Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Silhouette]

You didn't say "I say, gays will fail at the 14th since they are behavioral, not a "race" and therefore subject to local laws and customs."?

That is the statement to which I responded, yes the SCOTUS has already shown they are willing to rule unconstitutional laws which target homosexuals. Your statement that homosexuality is a "behavior" and not a "race" and therefore is not subject to constitutionalists protections is false.


There is no case for "Harvey Milk vs Utah", you continued use of Milk is a fallacy (i.e. "position the well" fallacy) which has no more merit then a childish attempt to paint all homosexuals as some type of molesters. An argument that will never see the inside of a courtroom for serious consideration.>>>>

No, Harvey Milk is the iconic sexual leader of the sexual cult known as LGBT. He is, therefore, according to their own appointment, fair game in all conversations concerning their sexuality and behaviors. Particularly the legal angle gays have already pitched as to "the children that will be "harmed" if the gays they're ensconced with cannot marry". The point of bringing up Harvey Milk will be one of credibility as to that stance. In other words, how can we take as credible that argument made by people who have elevated a child predator who officiated as a minor boy's father no less as he was sodomizing him, to "our civil rights icon". It will be very pertinent and admissable evidence I'm afraid..

I did say they will fail at the 14th. Partly because one of the Justices already alluded to this in the Hearing last year. Theirs is an incomplete deviant sexual group whose behaviors dont' include all the possibilities for the 14th to cover properly.

And they mentioned Loving in DOMA, then went on to say gay marriage was "only allowed' "in some states".

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th. Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote. They may still do that. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Gays just don't qualify for the 14th. Behaviors don't. Sorry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th. Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote. They may still do that. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Gays just don't qualify for the 14th. Behaviors don't. Sorry.

Yet the 14th was that basis for the Romer decision when Colorado passed a State Constitutional Amendment targeting homosexuals.

Sorry, the 14th has already applied to homosexuals by the SCOTUS.


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th. Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote. They may still do that. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Gays just don't qualify for the 14th. Behaviors don't. Sorry.

Yet the 14th was that basis for the Romer decision when Colorado passed a State Constitutional Amendment targeting homosexuals.

Sorry, the 14th has already applied to homosexuals by the SCOTUS.


>>>>

Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.

But instead it affirmed its a State right, Federally acknowledged in States where legal

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.

The 14th Amendment concerns States, Windsor being the DOMA case involved Federal law so it was dealt with under the 5th Amendment.

There was no question presented in the Windsor case that concerned State law. The State in question had Same-sex Civil Marriage, the Federal government recognized only some legal Civil Marriages from that State. The question to the court addressed Federal law not State law.

The SCOTUS does not arbitrarily address laws that are not presented in the case before them.


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.

The 14th Amendment concerns States, Windsor being the DOMA case involved Federal law so it was dealt with under the 5th Amendment.

There was no question presented in the Windsor case that concerned State law. The State in question had Same-sex Civil Marriage, the Federal government recognized only some legal Civil Marriages from that State. The question to the court addressed Federal law not State law.

The SCOTUS does not arbitrarily address laws that are not presented in the case before them.

>>>>

SCOTUS based Windsor on the principled affirmation that marriage is the purview of the States and Federal benefits will be recognized in STATES where the STATE has determined gay marriage is legal.

You, like Seawitch, believe that because Windosr was not "State specific" in its express cause of action, the legal rational to decide Windsor in no way relied on or affirmed the specific State right to determine marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.

The 14th Amendment concerns States, Windsor being the DOMA case involved Federal law so it was dealt with under the 5th Amendment.



There was no question presented in the Windsor case that concerned State law. The State in question had Same-sex Civil Marriage, the Federal government recognized only some legal Civil Marriages from that State. The question to the court addressed Federal law not State law.



The SCOTUS does not arbitrarily address laws that are not presented in the case before them.



>>>>

SCOTUS based Windsor on the principled affirmation that marriage is the purview of the States and Federal benefits will be recognized in STATES where the STATE has determined gay marriage is legal.



You, like Seawitch, believe that because Windosr was not "State specific" in its express cause of action, the legal rational to decide Windsor in no way relied on or affirmed the specific State right to determine marriage.

And you'll keep believing that until the next case hits the SCOTUS. They're stacking up fast. Go 10th!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then why didn't they apply it 14th Windsor and it would have been over.

