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

[bodecea]

Just the kids will get screwed when LGBT cult marriage allows a legal shoehorn for these folks to get at the orphans via lawsuits:

You think random pictures are an argument! Wow.

How about some pictures of random heterosexuals? Can you imagine if we let heterosexuals get married!! Look at what kind of parents they would be!

Look how horrible and crazy these heterosexuals are. Ban heterosexual marriage to protect the children!

Again, the two CULTURES reward this type of behavior differently.

Heteros frown on it, punish it, imprison it and even beat the tar out of it.

Homos smile upon it, encourage it and display it soberly as a cultural value of "pride"...

What do you see in hetero news coverage of Miley Cyrus? Scorn, disgust.

In fact, Hollywood is dominated by LGBT dogma via GLAAD who promotes its agenda on the silver screen. When you see smut and smutty actresses & actors displayed for public viewing it's almost certainly with the blessing of the LGBT Gulag.

Then there are the gay pride parades.

How many hetero-pride parades have you seen with the same sober display hoping children would be there? Spring Break, Mardis Gras etc. are well known in advance and are drunken displays of debauchery not meant for children to be attending. The next day with hangovers, the adults there are/should be anything but proud. Those that bring kids there to those destinations should not be parents.

But down a public thoroughfare through the middle of town in the middle of the day...children cannot avoid seeing the spectacle. And of course that is precisely why LGBTs plan all the loud primary rainbow colors, floats and so forth. Kids love that kind of stuff...

Remember the cultural differences and it will all make sense to you... Homos march these values en masse in a parade format as a sober matter of pride adorned with trappings meant to attract the eye of children. Heteros cloister these behaviors at destinations that children can avoid...and hope that they will.

Wrong answer....hetero sex sells and sells and sells...

 

[Inevitable]

Again, the two CULTURES reward this type of behavior differently.

Yeah, I would say so. The heterosexuals give them millions and revere them.

Nope, you plaster it all over magazines, billboards, movies and television.

parentsbeginning their journey, yep, that is something to be proud of.

No such thing as bad publicity. If you don't approve why say anything?

Not really, if it were we would see more homosexual protagonists. There are very few movies where that is the case. And very few shows.

The parade symbolises something historical. And there are children that are gay and because there are people like you working to beat them down, the pride event tells them that it's okay.

There isn't really anything that is particularly harmful to children there. And seeinga parade doesn't make people gay. It just says that it's okay. But I think that isthe real message you despise. You don't want it to be okay. Tough shit kiddo.

[quoteRemember the cultural differences and it will all make sense to you... Homos march these values en masse in a parade format as a sober matter of pride adorned with trappings meant to attract the eye of children.

No they actually don't. Your interpretation of these symbols likely stems from your deep seated prejudice.

Heteros cloister these behaviors at destinations that children can avoid...and hope that they will.

Nothey don't, they actually promote them. That's the only way theparades are capable of being. Heterosexual people have to approve of it.

Kids like people acting silly, be they gay or straight, kids do not CARE.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is just sil's attempt to appear like he cares about people. When all he really cares about is spin

 

[Inevitable]

Wrong answer....hetero sex sells and sells and sells...

Yeah it seems like Sil is blind.

Selling sex is everywhere, in your home while you are watching television worth your children. Heterosexuals want children to see that.

 

[Peach]

Wrong answer....hetero sex sells and sells and sells...

Yeah it seems like Sil is blind.

Selling sex is everywhere, in your home while you are watching television worth your children. Heterosexuals want children to see that.

Not me, and the guy painted in loud colors was not obscene, most kids would laugh; there isn't enough laughter in this Brave New World.

 

[Inevitable]

Wrong answer....hetero sex sells and sells and sells...

Yeah it seems like Sil is blind.

Selling sex is everywhere, in your home while you are watching television worth your children. Heterosexuals want children to see that.

Not me, and the guy painted in loud colors was not obscene, most kids would laugh; there isn't enough laughter in this Brave New World.

Right.

I remember watching the divers on the Olympics as a kid. They wore the same clothing. When I was 10-18 I was on the swim team, and I wore that same clothing.

Some people can only think worth their genitalia.

 

[Peach]

Stays are self explainitory, the Court issuing same has the jurisdiction spelled out; read it or have someone read it for you.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, the two CULTURES reward this type of behavior differently.

Heteros frown on it, punish it, imprison it and even beat the tar out of it.

