Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[WorldWatcher]

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

The Supreme Court already issued a ruling in United States v. Windsor that the Federal government has to recognize same-sex Civil Marriages the same (from a Federal perspective) as those fo different-sex couples. So for tax fileings, inheritance, etc. - there is no difference. So that's taken care of.

From a State perspective, the Circuit Courts set precedence within the States where they have jurisdiction. For example the 4th Circuit Court's case was from Virginia, however that court also establishes precedence for Maryland (irrelevant as they already had SSCM), West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. State within that Jurisdiction will have to treat same-sex couples (that are legally married) the same as different-sex couples (that are legally married).

So from a federal perspective they will be treated the same for tax and other purposes. Within the states they will be treated the same as different-sex couples from a State government perspective. Any "variations" that exist from one State to another are internal to that State and within that state they are treated the same.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Marriage is fundamental part of life. Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Try again.

So the liberty to sell to whoever you want is protected? the right to deny your property to certain people for their wedding is protected?
I recall you being against that in the past. Oh wait, its only freedoms YOU like that are protected, got it.

N o it isn't. "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose". You're right to property ends at my right to property, and pursuit of happyness. You keep trying to suggest that your rights exist independently of anyone elses. Sorry, that is just not how it works.

Again, you resort to all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Some person's happiness and livlihood are more valuable than others, and oh gee! the government gets to decide who is more deserving of it.

Making a couple find another baker is not a fist in the face, its a minor inconvenience that is not to the point of trumping someone else's right to their own religious and moral values.

 

[jillian]

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

do you think the founders were kidding when they said "equal protection under the law"?

so you're wrong.

p.s. until scalia and the wingers, justices laughed at the idea of the 2nd amendment imparting a private right of gun ownership. I suppose they were wrong for more than 200 years, huh?

 

[martybegan]

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

Unless you are, again, going back to that silly "marriage is only for procreation" argument. How? How, exactly is the marriage, commitment, love, and desire for companionship "different" based on the gender of the two people involved? You keep making that claim, but you don't offer any details, or evidence to support it.

its based on the fact that men and women are different, and that the marriage contract has always been between opposite sex people, and in western civilization, only between two of those people.

 

[martybegan]

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

do you think the founders were kidding when they said "equal protection under the law"?

so you're wrong.

p.s. until scalia and the wingers, justices laughed at the idea of the 2nd amendment imparting a private right of gun ownership. I suppose they were wrong for more than 200 years, huh?

Um, equal protection was added via amendment in the 1860's, the founders were long dead at that point, makes it hard for them to say anything about it.

And for centuries courts didn't have to rule on private ownership of a gun being a right because it was accepted by all as the status quo. Every house in the countryside had a rifle and a shotgun at least, usually displayed somewhere easy to get to.

 

[WorldWatcher]

With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business. Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.>>>>

The problem is, WW, unless you are talking about an appointment only business where one does not allow the public access, there is no such thing as a "private business". That's the point. If you have a truly private business - one in which you have no access to the public, and potential customers can only avail themselves of your services by referral and appointment, then public accommodation laws don't apply to you. The only time you become subject to the public accommodation laws is when you are open to the public. See how that "public" thing is kind of important to the concept?

By "private business" I mean one owned and operated by non-government entities. It refers to ownership not whether they are open to the public or not.


>>>>

Except that it doesn't. The Courts have already ruled on this, and Public accommodation laws were determined to be constitutional.

I've never claimed that Public Accommodation laws were unconstitutional, clearly they are as one of the enumerated powers of government is to regulate commerce.

I've said I don't believe their is the same need for them as there was 3-generations ago.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

 

[martybegan]

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.

But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.

 

[Czernobog]

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

But not in the decision to not hear these cases.

Really? You don't see how that works? So when a Federal Court rules in a case brought by, say South Carolina, that the state does not have the authority to execute a 5-year-old for a crime, you can't see how that might affect the pending actions of North Carolina (they're in the same circuit), and their plans to execute a 5-or a 6-year-old? You really don't think that federal court's ruling might have an effect on a state in its jurisdiction? Really??? Do you understand the concept of jurisdiction?

 

[dcraelin]

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

The Supreme Court already issued a ruling in United States v. Windsor that the Federal government has to recognize same-sex Civil Marriages the same (from a Federal perspective) as those fo different-sex couples. So for tax fileings, inheritance, etc. - there is no difference. So that's taken care of.

From a State perspective, the Circuit Courts set precedence within the States where they have jurisdiction. For example the 4th Circuit Court's case was from Virginia, however that court also establishes precedence for Maryland (irrelevant as they already had SSCM), West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. State within that Jurisdiction will have to treat same-sex couples (that are legally married) the same as different-sex couples (that are legally married).

So from a federal perspective they will be treated the same for tax and other purposes. Within the states they will be treated the same as different-sex couples from a State government perspective. Any "variations" that exist from one State to another are internal to that State and within that state they are treated the same.
>>>>

It would seem to me that the courts have to rule on those provisions for each state.....they cannot just say.......all aspects of marriage in each state have to be the same for gay marriage. Did they examine each states provisions?....no they did not. If they dont do that...then I see, as Marshall did, that their whole legitimacy to rule on the Constitutional aspect of law to be invalid. Especially when you see that each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government.

 

[Czernobog]

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It was only expressed if one accepted YOUR definition.The definition is now being backed up by more liberal judges.

WRONG! It was expressed because the law did not make any distinctions! It was you guys who decided that it needed to, because you didn't like the effect of the protections being offered.