The 14th Amendment concerns States, Windsor being the DOMA case involved Federal law so it was dealt with under the 5th Amendment.

There was no question presented in the Windsor case that concerned State law. The State in question had Same-sex Civil Marriage, the Federal government recognized only some legal Civil Marriages from that State. The question to the court addressed Federal law not State law.

The SCOTUS does not arbitrarily address laws that are not presented in the case before them.

>>>>

SCOTUS based Windsor on the principled affirmation that marriage is the purview of the States and Federal benefits will be recognized in STATES where the STATE has determined gay marriage is legal.

No disagreement there. Pretty well sums up the Windsor decision. In this case the State said "Yes", the Federal government had no basis to say "No" for homosexuals.

You, like Seawitch, believe that because Windosr was not "State specific" in its express cause of action, the legal rational to decide Windsor in no way relied on or affirmed the specific State right to determine marriage.

To rephase, Windsor did not address the ability of a State to say "No", it only address the idea that if - in this case - the State said "Yes" there there was no basis for the Federal government to say no except for the desire to exclude homosexuals from equal treatment under the law under the principals of Due Process and Equal Treatment as applied to the Federal government by the 5th Amendment...

Then yes, that is what I believe. However it is just not me that thinks the Windsor case was limited to Federal law regarding States that said "yes" and did not address States that said "No". The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme court said - in essence - the same thing.



>>>>

 

[beagle9]

You mean the biography of Milk?

No what you wrote in your post in which I agreed with...sheesh!

 

[OODA_Loop]

The 14th Amendment concerns States, Windsor being the DOMA case involved Federal law so it was dealt with under the 5th Amendment.



There was no question presented in the Windsor case that concerned State law. The State in question had Same-sex Civil Marriage, the Federal government recognized only some legal Civil Marriages from that State. The question to the court addressed Federal law not State law.



The SCOTUS does not arbitrarily address laws that are not presented in the case before them.



>>>>

SCOTUS based Windsor on the principled affirmation that marriage is the purview of the States and Federal benefits will be recognized in STATES where the STATE has determined gay marriage is legal.



You, like Seawitch, believe that because Windosr was not "State specific" in its express cause of action, the legal rational to decide Windsor in no way relied on or affirmed the specific State right to determine marriage.

And you'll keep believing that until the next case hits the SCOTUS. They're stacking up fast. Go 10th!

So the next case they are going to say: Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?

I am not certain that is a lock.

 

[Silhouette]

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th. Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote. They may still do that. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Gays just don't qualify for the 14th. Behaviors don't. Sorry.

Yet the 14th was that basis for the Romer decision when Colorado passed a State Constitutional Amendment targeting homosexuals.

Sorry, the 14th has already applied to homosexuals by the SCOTUS.


>>>>

Then why didn't DOMA/Prop 8 just conclude that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and be done with it? Why did they allow and reiterate a hundred times under the context and question of gay marriage being legal, or not, that states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves since the founding of the country? Why did they issue a stay in Utah?

These questions are very curious indeed.

Says OODA__Loop:

So the next case they are going to say: Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?

I am not certain that is a lock.

Exactly. Given how many times they reiterated a state's right and power and authority on defining marriage in DOMA/Windsor, they would essentially be reversing that Opinion in less than a year's time. Not a common practice for SCOTUS as I understand the history of the Court's practices...

 

[emilynghiem]

Since it is a religious issue, to be Constitutionally equal,
the marriage policies could NEITHER BAN NOR ENDORSE gay marriage
and claim to separate religious policy from government.

Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage, or take marriage completely out of state jursdiction and policy,
only govern civil contracts for custody, estates, probate and property/financial agreements,
and keep marriage private with people's personal church religion or institution of their choice.

Once you start pushing either a forced BAN or forced INCLUSION
then the state is making a religious decision. If so, the people need to agree
religiously or it is unconstitutional.

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th. Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote. They may still do that. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Gays just don't qualify for the 14th. Behaviors don't. Sorry.

Yet the 14th was that basis for the Romer decision when Colorado passed a State Constitutional Amendment targeting homosexuals.

Sorry, the 14th has already applied to homosexuals by the SCOTUS.


>>>>

Then why didn't DOMA/Prop 8 just conclude that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and be done with it? Why did they allow and reiterate a hundred times under the context and question of gay marriage being legal, or not, that state's have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves since the founding of the country? Why did they issue a stay in Utah?

