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

[Silhouette]

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.



>>>>

But that was BEFORE SCOTUS granted the stay in Utah.

Let me put it to you this way....

The 10th district federal court of appeals denied Utah's request for a stay upon their recent Decision. They cited that "the civil rights of gays no longer can be denied"...or words to that effect when they ruled.

Then the Utah AG appealed that finding on the grounds that Utah's voters' rights outweighed that decision: citing Windsor 2013 as his reference.

Then reading that, SCOTUS OVERTURNED the 10th's denial of a stay....

...with me so far?....

That means that the highest Court in our land to which there is no further appeal, agreed with Utah's AG that the citizens there must have the power of their vote protected in the interim as appeals are pending on the man/woman law of marriage in that state.

So, having thus Found in the interim, all other lower federal courts that are in conflict with that Finding in the interim, are now OVERRULED. The Highest Court has spoken on the plea that the civil right to have one's vote counted, at least for now, is paramount to "the civil rights of gays to marry right away".

With me so far?

Now apply the equal mandates for Federal Findings on civil rights across the 50 states.

Prop 8 is now once again valid law....because Utah's AG had standing......and at least for now, voters' undeniable civil rights to self-govern is dominant law to supposed "civil rights of gay behaviors to marry"...! Everywhere....in all 50 states because you cannot have just one state having civil rights protected while the citizens of the other 49 languish without that protection.. The civil right to have one's vote counted is easily, hands down THE most important civil right an American has. And it should only be removed on a particular question only upon the final Decision of the Highest Court in our nation. And then only after unbelievable scrutiny. So sacred is this civil right. The Default must ALWAYS be to protect the power of a citizen's vote.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

What two cultures? Your made up world where all heterosexual people are socially conservative goody-goodies and where all gay people prance around naked trying to abduct children?

Please. You keep repeating the same, tired argument. It has been thoroughly debunked already.

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....

BS. You do not think its the venue, you think its the people. If gay people closed these parades off to the public and nobody saw them, and no kids were allowed, you would still be against same-sex marriage.

And you think kids are not exposed to sexualized mainstream heterosexual culture? Really?

 

[Peach]

On to the next Federal Court, the 4th struck down Virginia's ban:

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Virginia?s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

But that was BEFORE SCOTUS granted the stay in Utah.

And they REJECTED a request for stay in the case of Oregon.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

On to the next Federal Court, the 4th struck down Virginia's ban:

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Virginia?s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Yes, the GOP wants to make sure they get a Virginia congressional representation. What about the stay?

 

[WorldWatcher]

What about the stay?

What about it? No one knows yet.

Unlike other State cases, in this case the suit cited the George Schaefer in his official capacity as the Clerk of the Court for Norfolk Circuit Court. Mr. Schaefer then has standing to continue the case. The decision has a 21 day appeal period and during that time Mr. Schaefer has to decide on a couple of different routes: (a) request an en banc review (let me know if you need that explained), or if he will appeal directly to the SCOTUS.

If he chooses to do nothing, there is no stay and SSCM will be legal in Virginia in about 3-weeks. If he askes for an en banc review, then that moves the time frame back as to when an appeal must be filed. If he decides to forgo a review, then he has to appeal to the SCOTUS or request a stay pending appeal.

Since he has standing as a named defendant, it's very likely the court would grant a stay pending appeal.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Almost imperceptable subject transition.

Let's go back to the points I was making per the topic:

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.



>>>>

But that was BEFORE SCOTUS granted the stay in Utah.

Let me put it to you this way....

The 10th district federal court of appeals denied Utah's request for a stay upon their recent Decision. They cited that "the civil rights of gays no longer can be denied"...or words to that effect when they ruled.

Then the Utah AG appealed that finding on the grounds that Utah's voters' rights outweighed that decision: citing Windsor 2013 as his reference.

Then reading that, SCOTUS OVERTURNED the 10th's denial of a stay....

...with me so far?....

That means that the highest Court in our land to which there is no further appeal, agreed with Utah's AG that the citizens there must have the power of their vote protected in the interim as appeals are pending on the man/woman law of marriage in that state.

So, having thus Found in the interim, all other lower federal courts that are in conflict with that Finding in the interim, are now OVERRULED. The Highest Court has spoken on the plea that the civil right to have one's vote counted, at least for now, is paramount to "the civil rights of gays to marry right away".