Homos smile upon it, encourage it and display it soberly as a cultural value of "pride"...

What do you see in hetero news coverage of Miley Cyrus? Scorn, disgust.

In fact, Hollywood is dominated by LGBT dogma via GLAAD who promotes its agenda on the silver screen. When you see smut and smutty actresses & actors displayed for public viewing it's almost certainly with the blessing of the LGBT Gulag.

Then there are the gay pride parades.

The two cultures? Complete hogwash. Plenty of heterosexual people love miley cyrus and are actively involved in that culture or don't care. Plenty of gay people do not strip down at pride parades or even go. There is no such thing as a single "homosexual culture" and "heterosexual culture."

What really matters? Despite the presence of heterosexual people doing the same sexualized things you criticize people at gay pride parades for, nobody is denying them marriage licenses. Miley Cyrus can get a marriage license no problem. A gay couple that has never stripped down for a parade and has lived a quiet conservative life cannot.

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

The only reason why there's scorn at Miley is she refused to keep being Hanna Montana until she was 45.

Maybe what they need to do is before she hits 18, we need to cryonically freeze Selena Gomez before she becomes sexually active. These girls need to be in perpetual adolescence. How dare they grow up!

 

[Silhouette]

Stays are self explainitory, the Court issuing same has the jurisdiction spelled out; read it or have someone read it for you.

Let's follow the argument and the outfall of Utah's stay request.

The AG there, citing Windsor 2013, argued to the court that to not issue a stay would be detrimental to the voters of his state in the interim, as their definition of man/woman marriage and the challenge to that definition is appealed. He argued that democracy itself with respect to that state statute would be in danger.

The Court effectively said to them: "We agree, we will temporarilly find on behalf of the power of the voters of your state while this appeal is pending."

My question is, how can the US Supreme Court effectively bolster the cause of the power of democracy at the voter level in Utah by issuing a temporary stay, while at the same time claiming that other states on that exact same law [in wording and spirit], currently being challenged to be upheld by multiple states in precisely the same way on the same questions and issues, can deny the power of democracy to say California's voters?

My point is that they cannot. My point is that even while CA's AG refuses to appeal on behalf of the voters in CA, a voter there themself could seek redress from the US Supreme Court to HALT gay marriages in their state on precisely the same grounds that the stay was granted in Utah.

And this is because the AG in California has gone rogue. The legislature in CA has gone rogue. The governor in CA has gone rogue. And as such any voter there cannot find any legal redress at their state level at all, nor in the 9th District court of appeals for it too has gone rogue.

With such a stonewall built around the voters of California, effectively depriving them of their civil rights to self-govern, how can the US Supreme Court also offer itself up as another brick in that wall? Surely there must be some way to stem tyranny for the California voters to reinstate the power-in-interim that Utah voters now enjoy?

We know that in the federal system on questions of law that affect all states and particularly civil rights, like the right to self-govern, there cannot be a "case by case" application with the different states. Even in the interim. Because there cannot be an argument that "this different handling and application of law isn't hurting anyone". When in fact it is hurting the civil rights of 7 million voters in California to self-govern equally as with other states. Even if just temporarily.

As I sit there typing this, just this month Calfornia rogue officials are dismantling democracy taking full advantage of this legal limbo in their state. California's constitution Article II, Section 10 (c) says that the legislature may not alter or revoke any initiative law without the voters' permission. Yet just a couple of weeks ago the CA legislature gutted a family law subservient to Prop 8. It is still valid law there given that Utah's appeal for a stay was granted on an identical law & Utah's voters' rights to have that law honored at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS may not regard the constitutionality nor the legality of any question of the same exact law enacted in the same exact way by the self-governing voters differently state by state. There has to be equal application to prevent exactly the type of rogue tyranny and sedition that is going on in California.

This isn't "just California acting goofy again". This is SERIOUS legal erosion of democracy that is arbitrary, dangerous and unfair.

 

[bodecea]

How come Sil won't answer my frequently asked question about how many gay pride parades he's been to and actually seen what went on?

 

[Silhouette]

How come Sil won't answer my frequently asked question about how many gay pride parades he's been to and actually seen what went on?

Dear liar. I have. Multiple times. I told you ZERO. And that my exposure to them are what I've seen in the news and online searches researching this topic I post on.

Bookmark this post so you won't have to be told a hundreth time. OK liar?

 

[bodecea]

How come Sil won't answer my frequently asked question about how many gay pride parades he's been to and actually seen what went on?

