Change the Premise and Opposition Wins Gay Legal Challenges: Simple as That

[WorldWatcher]

Worldy, first of all, it's not "anyone's guess" how SCOTUS will rule because it already has ruled on state's place in the ratifying or not ratifying of gay marriage. It said in Windsor that it wanted the broadest consensus in the respective states to weigh in before a decision was made. Read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. United States v. Windsor.

That is incorrect Sil, as the SCOTUS said in it's opinion, the decision of the case was confined to the protections under federal law of the 5th Amendment and that the Windsor decision was "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages."

Which lawful marriages? "New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons. " Which became 12 later that same day when they issued their decision in the Prop 8 case and decided NOT to vacate the District Court Judges ruling allowing it to stand.

Now of course you are free to continue to promote your incorrect legal theory that Windsor only validated SSCM for three States. Of course any one can continue to be wrong.

If you disagree with that, maybe you should write a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who holds that same opinion and who said, in his dissenting opinion:

But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads
it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads
no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18,
may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."​

The issue was not decided and could go either way. No matter the likely ruling of the 10th or 4th Circuit Courts that decision will be appealed and the SCOTUS can then decide the separate issue of whether States can exclude same-sex couples from equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment as they already ruled that way in Romer and ruled that way in Windsor as to the application of the 5th Amendment.


>>>>

Yes, that's interesting because at the time of their writing, your camp was claiming that California was the 13th state to have gay marriage forced on it...well the 10th, since only 3 have ratified it according to Windsor.

You have both numbers wrong. At the time the Windsor decision was issued there were:

11 States with SSCM as noted in the decision.

Later that day it because 12 when the SCOTUS issued their decision in the Perry case and allowed the District Court ruling to remain without vacating it.​

So you think Windsor's long-winded and very specific outlines for how the majority must decide on gay marriage is some legal island that won't be cited? Too late.

They said no such thing, as the Chief Justice noted in writings contained in the decision. The Windsor decision was about if States say "Yes", which New York had done via legislative action (not ballot initiative BTW), could the Federal government discriminate and choose not to recognize those Civil Marriages - the ruling was "no".

The AG for Utah I think it was has already used Windsor in his appeals and will continue to do so. SCOTUS can't sequester it's own precedent and legal logic away like that. It will be cited. And in fact, it has been cited. Utah won it's emergency appeal to put a stop to "gay marriages" there, remember. If memory serves I think their AG cited Windsor in those pleadings too.

And every case since Windsor that has been won in the courts the plaintiffs have also cited Windsor and it's logic that there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against same-sex couples in terms of Civil Marriage.

Each time the opposing council cited Windsor also. The plaintiffs won and the side for discrimination lost. The AG's are also free to cite Windsor, what the actual outcome from the SCOTUS will be we'll find out probably sometime next year.

Odd that they'd mention 12 [but not 13-California]

Not odd at all. At the time the Windsor decision was written it was 11, it because 12 after the decision was issued when the issued the Prop 8 decision and allowed the ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand.

There are many curious contradictions that will have to be addressed in any new decision.

I agree in part and disagree in part.

Agree - it will take a future ruling to finalize the outcome.

Disagree - there is nothing confusing about Windsor. They found there was no compelling goverrnment interest to discriminate against SSCM from a federal perspective under the 5th Amendment.

It will take a new case to see if the logic which shot down DOMA will be applied to the States and whether same-sex couples are included as "All Persons...".

But the bottom line is that the Opinion of Windsor goes on and on and on and on and on and on about how gay marriage is weird, new and how the broadest possible consensus is the right and proper way to ratify it if it ever does get off the ground in the respective states...and not the fed. They mentioned ad nauseum about that too: not the fed, not the fed, not the fed. Except where the 14th applies. But then like you said, they brought up Loving v Virginia in Windsor too, and then went on to say that only a few states had legal gay marriage [in violation of their own description of how that was to come about within the same document]. If it Loving was applicable, you'd think they would've said so.

No it doesn't say what you say it said.

Loving was used as an example of when the Constitution overrides State mandates, showing that State laws are still subject to "Constitutional guarantees" (a quote in the actual decision. Your repeated use of "broadest possible consensus" is not a phrase in the decision - it's one that you made up. Go ahead, do a text search for "broad".

I think they left that open ended for some sharp lawyers to close the loophole on.

There is no "loophole" to close, whether States can ban Civil Marriage to same-sex couples was not a question before the court.

Did you write that letter to the Chief Justice yet and tell him he's wrong?

And as I've mentioned many times Worldy, you cannot have just some arbitrary minority of deviant sexual behaviors calling themselves a "race" and thereby declaring to the majority that they cannot have a say. What behaviors would come next riding on the coattails of that precendent? Why not them also? Because the majority finds them "icky"?

And yet the 14th Amendment WAS used to rule Colorado's Amendment 2 as unconstitutional because it target homosexuals.

Blacks could Civilly Marry. White could Civilly Marry. Yet banning the behavior of wanting to marry between races was found unconstitutional.