 

[Czernobog]

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

WRONG! The "intent" was never even discussed, until suddenly those "icky, icky faggots are making off with our marriages!!!" How dare they! Then you went, and changed the law, and claimed that was the intent. Well, guess what? You have no evidence to support that claim, and the courts apparently disagree with you. Sucks to be you.

 

[dcraelin]

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

But not in the decision to not hear these cases.

Really? You don't see how that works? So when a Federal Court rules in a case brought by, say South Carolina, that the state does not have the authority to execute a 5-year-old for a crime, you can't see how that might affect the pending actions of North Carolina (they're in the same circuit), and their plans to execute a 5-or a 6-year-old? You really don't think that federal court's ruling might have an effect on a state in its jurisdiction? Really??? Do you understand the concept of jurisdiction?

I see that jurisdiction being set up to facilitate the work of the courts.....but since each state is guaranteed a republican form of government they are a jurisdiction of their own until the Supreme court speaks......and even then the SC should address the individual aspects of marriage in each state.

 

[Czernobog]

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.

But we are forcing people to bake cakes for them, which is worse.

Yes. We're forcing business that accommodate the public to serve the public. How hideous!!! (yes...that is sarcasm...)

 

[Czernobog]

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

The Supreme Court already issued a ruling in United States v. Windsor that the Federal government has to recognize same-sex Civil Marriages the same (from a Federal perspective) as those fo different-sex couples. So for tax fileings, inheritance, etc. - there is no difference. So that's taken care of.

From a State perspective, the Circuit Courts set precedence within the States where they have jurisdiction. For example the 4th Circuit Court's case was from Virginia, however that court also establishes precedence for Maryland (irrelevant as they already had SSCM), West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. State within that Jurisdiction will have to treat same-sex couples (that are legally married) the same as different-sex couples (that are legally married).

So from a federal perspective they will be treated the same for tax and other purposes. Within the states they will be treated the same as different-sex couples from a State government perspective. Any "variations" that exist from one State to another are internal to that State and within that state they are treated the same.
>>>>

It would seem to me that the courts have to rule on those provisions for each state.....they cannot just say.......all aspects of marriage in each state have to be the same for gay marriage. Did they examine each states provisions?....no they did not. If they dont do that...then I see, as Marshall did, that their whole legitimacy to rule on the Constitutional aspect of law to be invalid. Especially when you see that each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government.

No, they don't. That's why they have multi-state jurisdiction. Their rulings apply to all of the states in their circuit.

 

[bodecea]

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

Unless you are, again, going back to that silly "marriage is only for procreation" argument. How? How, exactly is the marriage, commitment, love, and desire for companionship "different" based on the gender of the two people involved? You keep making that claim, but you don't offer any details, or evidence to support it.

its based on the fact that men and women are different, and that the marriage contract has always been between opposite sex people, and in western civilization, only between two of those people.

So...the two genders are unequal under the law?

 

[Czernobog]

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

But not in the decision to not hear these cases.

Really? You don't see how that works? So when a Federal Court rules in a case brought by, say South Carolina, that the state does not have the authority to execute a 5-year-old for a crime, you can't see how that might affect the pending actions of North Carolina (they're in the same circuit), and their plans to execute a 5-or a 6-year-old? You really don't think that federal court's ruling might have an effect on a state in its jurisdiction? Really??? Do you understand the concept of jurisdiction?

I see that jurisdiction being set up to facilitate the work of the courts.....but since each state is guaranteed a republican form of government they are a jurisdiction of their own until the Supreme court speaks......and even then the SC should address the individual aspects of marriage in each state.

Well, your "seeing it" that way doesn't make it how the jurisdictions work. At least, it never has in the past.

 

[bodecea]

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You have to PROVE THAT in a court of law.....just like someone would have to PROVE in a court of law that the Founders' intent with the 2nd amendment was that only militia had the right to bear arms.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Translation:"I know I'm right! Quit trying to confuse me with the facts!!!"

What facts are you referencing? The Reconstruction amendments were created to protect the freedmen from local laws. Its a fact. It was not intended to be a foot in the door for things like gay marriage.

yup...and marriage was supposed to mean "between a man and a woman", even though it never said that until you guys shat yourselves over the "faggoes" getting married.

 

[dcraelin]

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

The Supreme Court already issued a ruling in United States v. Windsor that the Federal government has to recognize same-sex Civil Marriages the same (from a Federal perspective) as those fo different-sex couples. So for tax fileings, inheritance, etc. - there is no difference. So that's taken care of.

From a State perspective, the Circuit Courts set precedence within the States where they have jurisdiction. For example the 4th Circuit Court's case was from Virginia, however that court also establishes precedence for Maryland (irrelevant as they already had SSCM), West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. State within that Jurisdiction will have to treat same-sex couples (that are legally married) the same as different-sex couples (that are legally married).

So from a federal perspective they will be treated the same for tax and other purposes. Within the states they will be treated the same as different-sex couples from a State government perspective. Any "variations" that exist from one State to another are internal to that State and within that state they are treated the same.
>>>>

It would seem to me that the courts have to rule on those provisions for each state.....they cannot just say.......all aspects of marriage in each state have to be the same for gay marriage. Did they examine each states provisions?....no they did not. If they dont do that...then I see, as Marshall did, that their whole legitimacy to rule on the Constitutional aspect of law to be invalid. Especially when you see that each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government.

No, they don't. That's why they have multi-state jurisdiction. Their rulings apply to all of the states in their circuit.

Did they examine each state's provisions?..........I bet they did not...thus they shouldn't be able to just dictate downward.....especially in this kind of case where the state law is in possible conflict with federal law.