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

[Inevitable]

Sil is chattering mindlessly like a chipmunk, simply denying the reality of social change.

Marriage equality is coming soon.

One way or another indeed it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is chattering mindlessly like a chipmunk, simply denying the reality of social change.

Marriage equality is coming soon.

One way or another indeed it is.

How are you going to force a state's consensus to allow you to gay marry? Do away with democracy? You do realize that if SCOTUS finds for "state's choice" [again like they did in Windsor], that choice is going to be spelled out [again like they did in Windsor] to default to the broadest consensus allowable by state law.

So your only hope is to really get people hooked on gay marriage [for real, not smoke and mirrors "polling data"..] or abolish democracy like they just did last month in California when they annuled the part of the constitution there that says voters are the only ones allowed to repeal or amend an initiative law...

Which is it? A hard-sell or fascism by force?

 

[Inevitable]

Sil is chattering mindlessly like a chipmunk, simply denying the reality of social change.

Marriage equality is coming soon.

One way or another indeed it is.

How are you going to force a state's consensus to allow you to gay marry? Do away with democracy? You do realize that if SCOTUS finds for "state's choice" [again like they did in Windsor], that choice is going to be spelled out [again like they did in Windsor] to default to the broadest consensus allowable by state law.

And all the gay people are just going to disappear? All the people that don't think they should be denied equality based on your personal feelings? They are just going to all shut up?

So your only hope is to really get people hooked on gay marriage [for real, not smoke and mirrors "polling data"..] or abolish democracy like they just did last month in California when they annuled the part of the constitution there that says voters are the only ones allowed to repeal or amend an initiative law...

Which is it? A hard-sell or fascism by force?

Democracy doesn't grant rights theconstitution does. Seems you are selling fascism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The national average is 55% for marriage equality now and growing.

Sil wants to rule with an Isamic democracy that does not recognize basic human and civil rights, a form of cultural jihadism.

 

[Inevitable]

The national average is 55% for marriage equality now and growing.

Sil wants to rule with an Isamic democracy that does not recognize basic human and civil rights, a form of cultural jihadism.

makes our funny when he calls me a fascist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is the fascist mind for sure.

 

[Silhouette]

And all the gay people are just going to disappear? All the people that don't think they should be denied equality based on your personal feelings? They are just going to all shut up?

So you're saying what then when SCOTUS redefines Windsor to say that a state's broad consensus is who chooses on gay marriage?

What will you do that involves "not shutting up"? Outside the democratic process that is?

 

[Silhouette]

The national average is 55% for marriage equality now and growing.

Sil wants to rule with an Isamic democracy that does not recognize basic human and civil rights, a form of cultural jihadism.

Yet here on this poll, 83% of hundreds of pollees here at USMB say they don't think churches should have to perform gay marriages. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ed-to-accomodate-for-homosexual-weddings.html

That's some kind of support you got there pal..

 

[Idadunno]

From this discussion, page & post #246:
Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy - Page 17 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your reading of Windsor is mistaken, deliberately so, wrenched out of context, as it has been pointed out time and time again on the Board.

Roberts has given Sotomayor control of the appellate process administratively. She has directed stays where reasonable so that when SCOTUS rules it will be able to rule marriage equality is the law of the land.

United States v. Windsor (DOMA)

If folks read the entire context of full 10 solid pages [14-24] of the Opinion of Windsor 2013, the conclusion is, along with SCOTUS' July 2014 Upholding-in-interim of Utah's same voter-statute, that Prop 8 is valid interim-law. Will you argue for CA's sedition next by hoping the readers here are too stupid to know SCOTUS Rulings' intent applies equally across all 50 states as to the same legal question of this family/marriage law?

Why do Utah voters have more interim-power of self-governance via their votes than Californian's do..according to SCOTUS? Just as an argument is foolproof as to equal-application of a formal Ruling across the 50 states..so should an interim-Ruling pending appeal. [see for detailed discussion] http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-2014-scotus-upholds-ban-on-gay-marriage.html

Is democracy intrinsically weaker in California than Utah in the interim? Are they less deserving to receive the same real benefits? This is the argument a single CA voter could make..with standing..on conflicting interim Rulings weakening their civil rights to democratic rule.

Currently, CA legislators are attempting to rewrite family code law subservient to Prop 8 without express permission from the voters as required by their constitution's Article II, Section 10 (c). And they are doing so precisely because of flawed legal conclusions that interim-Rulings on national questions "only apply state by state". This is legally impossible/arbitrary borne from base Constitutional-statutes disallowing federal favoritism to any one or incomplete grouping of states..at any time..on questions plead to be mandated as applied federally..or not.

An interim-Ruling is just as consequential as a final one...as we are seeing with rogue CA officials taking advantage of that unconstitutional-practice that has at once strengthened democracy in Utah..while at the same time throwing CA voters to the wolves. Any CA voter would have standing to chllenge this arbitrary treatment in interim rulings.

This is all quite confusing.

