Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
According to the 6th Circuit judge Sutton, gay marriages are illegal that are being peformed in states that voted to keep marriage just between man/woman.
It's a procedural flaw. Sutton says that because Baker, 1971 and Windsor, 2013 both Uphold that states have the unquestioned authority of choice on this matter, that what other circuit courts have done is attempted to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath SCOTUS. This is something that is not allowed. So their decisions are not worth the paper they are written on. Any state whose AG is not following this or not protecting his voters' civil rights to have their vote count, needs to be fired:
Here's what Sutton had to say: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
Page 8... of Opinion
************
Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..
..
now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations. Id. at 2691–92.
********
Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.
Though it has not been proven conclusively, the case of Thomas Lobel in California illustrates why states must not be stripped of the right to protect the best interests of children. It is the case of a boy who at age 8, living under the roof of two lesbians "as parents" decided he wanted to mutilate his own genitals and become a girl instead. Instead of becoming alarmed and trying to help the boy overcome his mental crisis, the two lesbian women started drugging him (with tacit or outright APA and AMA approval, I might add), to suppress his puberty so that "he can make the best choice" whether or not to proceed with amputating his healthy genitals with APA and medical approval.
Just mull this over when you're wondering how to vote on the poll above:
Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
It's a procedural flaw. Sutton says that because Baker, 1971 and Windsor, 2013 both Uphold that states have the unquestioned authority of choice on this matter, that what other circuit courts have done is attempted to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath SCOTUS. This is something that is not allowed. So their decisions are not worth the paper they are written on. Any state whose AG is not following this or not protecting his voters' civil rights to have their vote count, needs to be fired:
Here's what Sutton had to say: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
Page 8... of Opinion
************
Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..
..
now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations. Id. at 2691–92.
********
Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.
Though it has not been proven conclusively, the case of Thomas Lobel in California illustrates why states must not be stripped of the right to protect the best interests of children. It is the case of a boy who at age 8, living under the roof of two lesbians "as parents" decided he wanted to mutilate his own genitals and become a girl instead. Instead of becoming alarmed and trying to help the boy overcome his mental crisis, the two lesbian women started drugging him (with tacit or outright APA and AMA approval, I might add), to suppress his puberty so that "he can make the best choice" whether or not to proceed with amputating his healthy genitals with APA and medical approval.
Just mull this over when you're wondering how to vote on the poll above:
Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum