Do SCOTUS' Gay Marriage Stays-In-Interim Apply to All 50 States?

[Silhouette]

[

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now, what does that make the changing or revoking or refusal of enforcement of that initiative law in California? Oh yes, that's right. That's called 'sedition'....

Prop 8 isn't the law. It was struck down by the courts.

Actually, Windsor upheld Prop 8 by Declaring that a state's right to define marriage is its constitutional right until further notice. So unless initiative law itself has been declared defunct in California, Prop 8 is the law and always has been [they also Found in Windsor that that state right was retroactive to the founding of the country]

What is on appeal is actually whether or not LGBT cultees may forcefully remove that existing right from the states. That's why the Utah stay was granted. It was telling the nation what the Court considers enforceable law in in the interim.

 

[Silhouette]

Well? Has initiative law been declared defunct? No? Then Windsor stands as law unless gays successfully convince the Court otherwise.

Prop 8 is LAW in California. Any attempts to dismantle it, not enforce it, rewrite it or other laws subservient directly to it in family law is = sedition and a violation of the guilty's Oath of Office.

 

[ShackledNation]

Silhouette, Windsor did not uphold prop 8. Windsor addressed federal law exclusively, and state same-sex marriage bans were not in question. Everyone has debunked this claim of yours already multiple times. So please, give it a rest. You are wrong, and now you are just embarrassing yourself even more.

 

[JoeB131]

Silhouette, Windsor did not uphold prop 8. Windsor addressed federal law exclusively, and state same-sex marriage bans were not in question. Everyone has debunked this claim of yours already multiple times. So please, give it a rest. You are wrong, and now you are just embarrassing yourself even more.

Silly really need to believe that Windsor preserved gay marriage bans in some part of the country.

She really, really needs to believe that some court will take her point of view on gays.

Because the day gay marriage is legal in the whole country will be devastating for her.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, Windsor did not uphold prop 8. Windsor addressed federal law exclusively, and state same-sex marriage bans were not in question. Everyone has debunked this claim of yours already multiple times. So please, give it a rest. You are wrong, and now you are just embarrassing yourself even more.

1. Prop 8 is a state law, voted in by 7 million people in California's dominant initiative system.

2. Windsor upheld state's choice on gay marriage until further notice. This is further underscored by the recent granting by SCOTUS of a stay on gay marriage in Utah where Windsor was cited in pleadings for that stay. Utah cited windsor and argued, effectively, that its voters needed the power of their democracy with respect to the question of gay marriage respected in the interim while cases are appealed. And since Utah cannot be favored among the 50 states, the power of the individual vote on gay marriage is currently Upheld in all 50 states by extrapolation of other federal laws forbidding favoritism to the states. Particularly on questions of the civil right of having one's vote count.

3. Prop 8, ergo, is law.

4. The only way it isn't is if A. A lower court has higher jurisdiction than SCOTUS or B. If initiative law is no longer the way California makes laws. or C. If an initiative has been voted on in California since then repealing or amending Prop 8.

Them are the facts bro.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Prop 8 is a state law, voted in by 7 million people in California's dominant initiative system.

And ruled unconstitutional in fedral court, a ruling the SCOTUS allowed to stand without vacating it.

2. Windsor upheld state's choice on gay marriage until further notice.

No it didn't. Windsor was a ruling on Federal law only. The ruling itself says it is limited to the question presented in that 12 States had made SSCM lawful and discriminatory federal law. It did not address whether SSCM could be barred by the States.

See the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court remarks in the ruling.

3. Prop 8, ergo, is law.

No it's not, Prop 8 is dead. It was deemed unconstitutional and is invalid.

4. The only way it isn't is if A. A lower court has higher jurisdiction than SCOTUS or B. If initiative law is no longer the way California makes laws. or C. If an initiative has been voted on in California since then repealing or amending Prop 8.

You left out option "D", it was ruled unconstitutional in federal court and the SCOTUS didn't vacate the ruling allowing it to stand.

Them are the facts bro.

Actually that is how you want things to be, which doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the situation.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

1. Prop 8 is a state law, voted in by 7 million people in California's dominant initiative system.

And ruled unconstitutional in fedral court, a ruling the SCOTUS allowed to stand without vacating it.

I cut your post back to its premise so the rest following will dissolve as I crumble it.

SCOTUS allowed it to stand as long as it could; which was precisely the amount of time it took them to then render the Windsor Decision [upon which they just recently granted Utah's voters protection and reaffirmed their choice on gay marriage].

Clever eh? "We let Prop 8's overturning stand". Then within 24 hours [I think it was much less than that] of that announcement, "We reaffirm Prop 8 by affirming state's choice on gay marriage".

When they announced that they were Hearing both DOMA and Prop 8 at the same Sitting, I knew something was up. You should've too. You're a lawyer after all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Prop 8 is a state law, voted in by 7 million people in California's dominant initiative system.

And ruled unconstitutional in fedral court, a ruling the SCOTUS allowed to stand without vacating it.

I cut your post back to its premise so the rest following will dissolve as I crumble it.

SCOTUS allowed it to stand as long as it could; which was precisely the amount of time it took them to then render the Windsor Decision [upon which they just recently granted Utah's voters protection and reaffirmed their choice on gay marriage].

Clever eh? "We let Prop 8's overturning stand". Then within 24 hours [I think it was much less than that] of that announcement, "We reaffirm Prop 8 by affirming state's choice on gay marriage".

When they announced that they were Hearing both DOMA and Prop 8 at the same Sitting, I knew something was up. You should've too. You're a lawyer after all.

Pssst

They didn't hear Prop 8 and DOMA in the same sitting. There were separate cases, separate oral arguments were conducted, and separate decisions were made.


BTW - No I'm not a lawyer, the difference between us is that I can read and understand the writings of the SCOTUS where you ignore anything that disagrees with your desires. For example, the SCOTUS didn't vacate the Prop 8 decision. For example, the SCOTUS said that the holding in Windsor was limited. For example the writings in Windsor by the Chief Justice that notes that Windsor does not answer the question if States are limited in their ability to discriminate against homosexuals under the Constitution pertaining to Civil Marriage.

But you just go right ahead.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Pssst

They didn't hear Prop 8 and DOMA in the same sitting. There were separate cases, separate oral arguments were conducted, and separate decisions were made.


BTW - No I'm not a lawyer, the difference between us is that I can read and understand the writings of the SCOTUS where you ignore anything that disagrees with your desires. For example, the SCOTUS didn't vacate the Prop 8 decision. For example, the SCOTUS said that the holding in Windsor was limited. For example the writings in Windsor by the Chief Justice that notes that Windsor does not answer the question if States are limited in their ability to discriminate against homosexuals under the Constitution pertaining to Civil Marriage.

But you just go right ahead.


>>>>

Yes, Windsor didn't address the states ability to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Exactly.

So the default goes to what it did find consitutionally: that states get to define marriage in the interim. That's why SCOTUS granted Utah's request for a stay on gay marriage citing Windsor. It's interim-default is the power of a states voters to decide until further notice.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Silhouette]

Silly really need to believe that Windsor preserved gay marriage bans in some part of the country.

She really, really needs to believe that some court will take her point of view on gays.

Because the day gay marriage is legal in the whole country will be devastating for her.

Windsor did or did not support argument for the stay that was .....GRANTED......to Utah by SCOTUS?

 

[Inevitable]

Silhouette, Windsor did not uphold prop 8. Windsor addressed federal law exclusively, and state same-sex marriage bans were not in question. Everyone has debunked this claim of yours already multiple times. So please, give it a rest. You are wrong, and now you are just embarrassing yourself even more.

Sil has to believe he is winning. Meh let the baby have his bottle. The moron doesn't understand that this country isn't a democracy but a constitutional republic. He doesn't get the bare basics of our government, he refuses to educate himself. I wouldn't trust any of hisanalysis.

Also consider that he only focuses on gay topics. This is Ann existential struggle for him. Prior to my coming out, I often would get on forums and argue just like he does. He is definitely homosexual or at least bisexual. The only question is will he ever realize it.

To be focused to the point of obsession as he is about homosexuality, it's on his mind a lot. This is simply Sil attempting to convince himself that he isn't gay. I have been there before.

 

[Inevitable]

Silly really need to believe that Windsor preserved gay marriage bans in some part of the country.

She really, really needs to believe that some court will take her point of view on gays.

Because the day gay marriage is legal in the whole country will be devastating for her.

Windsor did or did not support argument for the stay that was .....GRANTED......to Utah by SCOTUS?

In Utah.

 

[Silhouette]

Silly really need to believe that Windsor preserved gay marriage bans in some part of the country.

She really, really needs to believe that some court will take her point of view on gays.

Because the day gay marriage is legal in the whole country will be devastating for her.

Windsor did or did not support argument for the stay that was .....GRANTED......to Utah by SCOTUS?

In Utah.

..lol.. So a state's right to democratic rule on the question of gay marriage in the interim is limited JUST to Utah?

 

[Inevitable]

Windsor did or did not support argument for the stay that was .....GRANTED......to Utah by SCOTUS?

In Utah.

..lol.. So a state's right to democratic rule on the question of gay marriage in the interim is limited JUST to Utah?

No state has the right to democratically rule in a constitutional republic. But yes the stay only only applies to states who's bans are being challenged. That isn't California. Call a California no and ask.

 

[Silhouette]

In Utah.

..lol.. So a state's right to democratic rule on the question of gay marriage in the interim is limited JUST to Utah?

No state has the right to democratically rule in a constitutional republic. But yes the stay only only applies to states who's bans are being challenged. That isn't California. Call a California no and ask.

Apparently Utah DOES have the right to democratically rule on gay marriage. And the no-favoritism rule imposed upon the federal system means that no one state may enjoy such a privelege while others remain deprived. Not even for five minutes.

 

[Inevitable]

..lol.. So a state's right to democratic rule on the question of gay marriage in the interim is limited JUST to Utah?

No state has the right to democratically rule in a constitutional republic. But yes the stay only only applies to states who's bans are being challenged. That isn't California. Call a California no and ask.

Apparently Utah DOES have the right to democratically rule on gay marriage.

That's called tyranny.

And the no-favoritism rule imposed upon the federal system means that no one state may enjoy such a privelege while others remain deprived. Not even for five minutes.

So California didn't have a ban on same sexmarriage so nothing is being deprived. Texas and Oklahoma and states that have bans are able to continue while this is beingworked out in the federal courts. California's prop 8 was found unconstitutional already. So the stay for bans wouldn't apply.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently Utah DOES have the right to democratically rule on gay marriage.

That's called tyranny.

And the no-favoritism rule imposed upon the federal system means that no one state may enjoy such a privelege while others remain deprived. Not even for five minutes.

So California didn't have a ban on same sexmarriage so nothing is being deprived. Texas and Oklahoma and states that have bans are able to continue while this is beingworked out in the federal courts. California's prop 8 was found unconstitutional already. So the stay for bans wouldn't apply.

So SCOTUS ruling against gay marriage on the stay it granted Utah is "tyranny"? I'm sure they'll be interested to know that. I suppose it is: the "tyranny of the Nine"...

Meanwhile, voters in California are being told that their votes have no power to define marriage in the interim. While voters in Utah are being told theirs do. This favoritism is clearly and inarguably unconstitutional. No state may enjoy a constitutional civil right while others do not. There is no, zero, constitutional right that guarantees same gendera may marry each other. There is no constituitonal protections for behaviors.

Prop 8 stands.

 

[ShackledNation]

Apparently Utah DOES have the right to democratically rule on gay marriage.

That's called tyranny.

And the no-favoritism rule imposed upon the federal system means that no one state may enjoy such a privelege while others remain deprived. Not even for five minutes.

So California didn't have a ban on same sexmarriage so nothing is being deprived. Texas and Oklahoma and states that have bans are able to continue while this is beingworked out in the federal courts. California's prop 8 was found unconstitutional already. So the stay for bans wouldn't apply.

So SCOTUS ruling against gay marriage on the stay it granted Utah is "tyranny"? I'm sure they'll be interested to know that. I suppose it is: the "tyranny of the Nine"...

Meanwhile, voters in California are being told that their votes have no power to define marriage in the interim. While voters in Utah are being told theirs do. This favoritism is clearly and inarguably unconstitutional. No state may enjoy a constitutional civil right while others do not. There is no, zero, constitutional right that guarantees same gendera may marry each other. There is no constituitonal protections for behaviors.

Prop 8 stands.

Stays are requested for single cases and granted for single cases. California is no longer an issue, the ban was already struck down. There is no stay to be requested.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again so your hope is that in less than two years' time the Court will overturn itself?

The court wouldn't be reversing itself as the court didn't rule with what you are saying.

The court itself said itself that the Windsor ruling was limited to lawful marriage and federal recognition of those marriages.

Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court notes that the Windsor decision does not apply to the states and that question would be a seperate case.

Meanwhile, since we all agree Prop 8 is law right now,

We don't, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that decision allowed to remain valid by the SCOTUS.
>>>>

Windsor did rule how I said it did.

Telling you that you are delusional or you are outright lying, because you have been shown dozens of times that you are wrong, is stating the truth and not ad hom.

Yes, Windsor right now is constrained by how USSC will interpret the slew of cases coming up the chain, which all agree, except one, that marriage equality is a federally protected right.

You would be sanctioned, as was Orly Taitz, for frivolous arguments.

 

[Charles_Main]

As a General Rule. When the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of one states law. It effects only that law.