With me so far?

Now apply the equal mandates for Federal Findings on civil rights across the 50 states.

Prop 8 is now once again valid law....because Utah's AG had standing......and at least for now, voters' undeniable civil rights to self-govern is dominant law to supposed "civil rights of gay behaviors to marry"...! Everywhere....in all 50 states because you cannot have just one state having civil rights protected while the citizens of the other 49 languish without that protection.. The civil right to have one's vote counted is easily, hands down THE most important civil right an American has. And it should only be removed on a particular question only upon the final Decision of the Highest Court in our nation. And then only after unbelievable scrutiny. So sacred is this civil right. The Default must ALWAYS be to protect the power of a citizen's vote.

 

[JoeB131]

On to the next Federal Court, the 4th struck down Virginia's ban:

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Virginia?s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Yes, the GOP wants to make sure they get a Virginia congressional representation. What about the stay?

One more time- the GOP wants this issue to go away.

This is why Republican Judges and Republican governors are burying these laws like they are crazy uncles.

 

[Silhouette]

One more time- the GOP wants this issue to go away.

This is why Republican Judges and Republican governors are burying these laws like they are crazy uncles.

Another subject change...lol..

Yeah right bro. It's not like the GOP hasn't figured out that the middle dems only have extremely lukewarm support for gay marriage if at all...and all it will take is some October news release on one of the thousands of repugnantly-perverse aspects of the LGBT culture on prime time to herd millions of those votes to the right just enough at just the right moment....

Wake up idiot dems. The Gay Agenda is going to pack Congress with red this Fall and two years after. This is one of those times when I hate being right...

 

[JoeB131]

One more time- the GOP wants this issue to go away.

This is why Republican Judges and Republican governors are burying these laws like they are crazy uncles.

Another subject change...lol..

Yeah right bro. It's not like the GOP hasn't figured out that the middle dems only have extremely lukewarm support for gay marriage if at all...and all it will take is some October news release on one of the thousands of repugnantly-perverse aspects of the LGBT culture on prime time to herd millions of those votes to the right just enough at just the right moment....

Wake up idiot dems. The Gay Agenda is going to pack Congress with red this Fall and two years after. This is one of those times when I hate being right...

Actually, Republicans are avoiding you homophobes like they are the Boy-Hooker they woke up to next to the pile of Crystal Meth.

You've lost the argument, dude.

Everyone's okay with the gay now, except folks like you, and you don't count.

 

[ShackledNation]

One more time- the GOP wants this issue to go away.

This is why Republican Judges and Republican governors are burying these laws like they are crazy uncles.

Another subject change...lol..

Yeah right bro. It's not like the GOP hasn't figured out that the middle dems only have extremely lukewarm support for gay marriage if at all...and all it will take is some October news release on one of the thousands of repugnantly-perverse aspects of the LGBT culture on prime time to herd millions of those votes to the right just enough at just the right moment....

Wake up idiot dems. The Gay Agenda is going to pack Congress with red this Fall and two years after. This is one of those times when I hate being right...

Um...a lot more than just Democrats support same-sex marriage.
62% of Independents support same-sex marriage, along with 40% of Republicans.

Among voters 18-29, 81% support same-sex marriage, include a majority of Republicans, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians.

The millenial generation (18-29) is fiscally moderate, but socially liberal. They also have been found to vote more with their social beliefs rather than economic beliefs, putting them in the Democrat camp.

Opposition to same-sex marriage will make the GOP irrelevant and powerless. Which is why in the next decade or so the party is going to do a flip flop and change its position, and abandon the embarrassing homophobes.

 

[Inevitable]

One more time- the GOP wants this issue to go away.

This is why Republican Judges and Republican governors are burying these laws like they are crazy uncles.

Another subject change...lol..

Yeah right bro. It's not like the GOP hasn't figured out that the middle dems only have extremely lukewarm support for gay marriage if at all...and all it will take is some October news release on one of the thousands of repugnantly-perverse aspects of the LGBT culture on prime time to herd millions of those votes to the right just enough at just the right moment....

Wake up idiot dems. The Gay Agenda is going to pack Congress with red this Fall and two years after. This is one of those times when I hate being right...

Um...a lot more than just Democrats support same-sex marriage.
62% of Independents support same-sex marriage, along with 40% of Republicans.

Among voters 18-29, 81% support same-sex marriage, include a majority of Republicans, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians.

The millenial generation (18-29) is fiscally moderate, but socially liberal. They also have been found to vote more with their social beliefs rather than economic beliefs, putting them in the Democrat camp.

Opposition to same-sex marriage will make the GOP irrelevant and powerless. Which is why in the next decade or so the party is going to do a flip flop and change its position, and abandon the embarrassing homophobes.

Yep, I am a conservative republican Christian that supports same sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

One more time- the GOP wants this issue to go away.

This is why Republican Judges and Republican governors are burying these laws like they are crazy uncles.

Another subject change...lol..

Yeah right bro. It's not like the GOP hasn't figured out that the middle dems only have extremely lukewarm support for gay marriage if at all...and all it will take is some October news release on one of the thousands of repugnantly-perverse aspects of the LGBT culture on prime time to herd millions of those votes to the right just enough at just the right moment....

Wake up idiot dems. The Gay Agenda is going to pack Congress with red this Fall and two years after. This is one of those times when I hate being right...

Actually, Republicans are avoiding you homophobes like they are the Boy-Hooker they woke up to next to the pile of Crystal Meth.

You've lost the argument, dude.

Everyone's okay with the gay now, except folks like you, and you don't count.

And don't forget the 85% of folks who voted on this poll that they don't believe people should have to participate in or facilitate gay marriage if they don't want to: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ed-to-accomodate-for-homosexual-weddings.html

I'd say 85% counts. You say you have all this support and I say that in the unlikely event that that spin is "true", that "support" is not even lukewarm. "Tepid" comes closer to its strength...like very very weak tea.. You know how fickle tepid support can be...

 

[Silhouette]

62% of Independents support same-sex marriage, along with 40% of Republicans.

Among voters 18-29, 81% support same-sex marriage, include a majority of Republicans, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians.

The millenial generation (18-29) is fiscally moderate, but socially liberal. They also have been found to vote more with their social beliefs rather than economic beliefs, putting them in the Democrat camp.

Opposition to same-sex marriage will make the GOP irrelevant and powerless. Which is why in the next decade or so the party is going to do a flip flop and change its position, and abandon the embarrassing homophobes.

Then you should have no worries at all when SCOTUS Rules that states only can decide on gay marriage, in reaffirming what they already said about that in Windsor 2013. Should be a slam dunk for the church of LGBT state by state, right?

 

[Silhouette]

..Unlike other State cases, in this case the suit cited the George Schaefer in his official capacity as the Clerk of the Court for Norfolk Circuit Court. Mr. Schaefer then has standing to continue the case. The decision has a 21 day appeal period and during that time Mr. Schaefer has to decide on a couple of different routes: (a) request an en banc review (let me know if you need that explained), or if he will appeal directly to the SCOTUS.

If he chooses to do nothing, there is no stay and SSCM will be legal in Virginia in about 3-weeks. If he askes for an en banc review, then that moves the time frame back as to when an appeal must be filed. If he decides to forgo a review, then he has to appeal to the SCOTUS or request a stay pending appeal.

Since he has standing as a named defendant, it's very likely the court would grant a stay pending appeal.

Why is it so likely? I thought your argument is that the "civil rights of gays" outweigh the "tyranny of the majority". Seems with a stay the SCOTUS is as least leaning towards its Windsor Opinion?

You know full well that if the power of voters was the swaying argument in Utah, that a federal entity like SCOTUS may not disenfranchise that same protection in other states, even in the interim. All one voter would have to do is ask. It isn't the AG's civil rights being suppressed in California. It's the 7 million voters as of the day the Utah stay was granted... Or any one of that 7 million who pressed the issue legally. Any single one of them or group of them would have standing. SCOTUS could simply not deny them protection.

You know it.

You can have your latin that makes you feel superior. I'll take logic over latin, cocktails and yuk-yuks.

Tell me with a straight face that a stay granted on the grounds that Utah's voters' rights would be suppressed otherwise doesn't apply to all 50 states.

I dare you.

 

[ShackledNation]

62% of Independents support same-sex marriage, along with 40% of Republicans.

Among voters 18-29, 81% support same-sex marriage, include a majority of Republicans, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians.

The millenial generation (18-29) is fiscally moderate, but socially liberal. They also have been found to vote more with their social beliefs rather than economic beliefs, putting them in the Democrat camp.

