Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

[Seawytch]

Chief, I'm talking tactics and strategic advantages.

If Prop 8 win's at the SCOTUS, it will setback SSCM in California. If Prop 8 looses at the SCOTUS it might mean SSCM's will again resume in California, but could also result in a politcal backlash because of the courts involvement.

First you won in the courts...

.........Then you won in the legislature.

.................Last fall you began winning at the ballot box.



Strategically speaking winning California at the ballot box could and would have a HUGE impact on the furtherance of acceptance at the national level.



>>>>

We're still going to win. If the court dismisses, CA wins. If they take the case, they'll rule in favor if marriage in CA. Win no matter what!

The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.


>>>>

They won't. I heard Kennedy. If they take the case, we win.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We're still going to win. If the court dismisses, CA wins. If they take the case, they'll rule in favor if marriage in CA. Win no matter what!

The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.


>>>>

They won't. I heard Kennedy. If they take the case, we win.

You heard Kennedy what?


I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.


***************************

I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.

Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.



>>>>

 

[KissMy]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

There are good reasons for being against gay marriage.

- First, marriage is a religious term & religion is against gay marriage. So the state can call them gay unions & give them equal rights so they are not making a mockery of religion & the term marriage.

- Second, households with a married man & woman produce the best well adjusted children. Those children are less likely to be criminals, drug addicts or have mental problems. They are more happy, healthy & successful. Gay men adopt children to raise & that creates problems with child. Lesbian families with the biological mother are more successful than gay men families but not as good as married heteros.

- Third, broken homes breed criminals. If gay marriage causes more broken homes it will be bad for society.

- Fourth, HIV epidemic is spread by gay men much much more than straight men and women.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Chief, I'm talking tactics and strategic advantages.

We're still going to win. If the court dismisses, CA wins. If they take the case, they'll rule in favor if marriage in CA. Win no matter what!

Of which you suck. Brilliant Constitutional lawyers with experience winning before the Courts beg to differ with you.

Really? Who thinks gay marriage won't be legal in CA after the SCOTUS rules?

there was an error. look at the bold. Was not responding to your post

 

[WorldWatcher]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

There are good reasons for being against gay marriage.

- First, marriage is a religious term & religion is against gay marriage. So the state can call them gay unions & give them equal rights so they are not making a mockery of religion & the term marriage.

Wrong right from the get go.

1. Civil Marriage (that entered into under the law) is not a religious term. Religious Marriage (that entered into under the tenents of a religious organization) is a religious term.

2. There are many religioius organizations that will Religiously Marry same-sex couples.

- Second, households with a married man & woman produce the best well adjusted children. Those children are less likely to be criminals, drug addicts or have mental problems. They are more happy, healthy & successful. Gay men adopt children to raise & that creates problems with child. Lesbian families with the biological mother are more successful than gay men families but not as good as married heteros.

The criminals, drug additcs, and mental problems you cite are comparing two parent homes with single-parent homes.

There has been no study that shows the same-sex parents are a disadvantage to children.

- Third, broken homes breed criminals. If gay marriage causes more broken homes it will be bad for society.

Same-sex Civilly Married couple raising a child is not a "broken home".

- Fourth, HIV epidemic is spread by gay men much much more than straight men and women.

Again, wrong. World-wide there are many more straight men and women with HIV then there are gay men spreading HIV. The primary distribution means on a global basis is heterosexual sex.



>>>>

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Chief, I'm talking tactics and strategic advantages.

If Prop 8 win's at the SCOTUS, it will setback SSCM in California. If Prop 8 looses at the SCOTUS it might mean SSCM's will again resume in California, but could also result in a politcal backlash because of the courts involvement.

First you won in the courts...

.........Then you won in the legislature.

.................Last fall you began winning at the ballot box.



Strategically speaking winning California at the ballot box could and would have a HUGE impact on the furtherance of acceptance at the national level.



>>>>

We're still going to win. If the court dismisses, CA wins. If they take the case, they'll rule in favor if marriage in CA. Win no matter what!

The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.


>>>>

Huge setback? Hardly a huge one. Question: Why do Prop 8 people consistently misrepresent and lie?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

There are good reasons for being against gay marriage.

- First, marriage is a religious term & religion is against gay marriage. So the state can call them gay unions & give them equal rights so they are not making a mockery of religion & the term marriage.

- Second, households with a married man & woman produce the best well adjusted children. Those children are less likely to be criminals, drug addicts or have mental problems. They are more happy, healthy & successful. Gay men adopt children to raise & that creates problems with child. Lesbian families with the biological mother are more successful than gay men families but not as good as married heteros.

- Third, broken homes breed criminals. If gay marriage causes more broken homes it will be bad for society.

- Fourth, HIV epidemic is spread by gay men much much more than straight men and women.