DOMA was struck down because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tell people who they can and cannot marry. Marriage is not a Constitution issue and falls under individual states to decide laws concerning marriage. When Clinton signed DOMA into law, someone should have pointed that out to him, and Congress, and taken it to court immediately. The Supreme Court cannot act without someone petitioning for certiorari (and the Supreme Court can deny it and refuse to hear the case).

The Supreme Court ruled for a temporary stay (interim) for Utah to not have to recognize the same sex marriages that occurred outside the state or immediately after the ban was lifted because Utah is entitled to appeals. The Supreme Court did not rule the ban unconstitutional or constitutional... it simply ruled the on the stay until all appeals were exercised.

The Supreme Court cannot set private laws.The Supreme Court cannot say that same sex marriages are legal or illegal. The Supreme Courts sole jurisdiction pertains to the Constitution and can only rule on laws made as constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot make a state or person abide by a decision--it merely gives people a right to sue those who violate constitutional rights.

Having said all that--Roe v. Wade--abortion cannot be repealed because the Supreme Court ruled on it as an act of privacy. The government has no right to tell people they can or cannot use birth control, and abortion is considered a form of birth control. States and Congress can regulate the action, but they cannot ban it. To repeal Roe v. Wade is to repeal the peoples' right to privacy--in all matters.

The government has no right to say who we can marry, just like it has no right to say whether we use birth control. However, the difference being that same sex marriages are also public in that states and federal agencies have to recognize them so this is not completely a private matter.

The Supreme Court must have exact language. They cannot assume you want one thing when you ask for another. If you ask them to rule a law in a state unconstitutional, and they deem it so, you get what you ask for.

For example, if eating chocolate pudding on Tuesday was banned, and someone took that to court and asked for the ban to be lifted, and the court ruled that you may eat chocolate pudding on Tuesday, but then you were fined for eating it on Friday--you didn't ask the court if you could eat it on Friday. You would have to ask that you may eat all flavors of pudding on any day at any time. Get it?

Someone should petition the Supreme Court to rule on a definition of marriage--two people who give consent to make each other miserable.
Until someone asks the right question that enables the Supreme Court to make a permanent ruling, this issue will continue.

 

[Silhouette]

This is all quite confusing.

DOMA was struck down because it is unconstitutional for the federal government to tell people who they can and cannot marry. Marriage is not a Constitution issue and falls under individual states to decide laws concerning marriage. When Clinton signed DOMA into law, someone should have pointed that out to him, and Congress, and taken it to court immediately. The Supreme Court cannot act without someone petitioning for certiorari (and the Supreme Court can deny it and refuse to hear the case).

The Supreme Court ruled for a temporary stay (interim) for Utah to not have to recognize the same sex marriages that occurred outside the state or immediately after the ban was lifted because Utah is entitled to appeals. The Supreme Court did not rule the ban unconstitutional or constitutional... it simply ruled the on the stay until all appeals were exercised.

The Supreme Court cannot set private laws.The Supreme Court cannot say that same sex marriages are legal or illegal. The Supreme Courts sole jurisdiction pertains to the Constitution and can only rule on laws made as constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot make a state or person abide by a decision--it merely gives people a right to sue those who violate constitutional rights.

Having said all that--Roe v. Wade--abortion cannot be repealed because the Supreme Court ruled on it as an act of privacy. The government has no right to tell people they can or cannot use birth control, and abortion is considered a form of birth control. States and Congress can regulate the action, but they cannot ban it. To repeal Roe v. Wade is to repeal the peoples' right to privacy--in all matters.

The government has no right to say who we can marry, just like it has no right to say whether we use birth control. However, the difference being that same sex marriages are also public in that states and federal agencies have to recognize them so this is not completely a private matter.

The Supreme Court must have exact language. They cannot assume you want one thing when you ask for another. If you ask them to rule a law in a state unconstitutional, and they deem it so, you get what you ask for.

For example, if eating chocolate pudding on Tuesday was banned, and someone took that to court and asked for the ban to be lifted, and the court ruled that you may eat chocolate pudding on Tuesday, but then you were fined for eating it on Friday--you didn't ask the court if you could eat it on Friday. You would have to ask that you may eat all flavors of pudding on any day at any time. Get it?

Someone should petition the Supreme Court to rule on a definition of marriage--two people who give consent to make each other miserable.
Until someone asks the right question that enables the Supreme Court to make a permanent ruling, this issue will continue.

Windsor wanted the right of her state's consensus to count federally and to not be denied benefits because of a federal statute saying the fed won't recognize a state-approved marriage.

So SCOTUS "said" in Windsor 2013.."OK, you want states to define marriage. We agree". And they found that constitutionally when they said "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" with regards to the broadest consensus of a state's 'discreet community" to the question of gay marriage.

That was a specific Ruling on the specific question. Now gays are wanting to backpeddle saying..."no...no! wait! We want the fed to tell us who can marry and who cannot when it suits our agenda". And they're going to find that Windsor was not quite the victory they thought it was.