Opposition to same-sex marriage will make the GOP irrelevant and powerless. Which is why in the next decade or so the party is going to do a flip flop and change its position, and abandon the embarrassing homophobes.

Then you should have no worries at all when SCOTUS Rules that states only can decide on gay marriage, in reaffirming what they already said about that in Windsor 2013. Should be a slam dunk for the church of LGBT state by state, right?

Considering every single federal district court and appellate court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, the idea that the court will completely strike down the consensus of the entire judicial system is far-fetched.

Windsor was also about more than states-rights. A purely states rights decision would require no mention of the dignity of gay people. Furthermore, if it was only about states rights, why would the court bring up the 5th and 14th ammendent due process and equal protection? Perhaps you forgot this quote from the decision:

"The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws which equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

I cannot wait for SCOTUS to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If only I could see the look on your face

 

[Silhouette]

62% of Independents support same-sex marriage, along with 40% of Republicans.

Among voters 18-29, 81% support same-sex marriage, include a majority of Republicans, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians.

The millenial generation (18-29) is fiscally moderate, but socially liberal. They also have been found to vote more with their social beliefs rather than economic beliefs, putting them in the Democrat camp.

Opposition to same-sex marriage will make the GOP irrelevant and powerless. Which is why in the next decade or so the party is going to do a flip flop and change its position, and abandon the embarrassing homophobes.

Then you should have no worries at all when SCOTUS Rules that states only can decide on gay marriage, in reaffirming what they already said about that in Windsor 2013. Should be a slam dunk for the church of LGBT state by state, right?

Considering every single federal district court and appellate court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, the idea that the court will completely strike down the consensus of the entire judicial system is far-fetched.

Windsor was also about more than states-rights. A purely states rights decision would require no mention of the dignity of gay people. Furthermore, if it was only about states rights, why would the court bring up the 5th and 14th ammendent due process and equal protection? Perhaps you forgot this quote from the decision:

"The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws which equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

I cannot wait for SCOTUS to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If only I could see the look on your face

You know what's weird? Your quote from Windsor doesn't mention how that assuredly applies to gays marrying. The only constitutional mention was Windsor's strong and repeated proclamations that states' and states only can decide on marriages, with the UNDECIDED rider that "unless the 14th applies". They left that open-ended.

But after saying that gay marriage was new and weird and in a grand diversion from thousands of years of tradition in marriage, the Court said that state's discreet communities should weigh in on this question *pay attention to the precise wording here from this direct quote* ...in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended...

Turns out that's what we call a Constitutional-Finding. And it was finding that a state's discreet community gets to define marriage under the question of gay marriage. Then only upon successful appeal "the 14th might apply but hasn't been determined yet" [paraphrased].

So, therefore, the default constitutional finding-in-interim is that state's discreet communities get to call the shots on the thumbs up or down on gay marriage. And this is why SCOTUS just granted Utah a stay: to protect the voters of Utah's civil rights to have their vote counted: which is what the AG pled that stay and won on.

Now then...

We know that the base American civil right, the most sacred of all, the power of one's vote, cannot be only upheld on a given issue in just one state. Not even for a week, nor a day, nor one minute for that matter. That would be inequal treatment of the states by the fed. Which is prohibited by the US Constitution.

So two things that are currently being done to voters in California are expressly prohibited by the US Constitution:

1. Their vote isn't counting the same on the same exact question of law as Utah's voters.

2. Their vote isn't counting at all.

Both are a violation of the US Constitution and therefore, any ANY voter in California has the right to appeal this violation, with clear and undeniable standing because it is a violation directly upon their singular person in depriving them of their age-old constitutional rights.

 

[ShackledNation]

Then you should have no worries at all when SCOTUS Rules that states only can decide on gay marriage, in reaffirming what they already said about that in Windsor 2013. Should be a slam dunk for the church of LGBT state by state, right?

Considering every single federal district court and appellate court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, the idea that the court will completely strike down the consensus of the entire judicial system is far-fetched.