There is good reason for considering you a Class A, Imbecile

The state is not in the religion business and a marriage certificate/license is not a religious document or recognition of religious dogma.

People can and do get married outside of religious institutions.

The rest of your argument (second and third) is so pathetic as to deserve contempt

 

[WorldWatcher]

We're still going to win. If the court dismisses, CA wins. If they take the case, they'll rule in favor if marriage in CA. Win no matter what!

The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.


>>>>

Huge setback? Hardly a huge one. Question: Why do Prop 8 people consistently misrepresent and lie?

Why would that be a lie?

If the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then they will be saying to SSCM supporters that there will be no avenue of National redress through the courts because to uphold Prop 8 will be notice that there will be no SCOTUS ruling that will establish SSCM from the courts on a national basis similar to what happened with Loving v. Virginia.

That would be huge.

>>>>

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

race and sexual orientation aren't the same in whose mind? yours?

loving says marriage is a fundamental right and can't be denied to anyone based on discriminatory reasons.

*shrug*

Been over this many times Jill. one is proven to be genetic and biological.. the other is not.. and unless something is genetic or biological, it is either learned behavior, choice, etc.. which we discriminate against the behaviors and choices every day and have the freedom to do so.. and if it is found to be a mental issue, chemical imbalance etc, why do we then seek cures for other such instances of things and not this one??

I accept people being with whomever they wish.. and I would like government to reduce its influence over this and have all family couples treated the same in governmental matters under the law... for I have the freedom to do so.. but just as I have the freedom to be that way, someone else has the freedom to be against that behavior.. I am not going to be against the other person's freedom (even if I disagree with their stance) for the sake of forced acceptance

Even buying into the Gay is not genetic (which I do, but with different reasoning than yours), here is where you get into trouble: "one is proven to be genetic and biological.. the other is not.. and unless something is genetic or biological, it is either learned behavior, choice, etc.. which we discriminate against the behaviors and choices every day and have the freedom to do so."

Ahem: "t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker."'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. *"Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - Slate Magazine

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.

Huge setback? Hardly a huge one. Question: Why do Prop 8 people consistently misrepresent and lie?

Why would that be a lie?

If the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then they will be saying to SSCM supporters that there will be no avenue of National redress through the courts because to uphold Prop 8 will be notice that there will be no SCOTUS ruling that will establish SSCM from the courts on a national basis similar to what happened with Loving v. Virginia.

That would be huge.

It is a misrepresentation. Did not say that particular misrepresentation was a lie. You missed the obvious inference? "Huge setback? Hardly a huge one."

The Prop 8 case is about a law in California. Upholding Prop 8 in California would not close all doors to federal redress.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Huge setback? Hardly a huge one. Question: Why do Prop 8 people consistently misrepresent and lie?

Why would that be a lie?

If the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then they will be saying to SSCM supporters that there will be no avenue of National redress through the courts because to uphold Prop 8 will be notice that there will be no SCOTUS ruling that will establish SSCM from the courts on a national basis similar to what happened with Loving v. Virginia.

That would be huge.

It is a misrepresentation. Did not say that particular misrepresentation was a lie. You missed the obvious inference? "Huge setback? Hardly a huge one."

The Prop 8 case is about a law in California. Upholding Prop 8 in California would not close all doors to federal redress.

Uphold Prop 8 would be a validation of all previous initiatives/referendums on denying Same-sex Couples in terms of Civil Marriage.

When the court ruled in the Loving case it struck down all anti-interracial marriage laws across the country.

If the court rules to uphold Prop 8 it will be validating all anti-Same-sex Civil Marriage laws across the country.



Sorry, that is pretty huge.



>>>>

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why would that be a lie?

If the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then they will be saying to SSCM supporters that there will be no avenue of National redress through the courts because to uphold Prop 8 will be notice that there will be no SCOTUS ruling that will establish SSCM from the courts on a national basis similar to what happened with Loving v. Virginia.

That would be huge.

It is a misrepresentation. Did not say that particular misrepresentation was a lie. You missed the obvious inference? "Huge setback? Hardly a huge one."

The Prop 8 case is about a law in California. Upholding Prop 8 in California would not close all doors to federal redress.

Uphold Prop 8 would be a validation of all previous initiatives/referendums on denying Same-sex Couples in terms of Civil Marriage.

When the court ruled in the Loving case it struck down all anti-interracial marriage laws across the country.

If the court rules to uphold Prop 8 it will be validating all anti-Same-sex Civil Marriage laws across the country.

Sorry, that is pretty huge.

Loving v Virginia was struck down on what grounds? Answer that and you will hopefully understand how upholding Prop8 is not akin to striking down Loving

then again, maybe you won't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is a misrepresentation. Did not say that particular misrepresentation was a lie. You missed the obvious inference? "Huge setback? Hardly a huge one."