You see the catch-22 you're in. Good luck with that.

No catch-22 that I'm in. Every court decision (and what it's up to about a dozen now?) confirms what I've been saying. Not one court has agreed with your misstatements about the ruling.

Hell even the Chief Justice's writing directly contradict what you've said and when shown it you just ignore it and go to another thread and repeat the same untruths.

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


The difference between us is you make unqualified statements with an absolute certainty that the SCOTUS will rule in such a way.

I don't claim to know how the SCOTUS will rule they could come down either way. I do know though that your claims are faulty about what the SCOTUS said is faulty, saying that only 3 states have legal SSCM. The SCOTUS said it was 12 (at the time), 11 in the Windsor decision and one more added later that day when they issued the Perry decision and allowed the District Court Judge's ruling to stand without vacating it (which they could have done).



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

(; Go get um Sil!

Just curious, do you agree with Sil that SSCM is only legal in 3-states and disagree the SCOTUS themselves that said it was legal in 11 States (at the time the opinion was written)?

In other words do you take Sil's word over that of the SCOTUS?


>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

Fuck the SCOTUS! We The People of the Sovereign states decide when this is over. How do you like that answer?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fuck the SCOTUS! We The People of the Sovereign states decide when this is over. How do you like that answer?

I find it the expected dodge, you know her "3-state" only position is not in Windsor but you don't want to give an inch from seeming to support her.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Fuck the SCOTUS! We The People of the Sovereign states decide when this is over. How do you like that answer?

They already decided in favor of the sovereign states. Maybe you should take a look at Windsor too Lockejaw. It will set your mind at ease

United States v. Windsor Particularly pages 14-22 of the Opinion.

 

[LockeJaw]

W-Dub, you're wrong, she is right. That's why I support her & will continue to.

Your fascist dream of what the constitution says must be curbed.

You watch too much Sci-Fi, join reality & you'll understand why.

God bless Sil & her mission.

You idiots are wrong.

You think the catholic church molestation scandals are bad, you like to talk shit about it...wait until YOU are responsible for the molestation of a child in a homosexual family...if you had a heart, you'd shoot yourself dead for what you've done.

This stuff is wrong brother, Period.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fuck the SCOTUS! We The People of the Sovereign states decide when this is over. How do you like that answer?

Typical of most on the social right: hostile to the Constitution and its case law, hostile to the rule of law, and ignorant of the fact that Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, and residents of their states subordinate to that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The premise, that same sex couples are equal to opposite sex couples is the false argument.

Logic is pissy to SeaWitch?

A nudist feels he was born that way, does not effect anyone's marriage and knew he was a nudist his/her entire life. Why the discrimination when their lifestyle is far more consistent with nature than your?

Hater. Bigot.

The irony of you mentioning logic is rich beyond words. Pops idea of logic:

Pops: Gays can't marry because they don't have babies naturally
Logical people: Older and infertile couples can't have babies naturally
Pops: Yeah, but that's "normal"

Ta-da! Pop's "logic"

Nobody discriminates against nudists. No one can run around naked, not just nudists. You really don't understand the nature of discrimination do you? Nudists are not treated differently than everyone else. They are not kept from enjoying all the same laws, benefits and protections as people who are not nudists. Your analogies aren't just illogical, they're downright stupid.

Lol, spoken by someone who's entire life is illogical. Now you want to preach logic?

Your lifestyle makes logical reasoning impossible. You do realize that being placed in jail for being nude in public takes a few rights away right?

Was homosexual activity ever illegal?

Might want to think a bit before posting your warped logic.

You don’t understand.

The states and other jurisdictions are at liberty to place restrictions on various actions, such as public nudity, provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally.

Measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are un-Constitutional because they single out gay Americans for exclusion from marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, where such restrictions are not applied to everyone equally.

And yes, in certain jurisdictions being gay was in fact a criminal offense, those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003.

In Lawrence v. Texas the Court invalidated laws making criminal homosexual acts because they violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

 

[Pop23]

The irony of you mentioning logic is rich beyond words. Pops idea of logic:

Pops: Gays can't marry because they don't have babies naturally
Logical people: Older and infertile couples can't have babies naturally
Pops: Yeah, but that's "normal"

Ta-da! Pop's "logic"

Nobody discriminates against nudists. No one can run around naked, not just nudists. You really don't understand the nature of discrimination do you? Nudists are not treated differently than everyone else. They are not kept from enjoying all the same laws, benefits and protections as people who are not nudists. Your analogies aren't just illogical, they're downright stupid.

Lol, spoken by someone who's entire life is illogical. Now you want to preach logic?

Your lifestyle makes logical reasoning impossible. You do realize that being placed in jail for being nude in public takes a few rights away right?

Was homosexual activity ever illegal?

Might want to think a bit before posting your warped logic.

You don’t understand.

The states and other jurisdictions are at liberty to place restrictions on various actions, such as public nudity, provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally.

Measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are un-Constitutional because they single out gay Americans for exclusion from marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, where such restrictions are not applied to everyone equally.

And yes, in certain jurisdictions being gay was in fact a criminal offense, those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003.

In Lawrence v. Texas the Court invalidated laws making criminal homosexual acts because they violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

So a prohibition against same sex marriage, applied to everyone is OK. Or shall we go back to the prohibition against public nudity only is prohibiting those that want to be nude in public.

A. Same sex marriage only prohibits those wanting to marry the same sex

B. Public nudity only prohibits those wanting to be nude in public.

Same sex is as equal to opposite sex = people who want to live naked to those wanting to live fully clothed.

How does someone's public nudity effect your choice of slacks?

 

[LockeJaw]

Blah blah blah, Clay. I'm Against the "laws" that were passed unconstitutionally. You dont like it, sue me. Lol

 

[LockeJaw]

Marriage laws are equal today. Marry a chick, Clay. Go to a lawyer & get yourself a contract written up so you can visit your lover in the hospital, Problem solved.

 

[Slyhunter]

The irony of you mentioning logic is rich beyond words. Pops idea of logic:

Pops: Gays can't marry because they don't have babies naturally
Logical people: Older and infertile couples can't have babies naturally
Pops: Yeah, but that's "normal"

Ta-da! Pop's "logic"

Nobody discriminates against nudists. No one can run around naked, not just nudists. You really don't understand the nature of discrimination do you? Nudists are not treated differently than everyone else. They are not kept from enjoying all the same laws, benefits and protections as people who are not nudists. Your analogies aren't just illogical, they're downright stupid.

Lol, spoken by someone who's entire life is illogical. Now you want to preach logic?

Your lifestyle makes logical reasoning impossible. You do realize that being placed in jail for being nude in public takes a few rights away right?

Was homosexual activity ever illegal?

Might want to think a bit before posting your warped logic.

You don’t understand.

The states and other jurisdictions are at liberty to place restrictions on various actions, such as public nudity, provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally.

Measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are un-Constitutional because they single out gay Americans for exclusion from marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, where such restrictions are not applied to everyone equally.

And yes, in certain jurisdictions being gay was in fact a criminal offense, those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003.

In Lawrence v. Texas the Court invalidated laws making criminal homosexual acts because they violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

They have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. Being able to marry the same sex is a different right that isn't given to the people. Just like Polygamy.

 

[Silhouette]

They have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. Being able to marry the same sex is a different right that isn't given to the people. Just like Polygamy.

Well put. The behavior of marrying the same gender is not a constitutional guarantee. Nor is the behavior of marrying more than one person.

 

[Pop23]

They have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. Being able to marry the same sex is a different right that isn't given to the people. Just like Polygamy.

Well put. The behavior of marrying the same gender is not a constitutional guarantee. Nor is the behavior of marrying more than one person.

The Utah incursion proved both. The United States affirmed that with its military.

 

[Seawytch]

They have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. Being able to marry the same sex is a different right that isn't given to the people. Just like Polygamy.

Same bigots, different day:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

See, they said that because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, that it was not discrimination...like you're doing now with gays.

Nothing new under the sun.

 

[LockeJaw]

We will see how this works out. I've been doing sone reading of various sources on the Windsor case, the gay lobby & activist judges may have overplayed their hand on this one. To an extent I agree with WorldWatcher, that extent being that it's not really all that clear how the SCOTUS will rule...but it kind of looks like they have hit a roadblock that'll be hard to clear up.

Here is one source I read, it's from a supporter of gay marriage so you may be able to take what he says better than if it came from the opposite.

The untold risks of the Supreme Court?s same-sex marriage decisions : SCOTUSblog

 

[Slyhunter]

They have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. Being able to marry the same sex is a different right that isn't given to the people. Just like Polygamy.

Same bigots, different day:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

See, they said that because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, that it was not discrimination...like you're doing now with gays.

Nothing new under the sun.

Gays can marry straights and straights can marry gays, just not of the same sex.
Your argument fails.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They have the same rights as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex. Being able to marry the same sex is a different right that isn't given to the people. Just like Polygamy.

Same bigots, different day:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

See, they said that because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, that it was not discrimination...like you're doing now with gays.

Nothing new under the sun.

Gays can marry straights and straights can marry gays, just not of the same sex.
Your argument fails.

Could blacks marry blacks and whites marry whites?


Could not both races marry?



>>>>

 

[Slyhunter]

Same bigots, different day:

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.​

See, they said that because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites, that it was not discrimination...like you're doing now with gays.

Nothing new under the sun.

Gays can marry straights and straights can marry gays, just not of the same sex.
Your argument fails.

Could blacks marry blacks and whites marry whites?


Could not both races marry?



>>>>

In order for them to be the same blacks marry white would be the same as gays marrying straights, not other gays.

 

[LockeJaw]

And...We are back to arguing gays as a race, it's a vicious cycle I tell ya.

What race are gays now? They usually come in all races, from what I gather.

Are they from another planet or something?