Windsor was also about more than states-rights. A purely states rights decision would require no mention of the dignity of gay people. Furthermore, if it was only about states rights, why would the court bring up the 5th and 14th ammendent due process and equal protection? Perhaps you forgot this quote from the decision:

"The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws which equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

I cannot wait for SCOTUS to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If only I could see the look on your face

You know what's weird? Your quote from Windsor doesn't mention how that assuredly applies to gays marrying. The only constitutional mention was Windsor's strong and repeated proclamations that states' and states only can decide on marriages, with the UNDECIDED rider that "unless the 14th applies". They left that open-ended.

But after saying that gay marriage was new and weird and in a grand diversion from thousands of years of tradition in marriage, the Court said that state's discreet communities should weigh in on this question *pay attention to the precise wording here from this direct quote* ...in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended...

Turns out that's what we call a Constitutional-Finding. And it was finding that a state's discreet community gets to define marriage under the question of gay marriage. Then only upon successful appeal "the 14th might apply but hasn't been determined yet" [paraphrased].

If you think I am arguing Windsor struck down same-sex marriage, you are wrong. My argument is that Windsor was not only about state rights. Anyone who has read the decision will conclude this beyond a doubt. SCOTUS specifically referenced equal protection and due process as reasons for striking down DOMA.

So, therefore, the default constitutional finding-in-interim is that state's discreet communities get to call the shots on the thumbs up or down on gay marriage. And this is why SCOTUS just granted Utah a stay: to protect the voters of Utah's civil rights to have their vote counted: which is what the AG pled that stay and won on.

Courts grant stays even if they ultimately end up agreeing with the lower court. What a silly argument.

Now then...

We know that the base American civil right, the most sacred of all, the power of one's vote, cannot be only upheld on a given issue in just one state. Not even for a week, nor a day, nor one minute for that matter. That would be inequal treatment of the states by the fed. Which is prohibited by the US Constitution.

And that hasn't happened.

So two things that are currently being done to voters in California are expressly prohibited by the US Constitution:

1. Their vote isn't counting the same on the same exact question of law as Utah's voters.

2. Their vote isn't counting at all.

1. No voter can vote away constitutional rights. The Federal District Court in CA ruled the CA ban violated the US constitution. It went all the way up to SCOTUS, who ruled that the defendants of Prop 8 lacked standing. Thus the District Court's ruling applied, and since the court only has jurisdiction in CA only CA's ban was struck down. The Utah case has not reached SCOTUS yet, so no final ruling has been issued there.

2. Votes that strike down constitutional rights aren't supposed to count.

Both are a violation of the US Constitution and therefore, any ANY voter in California has the right to appeal this violation, with clear and undeniable standing because it is a violation directly upon their singular person in depriving them of their age-old constitutional rights.

There is no constitutional right to violate the U.S. constitution by voting it away.

 

[Peach]

Another subject change...lol..

Yeah right bro. It's not like the GOP hasn't figured out that the middle dems only have extremely lukewarm support for gay marriage if at all...and all it will take is some October news release on one of the thousands of repugnantly-perverse aspects of the LGBT culture on prime time to herd millions of those votes to the right just enough at just the right moment....

Wake up idiot dems. The Gay Agenda is going to pack Congress with red this Fall and two years after. This is one of those times when I hate being right...

Um...a lot more than just Democrats support same-sex marriage.
62% of Independents support same-sex marriage, along with 40% of Republicans.

Among voters 18-29, 81% support same-sex marriage, include a majority of Republicans, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians.

The millenial generation (18-29) is fiscally moderate, but socially liberal. They also have been found to vote more with their social beliefs rather than economic beliefs, putting them in the Democrat camp.

Opposition to same-sex marriage will make the GOP irrelevant and powerless. Which is why in the next decade or so the party is going to do a flip flop and change its position, and abandon the embarrassing homophobes.

Yep, I am a conservative republican Christian that supports same sex marriage.

I am a human that supports human rights.

 

[Silhouette]

I am a human that supports human rights.

There isn't a human right to gay marriage. Not morally. Not legally. Sorry to disappoint you.

Marriage is today and always has been a wedding between a man and a woman, a future father and mother to create a perfect nest for raising their blood kin. That is the definition society decided upon to set as the brass ring. And that is the definition that's legal in all but 3 states.

Those 3 states' society, their "discreet community" decided that marriage doesn't mean that anymore and that they welcome any and all variations to that definition by legal precedent. The other 47 states have decided they want the word "marriage" to mean the same thing it has for thousands of years...tens of thousands of years actually if you consider that neolithic cultures also paired off in breeding pairs.