The Prop 8 case is about a law in California. Upholding Prop 8 in California would not close all doors to federal redress.

Uphold Prop 8 would be a validation of all previous initiatives/referendums on denying Same-sex Couples in terms of Civil Marriage.

When the court ruled in the Loving case it struck down all anti-interracial marriage laws across the country.

If the court rules to uphold Prop 8 it will be validating all anti-Same-sex Civil Marriage laws across the country.

Sorry, that is pretty huge.

Loving v Virginia was struck down on what grounds? Answer that and you will hopefully understand how upholding Prop8 is not akin to striking down Loving

then again, maybe you won't.

Loving v. Virginia wasn't struck down, the case still holds precedent.


You realize that SCOTUS cases are not "struck down" right? SCOTUS can "over rule" a previous case, but the SCOTUS strikes down laws not cases.


The grounds that the Virginia law was struck down for was that the law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.


>>>>

Huge setback? Hardly a huge one. Question: Why do Prop 8 people consistently misrepresent and lie?

Why would that be a lie?

If the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then they will be saying to SSCM supporters that there will be no avenue of National redress through the courts because to uphold Prop 8 will be notice that there will be no SCOTUS ruling that will establish SSCM from the courts on a national basis similar to what happened with Loving v. Virginia.

That would be huge.

>>>>

My guess is that will be exactly the outcome, on a 5-4 vote. I don't see that as a "huge" defeat for supports of same sex marriages. It encourages the legislative course, and the public opinion continues to move their direction through out the country, and educated world.

How the scrotus gets there ... I dunno. Marriage is a fundamental right. But, states are given leeway, and in fact that's one argument against DOMA. How can the fed govt deny spousal benefits to a gay couple legally married in their state? THAT makes no sense. It's hardly a conservative position on federalism or 'states rights.' I'd guess the five would find a way to say equal protection isn't violated because there's a rational reason for calif to limit marriage to 'breeders.'

Eventually, we'll be down to a few states like my own that are outliers on not allowing gay marriage or civil unions. The case will come up again before a new Court. Hopefully, after Hillary has had 8 years to nominate new Justices.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Uphold Prop 8 would be a validation of all previous initiatives/referendums on denying Same-sex Couples in terms of Civil Marriage.

When the court ruled in the Loving case it struck down all anti-interracial marriage laws across the country.

If the court rules to uphold Prop 8 it will be validating all anti-Same-sex Civil Marriage laws across the country.

Sorry, that is pretty huge.

Loving v Virginia was struck down on what grounds? Answer that and you will hopefully understand how upholding Prop8 is not akin to striking down Loving

then again, maybe you won't.

Loving v. Virginia wasn't struck down, the case still holds precedent.
You realize that SCOTUS cases are not "struck down" right? SCOTUS can "over rule" a previous case, but the SCOTUS strikes down laws not cases.

The grounds that the Virginia law was struck down for was that the law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Of course Loving v Virginia wasn't struck down, as it wasn't a law, it is a case.

In Loving, the SCOTUS invalidated laws. Struck down/invalidated. What the SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia was it overturned/overruled convictions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Huge setback? Hardly a huge one. Question: Why do Prop 8 people consistently misrepresent and lie?

Why would that be a lie?

If the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then they will be saying to SSCM supporters that there will be no avenue of National redress through the courts because to uphold Prop 8 will be notice that there will be no SCOTUS ruling that will establish SSCM from the courts on a national basis similar to what happened with Loving v. Virginia.

That would be huge.

>>>>

My guess is that will be exactly the outcome, on a 5-4 vote. I don't see that as a "huge" defeat for supports of same sex marriages. It encourages the legislative course, and the public opinion continues to move their direction through out the country, and educated world.

How the scrotus gets there ... I dunno. Marriage is a fundamental right. But, states are given leeway, and in fact that's one argument against DOMA. How can the fed govt deny spousal benefits to a gay couple legally married in their state? THAT makes no sense. It's hardly a conservative position on federalism or 'states rights.' I'd guess the five would find a way to say equal protection isn't violated because there's a rational reason for calif to limit marriage to 'breeders.'

Eventually, we'll be down to a few states like my own that are outliers on not allowing gay marriage or civil unions. The case will come up again before a new Court. Hopefully, after Hillary has had 8 years to nominate new Justices.

You bendog, on record saying the SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8?

 

[bendog]

Why would that be a lie?

If the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then they will be saying to SSCM supporters that there will be no avenue of National redress through the courts because to uphold Prop 8 will be notice that there will be no SCOTUS ruling that will establish SSCM from the courts on a national basis similar to what happened with Loving v. Virginia.

That would be huge.

>>>>

My guess is that will be exactly the outcome, on a 5-4 vote. I don't see that as a "huge" defeat for supports of same sex marriages. It encourages the legislative course, and the public opinion continues to move their direction through out the country, and educated world.

