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,

United States. V Windsor

See, its that 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g. Loving v. Virginia' part that just explodes your entire argument that the States marriage laws were made exempt from judicial review by the Windsor ruling. You hallucinated the entire thing. The courts explicitly say that the state's regulation of domestic relation is subject to certain constitutional guarantee. They even cite the Loving ruling as an example of such, where the SCOTUS overruled State marriage laws.

Doing exactly what you say the SCOTUS isn't allowed to do.

And you flat out ignore that part of the Windsor ruling, refusing to acknowledge it exists. You exempt it from every citation you offer of the case. But just because you pretend the USSC never said that doesn't mean that we have to pretend. And the USSC is certainly not bound to ignore its own ruling just because you find it inconvenient to your argument.

Get used to the idea.

The only firm thing right now is the fed has to respect what state's say about marriage. That's why Edie Windsor won. That is the precise reason Edie Windsor won. Would you reverse her win?

What the Windsor ruling found was in a contest of State marriage laws vs Federal marriage laws, the States win.

Which you've bizarrely morphed into the States marriage laws now being immune to judicial review and the States being able to violate constitutional guarantees. Which the Windsor ruling not only *doesn't* say....but explicitly contradicts. Making your position doubly irrational as your perspective is based on assumptions the court never states....and ignores explicit contradiction of that assumption by the very court you're quoting.

There's a 50 to 2 record in favor of gay marriage in the federal judiciary for a reason. And its not yours.

 

[Syriusly]

The Windsor case tested state's rights to define marriage weighed against the fed. It was found that states get the say-so...for now.

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,

You keep ignoring that the court very clearly states that State's right to determine marriage is subject to the constitutional guarantees- just like Loving v. Virginia.

Because it destroys your argument.

 

[Silhouette]

The Windsor case tested state's rights to define marriage weighed against the fed. It was found that states get the say-so...for now.

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,

You keep ignoring that the court very clearly states that State's right to determine marriage is subject to the constitutional guarantees- just like Loving v. Virginia.

Because it destroys your argument.

"Subject to constitutional guarantees..." for just some deviant sex behaviors repugnant to the majority? Where's that in the Constitution?

And why was that said in Windsor, just once [vs the dozens of times the Court emphasized state's choice on defining marriage], then followed by the Court Declaring that as of their Decision, gay marriage was "only allowed in some states"?

You know better than that. Intellectual dishonesty does not flatter you.

 

[Syriusly]

The Windsor case tested state's rights to define marriage weighed against the fed. It was found that states get the say-so...for now.

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,

You keep ignoring that the court very clearly states that State's right to determine marriage is subject to the constitutional guarantees- just like Loving v. Virginia.

Because it destroys your argument.

"Subject to constitutional guarantees..." for just some deviant sex behaviors repugnant to the majority? Where's that in the Constitution?
.

Yet you never post that part when you post about Windsor- do you?

Subject to constitutional guarantees means exactly that. It means federal courts can and will overturn state laws.

And of course Windsor never addressed any sexual behavior- at all- just once again you are making things up.

But you inadvertantly harm your own argument by calling same gender marraige 'deviant sex behavior'- because the Supreme Court has specifically said- yes-
"deviant sex behaviors repugnant to the majority" are protected by the Constitution- and that the Federal Courts can overturn State laws which prohibit 'deviant sex behaviors repugnant to the majority'- in Lawrence v. Texas.

If you were to convince the courts that same gender marriage was indeed 'only' a sexual behavior- then you would lose on precedent.

 

[Silhouette]

Yet you never post that part when you post about Windsor- do you?

Subject to constitutional guarantees means exactly that. It means federal courts can and will overturn state laws...

But lower federal courts are subservient to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS just ruled last Summer that state's have the "unquestioned authority" on defining marriage UNLESS Loving applied [after being tested]. In the interim, you default to state's rights since the erosion of democratic rule is much much worse than gays potentially having to wait a bit longer to get a marriage license...providing they convince SCOTUS that behaviors [just some, remember] = "race".

 

[Skylar]

But lower federal courts are subservient to SCOTUS.

If the SCOTUS has ruled on a given issue. Which they haven't in the case of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans..

And SCOTUS just ruled last Summer that state's have the "unquestioned authority" on defining marriage UNLESS Loving applied [after being tested]. In the interim, you default to state's rights since the erosion of democratic rule is much much worse than gays potentially having to wait a bit longer to get a marriage license...providing they convince SCOTUS that behaviors [just some, remember] = "race".

That's not what the court said. Here it is again. Read more carefully this time:

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,

It said subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Loving was offered as an example of the States being held to that standard. 'e.g.' means 'exempli gratia', which translates to "In example". The courts never say that Loving itself must apply.

You imagined it.

Just as you imagined that the States are above judicial review. Just as you imagined that the USSC ruled gay marriage bans are constitutional in the Windsor decision. They never do any such thing, or even discuss such topics. I defy you to provide any such passage in the ruling.

You won't. Because its simply not there.

 

[Syriusly]

But lower federal courts are subservient to SCOTUS.

If the SCOTUS has ruled on a given issue. Which they haven't in the case of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans..

And SCOTUS just ruled last Summer that state's have the "unquestioned authority" on defining marriage UNLESS Loving applied [after being tested]. In the interim, you default to state's rights since the erosion of democratic rule is much much worse than gays potentially having to wait a bit longer to get a marriage license...providing they convince SCOTUS that behaviors [just some, remember] = "race".

That's not what the court said. Here it is again. Read more carefully this time:

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,

It said subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Loving was offered as an example of the States being held to that standard. 'e.g.' means 'exempli gratia', which translates to "In example". The courts never say that Loving itself must apply.

You imagined it.

Just as you imagined that the States are above judicial review. Just as you imagined that the USSC ruled gay marriage bans are constitutional in the Windsor decision. They never do any such thing, or even discuss such topics. I defy you to provide any such passage in the ruling.

You won't. Because its simply not there.

Just going to repost what you said.

Because I am too lazy to write once again what Silhouette will ignore and then just tell us again that Windsor means States can make mixed race marriages- i mean gay marriages illegal.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently Windsor didn't make gay marraige legal across all 50 states. It just said that states tell the fed how marriage is going to be. Loving v Virginia as applicable to some sex behaviors "as race" has not been tested yet. So in the interim, states' rights rule.

Where are the stays SCOTUS? Why won't you protect democracy and your OWN Decision last year avering states' rights to define marriage?

 

[JoeB131]

Where are the stays SCOTUS? Why won't you protect democracy and your OWN Decision last year avering states' rights to define marriage?

Mostly because they know history is against them.

32 state where gay marriage is legal now. 5 more by the end of the year.

 

[Syriusly]

Apparently Windsor didn't make gay marraige legal across all 50 states. It just said that states tell the fed how marriage is going to be. Loving v Virginia as applicable to some sex behaviors "as race" has not been tested yet. So in the interim, states' rights rule.

Where are the stays SCOTUS? Why won't you protect democracy and your OWN Decision last year avering states' rights to define marriage?

As you know- Windsor told the Federal government that 'subject to constitutional' guarantees' States not the Federal government decides marriage.

And they used Loving as an example of protecting constitutional guarantees. Your interpretation as usual is bat guano crazy.