Senator Barney Frank immediately knew. I saw an interview with him just afterwards last Summer. He was a bit shaken but was doing his best "smoke and mirrors" "we won...!" [lower case]. Yet something was visibly disturbing him about the Ruling...

"State's choice" was what was disturbing him. And he probably knows the true numbers of "support" gay marriage actually enjoys. Which is why he was nervous being part of that culture; having drunk the rainbow Koolaide.

 

[ShackledNation]

Sil is chattering mindlessly like a chipmunk, simply denying the reality of social change.

Marriage equality is coming soon.

One way or another indeed it is.

How are you going to force a state's consensus to allow you to gay marry? Do away with democracy?

Nope. Just uphold the Constitution that this democratic republic is founded upon.

 

[Inevitable]

And all the gay people are just going to disappear? All the people that don't think they should be denied equality based on your personal feelings? They are just going to all shut up?

So you're saying what then when SCOTUS redefines Windsor to say that a state's broad consensus is who chooses on gay marriage?

What will you do that involves "not shutting up"? Outside the democratic process that is?

continue like we have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sil has misread Windsor from the get go, unethically so

 

[Silhouette]

One way or another indeed it is.

How are you going to force a state's consensus to allow you to gay marry? Do away with democracy?

Nope. Just uphold the Constitution that this democratic republic is founded upon.

And if SCOTUS interprets the Constitution to say you don't have a civil right to gay marriage, then what? Let's say that SCOTUS says "no" to gay marriage being federally protected constitutionally. And you fail to get an Amendment through Congress to the Constitution changing that. Then what's your game plan?

I'm curious.

So you're saying what then when SCOTUS redefines Windsor to say that a state's broad consensus is who chooses on gay marriage?

What will you do that involves "not shutting up"? Outside the democratic process that is?

continue like we have.

If all your legal channels are exhausted, what does "continue like we have" mean?

 

[Inevitable]

And all the gay people are just going to disappear? All the people that don't think they should be denied equality based on your personal feelings? They are just going to all shut up?

So you're saying what then when SCOTUS redefines Windsor to say that a state's broad consensus is who chooses on gay marriage?

What will you do that involves "not shutting up"? Outside the democratic process that is?

continue pushing for equality. The democratic process shouldn't be involved. The government is here to protect rights of individuals, not states.

 

[Silhouette]

continue pushing for equality. The democratic process shouldn't be involved. The government is here to protect rights of individuals, not states.

But this is a democracy. Behaviors don't have majority-rule exception. Only when it comes to race or gender. Not behaviors like LGBT. Behaviors are treated differently by law. We majority are allowed to discriminate against them every day of the week. If we weren't, we would be a fascist country instead in a nanosecond. The Third Reicht was a incomplete grouping of human behaviors. They were a minority who felt their behaviors should be dominant law against the majority in Germany. Cults have a funny way of burning out of control like wildfires when the majority is handcuffed away from setting limits for them.

Besides, 49 countries in Europe and the US Supreme Court last year have determined that gay marriage is not a civil or even a human right...in Europe they found this testing the remotest possibility of law:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...urt-rules-gay-marriage-not-a-human-right.html

From the OP link there:

The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact....

...The European court was unequivocal. It not only said that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage, it said that civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples....

...The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law...

...The U.S. Supreme Court declined to say that marriage between persons of the same sex is a right under the U.S. Constitution or international law last year. In a case involving a law that prohibited the U.S. federal government from recognizing marriages between persons of the same sex, the Court ruled that individual states may decide whether or not to allow individuals of the same sex to marry each other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the Court ruled that individual states may decide whether or not to allow individuals of the same sex to marry each other. while reserving the right to right to rule in the future as deemed necessary.

sil always leaves that part out.

Thus, if the 14th is violated as it appears in the Amendment 3 case, the state of Utah and the plaintiffs have decided to roll the dice to see if SCOTUS will accept it.

If not, then marriage equality will apply in all of the states of the disctrict, and the other district appellate courts will probably follow suit by dismissing andf or denying to hear anti-marriage equality appeals.

If so, the Court most likely will follow Roberts, Sotomayor, Kennedy, and the other three liberals on behalf of marriage equality.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But this is a democracy.

Actually we are a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution then requires that each have a Republican (i.e. representative form of government), as such individidual state can choose to amend their own laws through direct democratic process or not. Some have a direct initiative process to pass statutory laws like Colorado and California some do not have direct initiatives like Florida and Illinois. And some, like Maine do not allow for direct initiatives to amend the State Constitution and require instead that such an amendment be passed by the legislature before being submitted to the voters.

Behaviors don't have majority-rule exception. Only when it comes to race or gender. Not behaviors like LGBT. Behaviors are treated differently by law. We majority are allowed to discriminate against them every day of the week.

Romer v. Evans proves you wrong. Colorado voted to amend their Constitution to remove legal protections from homosexuals, it was invalidated as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

>>>>

 

[Inevitable]

Duplicate post