In the separate cases...

1. DOMA said that such authority was subject to constitutional guarantees. The Windsor case did not address whether States could say "No", only that the Federal government must recognize States that say "Yes".

2. In Prop 8 they punted to dismiss it on standing. By (a) dismissing the case and standing, (b) vacating the 9th decision, and (c) leaving the Disctirct Courts ruling and the final decision - they crafted a narrow compromise that fit only the unique circumstances of California. It's not uncommon for the court to wait for a "clean" case to reach them. Which the Utah case might be, or depending on the rule of four, might not - we won't know for about a year.

3. The issued the stay to allow the appeals process to move forward - IMHO - it was the right thing to do. Judge Shelby should have issued a stay with the decision pending appeal. I think not doing so was a bad decision.​

These questions are very curious indeed.

Not really.


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage

My State defined marriage as between a man and a woman in its' constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

SCOTUS based Windsor on the principled affirmation that marriage is the purview of the States and Federal benefits will be recognized in STATES where the STATE has determined gay marriage is legal.







You, like Seawitch, believe that because Windosr was not "State specific" in its express cause of action, the legal rational to decide Windsor in no way relied on or affirmed the specific State right to determine marriage.

And you'll keep believing that until the next case hits the SCOTUS. They're stacking up fast. Go 10th!

So the next case they are going to say: Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?



I am not certain that is a lock.

I am...since they only ruled, in Windsor, on the states that said yes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Says OODA__Loop:

So the next case they are going to say: Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?

I am not certain that is a lock.

Exactly. Given how many times they reiterated a state's right and power and authority on defining marriage in DOMA/Windsor, they would essentially be reversing that Opinion in less than a year's time. Not a common practice for SCOTUS as I understand the history of the Court's practices...

They said that Civil Marriage was within the purview of the States but still subject to constitutional guarantees. Whether those guarantees apply to marriages based on gender is yet to be determined.

But if Civil Marriage was totally beyond the scope of the 14th, then the court would have erred in the Loving decision. That case shows that States must still function withing the scope of the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage

My State defined marriage as between a man and a woman in its' constitution.

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>

 

[emilynghiem]

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th. Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote. They may still do that. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Gays just don't qualify for the 14th. Behaviors don't. Sorry.

Yet the 14th was that basis for the Romer decision when Colorado passed a State Constitutional Amendment targeting homosexuals.

Sorry, the 14th has already applied to homosexuals by the SCOTUS.

>>>>

Perhaps, with some people it is just an external behavior.
With others it is spiritually how they were born and are in life.
Who they are, and how they and their "soul mates" are incarnated is
their spiritual process; it is part of their identity as human beings.

Either way, it is a religious/spiritual matter to distinguish this, which is private.
There is no way "legal process" to determine it without invading privacy,
and no crime has been committed so you cannot force witnesses to testify.

so the state has no business making such decisions. the people need to
resolve these issues personally case by case and/or keep it out of public policy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And you'll keep believing that until the next case hits the SCOTUS. They're stacking up fast. Go 10th!

So the next case they are going to say: Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?



I am not certain that is a lock.

I am...since they only ruled, in Windsor, on the states that said yes.

So a state can say YES but can't say NO ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Either way, it is a religious/spiritual matter to distinguish this, which is private.

My state's constitutional amendment defining marriage was not religious based.

My personal objection to gay marriage is not religious.

Be gay all you want.

The State does not have to sanction or legitimize your free and legal choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage

My State defined marriage as between a man and a woman in its' constitution.

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).

>>>>

Yes, so the people of these states need to agree what the policies are at the state level. And what to keep at the private level if they do not agree.

I suggest not to wait to the point of voting or going to court to make the decision.
If people already know what they believe or don't believe, then write the laws out
to include and represent that equally. Where people don't agree, it makes sense to write out a process so they can follow different policies without imposing any conflict.

Similar to having general state rules for how to incorporate a nonrprofit or religious organization. But then leave the private policies to each group to decide separately.
They don't have to legislate all policies for all the different groups. It is natural for Hindus and Buddhists follow to different religious practices from the Muslims and Christians. Yet all of these religious organizations still follow some basic laws or rules when they incorporate under the State. They don't have to agree on all their private policies or practices beyond that point.

This should have been done with the Boy Scouts also. Have a general policy at the top that doesn't ban or force the issue one way or another.
And then let each separate group decide for itself depending on its membership base.