How the scrotus gets there ... I dunno. Marriage is a fundamental right. But, states are given leeway, and in fact that's one argument against DOMA. How can the fed govt deny spousal benefits to a gay couple legally married in their state? THAT makes no sense. It's hardly a conservative position on federalism or 'states rights.' I'd guess the five would find a way to say equal protection isn't violated because there's a rational reason for calif to limit marriage to 'breeders.'

Eventually, we'll be down to a few states like my own that are outliers on not allowing gay marriage or civil unions. The case will come up again before a new Court. Hopefully, after Hillary has had 8 years to nominate new Justices.

You bendog, on record saying the SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8?

Well, it's just my guess. I'm not putting cred on that outcome, and in fact believe it is incorrect. I just get the feeling Roberts is pissed the issue is even before the Court, Alito and Scalia were openly hostile (and hypocritical) in questions they asked, Thomas will follow Scalia .... and Kennedy seemed ... not inclined to open up something nationally like Loving. I just don't see Kennedy "creating a new right" with a 5-4 decision.

Scalia asked Olsen "when did this right come into existence?" Olson parried "when did the Loving right come into existence." Scalia growled about questions answering questions, but then said when the 14th amend became law.

Welllllllll, doesn't that beg the question about what took so damn long for the Lovings to get their right? Roughly 80 years passed. So, the question won't go away. At some pt there will be a supermaj of states approving civil unions or something, and Miss and Ala and SC will be whistling Dixie in the dark.

 

[Seawytch]

The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.


>>>>

They won't. I heard Kennedy. If they take the case, we win.

You heard Kennedy what?


I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.


***************************

I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.

Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.



>>>>

I heard Kennedy's questions during oral arguments. He's the deciding vote and if they take the case (which I don't think they will), they will strike down Prop 8 in CA in a 5-4 decision.

I did read the exchange about 55 year olds procreating.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My guess is that will be exactly the outcome, on a 5-4 vote. I don't see that as a "huge" defeat for supports of same sex marriages. It encourages the legislative course, and the public opinion continues to move their direction through out the country, and educated world.

How the scrotus gets there ... I dunno. Marriage is a fundamental right. But, states are given leeway, and in fact that's one argument against DOMA. How can the fed govt deny spousal benefits to a gay couple legally married in their state? THAT makes no sense. It's hardly a conservative position on federalism or 'states rights.' I'd guess the five would find a way to say equal protection isn't violated because there's a rational reason for calif to limit marriage to 'breeders.'

Eventually, we'll be down to a few states like my own that are outliers on not allowing gay marriage or civil unions. The case will come up again before a new Court. Hopefully, after Hillary has had 8 years to nominate new Justices.

You bendog, on record saying the SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8?

Well, it's just my guess. I'm not putting cred on that outcome, and in fact believe it is incorrect. I just get the feeling Roberts is pissed the issue is even before the Court, Alito and Scalia were openly hostile (and hypocritical) in questions they asked, Thomas will follow Scalia .... and Kennedy seemed ... not inclined to open up something nationally like Loving. I just don't see Kennedy "creating a new right" with a 5-4 decision.

Scalia asked Olsen "when did this right come into existence?" Olson parried "when did the Loving right come into existence." Scalia growled about questions answering questions, but then said when the 14th amend became law.

Welllllllll, doesn't that beg the question about what took so damn long for the Lovings to get their right? Roughly 80 years passed. So, the question won't go away. At some pt there will be a supermaj of states approving civil unions or something, and Miss and Ala and SC will be whistling Dixie in the dark.

Thomas does NOT follow Scalia. that myth makes you look foolish. try not to reuse it. This is NOT about a NEW RIGHT. It is about extending a right. Giving blacks and women the vote was not creating a new right.

The SCOTUS going all the way back to the Marshall Court, has been careful not to get too far ahead of the public on controversial political issues. That is factual history. Would extending to same-sex couples, the fundamental right to marry (court ruled it fundamental), be too controversial and harm the Court?

Many social conservatives openly despise the Court, so why fear that happening? Social Conservatives need to start getting back to basics.

The right of gays/same-sex couples to be afforded state recognition of marriage is the issue, not the right to marry. Gays have been getting married by progressive minsters and in private ceremonies since at least the 1970s that I know of.

The issue is one of the state having an interest in recognizing same-sex marriages

 

[martybegan]

CC laws are applied equally. Marriage laws are not.

So a CCW permit holder in Texas can carry his gun in New York?

I'm sorry you have a comprehension problem. You could only equate marriage laws with CC laws if my CA CC was good in all 50 states and yours wasn't.

Scale matters not. If equal protection is without limits, which is what you are proposing, someone with a state issued CCW should be able to use it anywhere, and no legislative action nor even state consitutional action should be able to change that.