Dear liar. I have. Multiple times. I told you ZERO. And that my exposure to them are what I've seen in the news and online searches researching this topic I post on.

Bookmark this post so you won't have to be told a hundreth time. OK liar?

So...you only know what you've been told by those with an agenda. I get it. Well, I've been to SEVERAL in many places. I've experienced a gay pride parade first hand. You....not so much. Maybe you need to go to one to see how it REALLY is.

 

[Silhouette]

How come Sil won't answer my frequently asked question about how many gay pride parades he's been to and actually seen what went on?

Dear liar. I have. Multiple times. I told you ZERO. And that my exposure to them are what I've seen in the news and online searches researching this topic I post on.

Bookmark this post so you won't have to be told a hundreth time. OK liar?

So...you only know what you've been told by those with an agenda. I get it. Well, I've been to SEVERAL in many places. I've experienced a gay pride parade first hand. You....not so much. Maybe you need to go to one to see how it REALLY is.

No, I know what my eyes tell me when I see pictures like the ones below.

Hey post-counting page-turning topic-derailing liar...don't forget what we were discussing previous page:

Stays are self explainitory, the Court issuing same has the jurisdiction spelled out; read it or have someone read it for you.

Let's follow the argument and the outfall of Utah's stay request.

The AG there, citing Windsor 2013, argued to the court that to not issue a stay would be detrimental to the voters of his state in the interim, as their definition of man/woman marriage and the challenge to that definition is appealed. He argued that democracy itself with respect to that state statute would be in danger.

The Court effectively said to them: "We agree, we will temporarilly find on behalf of the power of the voters of your state while this appeal is pending."

My question is, how can the US Supreme Court effectively bolster the cause of the power of democracy at the voter level in Utah by issuing a temporary stay, while at the same time claiming that other states on that exact same law [in wording and spirit], currently being challenged to be upheld by multiple states in precisely the same way on the same questions and issues, can deny the power of democracy to say California's voters?

My point is that they cannot. My point is that even while CA's AG refuses to appeal on behalf of the voters in CA, a voter there themself could seek redress from the US Supreme Court to HALT gay marriages in their state on precisely the same grounds that the stay was granted in Utah.

And this is because the AG in California has gone rogue. The legislature in CA has gone rogue. The governor in CA has gone rogue. And as such any voter there cannot find any legal redress at their state level at all, nor in the 9th District court of appeals for it too has gone rogue.

With such a stonewall built around the voters of California, effectively depriving them of their civil rights to self-govern, how can the US Supreme Court also offer itself up as another brick in that wall? Surely there must be some way to stem tyranny for the California voters to reinstate the power-in-interim that Utah voters now enjoy?

We know that in the federal system on questions of law that affect all states and particularly civil rights, like the right to self-govern, there cannot be a "case by case" application with the different states. Even in the interim. Because there cannot be an argument that "this different handling and application of law isn't hurting anyone". When in fact it is hurting the civil rights of 7 million voters in California to self-govern equally as with other states. Even if just temporarily.

As I sit there typing this, just this month Calfornia rogue officials are dismantling democracy taking full advantage of this legal limbo in their state. California's constitution Article II, Section 10 (c) says that the legislature may not alter or revoke any initiative law without the voters' permission. Yet just a couple of weeks ago the CA legislature gutted a family law subservient to Prop 8. It is still valid law there given that Utah's appeal for a stay was granted on an identical law & Utah's voters' rights to have that law honored at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS may not regard the constitutionality nor the legality of any question of the same exact law enacted in the same exact way by the self-governing voters differently state by state. There has to be equal application to prevent exactly the type of rogue tyranny and sedition that is going on in California.

This isn't "just California acting goofy again". This is SERIOUS legal erosion of democracy that is arbitrary, dangerous and unfair.

The pictures below speak for themselves. They were done in public, in full view of children the participants anticipated and hoped would be there. They were done soberly and as a matter of "pride" in parade format with floats, displays etc...all meant for people to see as a spectacle-for-viewing.

And these are the people, the very same ones belonging to that behavioral-pride-group who want legal access to THIS.. vv ..via marriage. And they are practicing blackmail and virulent fascist tactics to accomplish that goal to the demise and certain ultimate harm to children. People blind with their own mental illness cannot see where their own momentum is snowballing towards..

[/QUOTE]

 

[bodecea]

Dear liar. I have. Multiple times. I told you ZERO. And that my exposure to them are what I've seen in the news and online searches researching this topic I post on.

Bookmark this post so you won't have to be told a hundreth time. OK liar?

So...you only know what you've been told by those with an agenda. I get it. Well, I've been to SEVERAL in many places. I've experienced a gay pride parade first hand. You....not so much. Maybe you need to go to one to see how it REALLY is.

No, I know what my eyes tell me when I see pictures like the ones below.

Hey post-counting page-turning topic-derailing liar...don't forget what we were discussing previous page:

Stays are self explainitory, the Court issuing same has the jurisdiction spelled out; read it or have someone read it for you.

Let's follow the argument and the outfall of Utah's stay request.

The AG there, citing Windsor 2013, argued to the court that to not issue a stay would be detrimental to the voters of his state in the interim, as their definition of man/woman marriage and the challenge to that definition is appealed. He argued that democracy itself with respect to that state statute would be in danger.

The Court effectively said to them: "We agree, we will temporarilly find on behalf of the power of the voters of your state while this appeal is pending."

My question is, how can the US Supreme Court effectively bolster the cause of the power of democracy at the voter level in Utah by issuing a temporary stay, while at the same time claiming that other states on that exact same law [in wording and spirit], currently being challenged to be upheld by multiple states in precisely the same way on the same questions and issues, can deny the power of democracy to say California's voters?

My point is that they cannot. My point is that even while CA's AG refuses to appeal on behalf of the voters in CA, a voter there themself could seek redress from the US Supreme Court to HALT gay marriages in their state on precisely the same grounds that the stay was granted in Utah.

And this is because the AG in California has gone rogue. The legislature in CA has gone rogue. The governor in CA has gone rogue. And as such any voter there cannot find any legal redress at their state level at all, nor in the 9th District court of appeals for it too has gone rogue.

With such a stonewall built around the voters of California, effectively depriving them of their civil rights to self-govern, how can the US Supreme Court also offer itself up as another brick in that wall? Surely there must be some way to stem tyranny for the California voters to reinstate the power-in-interim that Utah voters now enjoy?

We know that in the federal system on questions of law that affect all states and particularly civil rights, like the right to self-govern, there cannot be a "case by case" application with the different states. Even in the interim. Because there cannot be an argument that "this different handling and application of law isn't hurting anyone". When in fact it is hurting the civil rights of 7 million voters in California to self-govern equally as with other states. Even if just temporarily.

As I sit there typing this, just this month Calfornia rogue officials are dismantling democracy taking full advantage of this legal limbo in their state. California's constitution Article II, Section 10 (c) says that the legislature may not alter or revoke any initiative law without the voters' permission. Yet just a couple of weeks ago the CA legislature gutted a family law subservient to Prop 8. It is still valid law there given that Utah's appeal for a stay was granted on an identical law & Utah's voters' rights to have that law honored at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS may not regard the constitutionality nor the legality of any question of the same exact law enacted in the same exact way by the self-governing voters differently state by state. There has to be equal application to prevent exactly the type of rogue tyranny and sedition that is going on in California.

This isn't "just California acting goofy again". This is SERIOUS legal erosion of democracy that is arbitrary, dangerous and unfair.

The pictures below speak for themselves. They were done in public, in full view of children the participants anticipated and hoped would be there. They were done soberly and as a matter of "pride" in parade format with floats, displays etc...all meant for people to see as a spectacle-for-viewing.

And these are the people, the very same ones belonging to that behavioral-pride-group who want legal access to THIS.. vv ..via marriage. And they are practicing blackmail and virulent fascist tactics to accomplish that goal to the demise and certain ultimate harm to children. People blind with their own mental illness cannot see where their own momentum is snowballing towards..

[/QUOTE]

Your last pic isn't even of a gay pride parade....you are pathetic.....let me help you a little with what a gay pride parade is really like:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/235807-gay-pride-san-diego-today.html

 

[Silhouette]

Your last pic isn't even of a gay pride parade....you are pathetic.....let me help you a little with what a gay pride parade is really like:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/235807-gay-pride-san-diego-today.html

The topic of this thread isn't "gay pride parades", though they may get discussed here in context. They will not, however, be allowed to replace the topic of this thread. Stay in line.

That being said, your "one example that differs from thousands" is only going to appear to readers as a pathetic attempt to whitewash a sewer pipe. For everyone has seen and knows of the types of pictures at the top of this page. And everyone also knows that they are some of the more tame examples... Good luck rewriting that script.

 

[bodecea]

Your last pic isn't even of a gay pride parade....you are pathetic.....let me help you a little with what a gay pride parade is really like:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/235807-gay-pride-san-diego-today.html

The topic of this thread isn't "gay pride parades", though they may get discussed here in context. They will not, however, be allowed to replace the topic of this thread. Stay in line.

That being said, your "one example that differs from thousands" is only going to appear to readers as a pathetic attempt to whitewash a sewer pipe. For everyone has seen and knows of the types of pictures at the top of this page. And everyone also knows that they are some of the more tame examples... Good luck rewriting that script.

So...you are running away from your own posted pics. Why am I not surprised you cannot defend your own words.

 

[Silhouette]

So...you are running away from your own posted pics. Why am I not surprised you cannot defend your own words.

Go ahead and bleed this page out with your diversions [and help me bump the thread too ]. I'll just repeat the legal argument on the next page. Knock yourself out.

 

[ShackledNation]

Your last pic isn't even of a gay pride parade....you are pathetic.....let me help you a little with what a gay pride parade is really like:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/235807-gay-pride-san-diego-today.html

The topic of this thread isn't "gay pride parades", though they may get discussed here in context. They will not, however, be allowed to replace the topic of this thread. Stay in line.

That being said, your "one example that differs from thousands" is only going to appear to readers as a pathetic attempt to whitewash a sewer pipe. For everyone has seen and knows of the types of pictures at the top of this page. And everyone also knows that they are some of the more tame examples... Good luck rewriting that script.

And everyone sees and knows of pictures of heterosexual people acting the exact same way, sometimes even more "inappropriately" (based on your definition of inappropriate).

A gay guy wears a speedo in a public parade and you say that is enough to disqualify all gay people from marriage? If you applied that standard to heterosexual people, not a single person would be allowed to get married in this country.

 

[Silhouette]

And everyone sees and knows of pictures of heterosexual people acting the exact same way, sometimes even more "inappropriately" (based on your definition of inappropriate).

A gay guy wears a speedo in a public parade and you say that is enough to disqualify all gay people from marriage? If you applied that standard to heterosexual people, not a single person would be allowed to get married in this country.

Yes, only they're not in sober "pride" parades down main street in broad daylight, decorated with bright colors and hoping children will be in attendance. The ambiance of the venue as it happens, makes all the difference in the world between the two cultures.

Just try to have a hetero-pride parade with participants doing lewd sex acts on floats down main street in front of kids who cannot escape the thoroughfare-venue. First of all they'd not even get a permit to do it, but if they did, the police would be there putting cuffs on everyone and taking them to the holding tank for processing.

See the difference? It's the venue....

 

[Silhouette]

The cases between Utah and California [using the perfect example] are not different AT ALL. They both involve a voter-majority enacted statute that limits the definition of marriage simply to "a man and a woman". In one state the power of that democratic rule was pled and on those pleadings granted a stay [Utah]. In the other state the majority voters do not enjoy the power of their vote on the same matter in the same exact way. [California]

So as we sit here, citizens of Utah enjoy the power of their democratic rule while the citizens of California do not. On the same indentical legal question.

And because of that, rogue officials in CA are using that limbo and legal conflict of base civil rights to gut voter-enacted law before a clear definition of constitutionality has been passed upon it. The ONLY constitutional finding in the twin Prop 8/Windsor Hearing was that states have the right to define marriage and after that definition, the fed has to obey them. That "fed" also includes SCOTUS and lower district federal courts.

Ergo, Prop 8 was actually Upheld in Windsor 2013. And SCOTUS knows this. And so did the AG of Utah. Which is why he pled his case for a stay citing this very fact in Windsor's "State's Choice" Ruling on gay marriage under the question of state vs federal powers.

Since SCOTUS knows this, Ruled for the stay accordingly, anyone can appeal to SCOTUS right now, this very day and gain protection for their civil rights as a voter in the interim while we await the appeals on all same/similar cases.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since SCOTUS knows this, Ruled for the stay accordingly, anyone can appeal to SCOTUS right now, this very day and gain protection for their civil rights as a voter in the interim while we await the appeals on all same/similar cases.

And yet the SCOTUS said exactly the opposite in their PROP 8 ruling and REJECTED a stay request in the Oregon case since it didn't come from State officials.



>>>>