Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[Silhouette]

In a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled against the backers of California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban.

With the court's ruling, gay marriage is once again officially legal in California. The majority opinion returns the ruling on the issue back to a 2010 U.S. District Court decision, which is only applicable in the state. While many questions remain about the broader constitutional issue concerning the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, June 26 will be remembered as the day California's gay marriage ban died.

Again, please jog my memory as to when it was that federal procedure allows lower courts to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath? And when you've found that bit of information, could you also forward me the statute that revokes the power of initiative law in California, allowing non-viable court decisions that are procedurally-flawed to dominate initiative law in California.

Also if you could, can you get me the link to the legal logic of how the SCOTUS punting the Prop 8 decision because of procedural flaws in the litigants "standing" means that California initiative law system (their democracy) is defunct because of a non-decisive procedural refusal to examine the merits of a case?
Thanks!

Oh, and also if you could, please find the new iniative where the People of California have revoked Prop 8 on the ballot if you can.

 

[Syriusly]

In a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled against the backers of California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban.

With the court's ruling, gay marriage is once again officially legal in California. The majority opinion returns the ruling on the issue back to a 2010 U.S. District Court decision, which is only applicable in the state. While many questions remain about the broader constitutional issue concerning the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, June 26 will be remembered as the day California's gay marriage ban died.

Again, please jog my memory as to when it was that federal procedure allows lower courts to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath? And when you've found that bit of information, could you also forward me the statute that revokes the power of initiative law in California, allowing non-viable court decisions that are procedurally-flawed to dominate initiative law in California.

Also if you could, can you get me the link to the legal logic of how the SCOTUS punting the Prop 8 decision because of procedural flaws in the litigants "standing" means that California initiative law system (their democracy) is defunct because of a non-decisive procedural refusal to examine the merits of a case?
Thanks!

Oh, and also if you could, please find the new iniative where the People of California have revoked Prop 8 on the ballot if you can.

I can't help you with your case of bigotry inspired stupidity.

So I will just repeat the facts:

In a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled against the backers of California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban.

With the court's ruling, gay marriage is once again officially legal in California. The majority opinion returns the ruling on the issue back to a 2010 U.S. District Court decision, which is only applicable in the state. While many questions remain about the broader constitutional issue concerning the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, June 26 will be remembered as the day California's gay marriage ban died

 

[Silhouette]

I can't help you with your case of bigotry inspired stupidity.

So I will just repeat the facts:

In a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled against the backers of California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban.

With the court's ruling, gay marriage is once again officially legal in California. The majority opinion returns the ruling on the issue back to a 2010 U.S. District Court decision, which is only applicable in the state. While many questions remain about the broader constitutional issue concerning the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, June 26 will be remembered as the day California's gay marriage ban died

No, initiative law and Windsor means gay marriage is NOT legal in California. Lower federal courts may not overrule Windsor from underneath. It's a procedural problem. You undersand those when it comes to denying standing (not the merits of the case) to the protectors of CA initiative law (Prop 8) right?

Just because the litigants did not have standing does not mean it is a Ruling one way or the other from SCOTUS on gay marriage in California. The only ruling that is significant is Windsor. And that stands to this day. Which is just another way of saying the "unquestioned authority" of state's choice on gay marriage stands to this day. Which is just another way of saying Prop 8 stands to this day...

 

[Syriusly]

I can't help you with your case of bigotry inspired stupidity.

So I will just repeat the facts:

In a 5-4 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled against the backers of California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban.

With the court's ruling, gay marriage is once again officially legal in California. The majority opinion returns the ruling on the issue back to a 2010 U.S. District Court decision, which is only applicable in the state. While many questions remain about the broader constitutional issue concerning the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, June 26 will be remembered as the day California's gay marriage ban died

No, initiative law and Windsor means gay marriage is NOT legal in California.

Considering that on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled on Windsor, they also ruled on Prop 8- and left the lower court's finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and void intact, makes your claim just as ridiculous as when you used to claim that the courts ruling on Prop 8 meant that polygamous marriage was now legal in California.

People in love are getting married- and you hate that.

 

[Silhouette]

Considering that on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled on Windsor, they also ruled on Prop 8- and left the lower court's finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and void intact, makes your claim just as ridiculous as when you used to claim that the courts ruling on Prop 8 meant that polygamous marriage was now legal in California.

People in love are getting married- and you hate that.

Except that Windsor affirmed state's choice and "unquestioned authority" over federal powers on the question of gay marriage. The ruling on Prop 8 was on standing (procedural), not content. Lower federal courts do not trump Windsor...it's a procedural fact..

 

[Syriusly]

Considering that on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled on Windsor, they also ruled on Prop 8- and left the lower court's finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and void intact, makes your claim just as ridiculous as when you used to claim that the courts ruling on Prop 8 meant that polygamous marriage was now legal in California.

People in love are getting married- and you hate that.

Except that Windsor affirmed state's choice and "unquestioned authority" over federal powers on the question of gay marriage. The ruling on Prop 8 was on standing (procedural), not content. Lower federal courts do not trump Windsor...it's a procedural fact..

As usual- you are wrong.

About everything.

 

[Silhouette]

Line it out Syriusly. About what on each point specifically?

 

[Silhouette]

Just as I thought, you cannot. Because you know they are excellent points you can't argue.

 

[Silhouette]

You are ignorant of the law since you conveniently ignore there are two methods whereby a previous SCOTUS ruling become ineffectual:

1. By direct reversal of the SCOTUS.

2. By doctrinal changes that render a previous decision inapplicable.

That's not what Judge Sutton of the 6th said. His reasoning was if a tiny group of lower judges felt like changing ANYTHING that the public objected to, that would amount to tyranny. And hence the emphasis on procedure for only SCOTUS overruling itself on a particular question of law. Like whether or not states have the "unquestioned authority" on the specific question of "gay marriage". SCOTUS ruled in Windsor that they did. And that Ruling from 2013 binds fast through today until SCOTUS and SCOTUS alone changes it, if they ever do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are ignorant of the law since you conveniently ignore there are two methods whereby a previous SCOTUS ruling become ineffectual:

1. By direct reversal of the SCOTUS.

2. By doctrinal changes that render a previous decision inapplicable.

That's not what Judge Sutton of the 6th said. His reasoning was if a tiny group of lower judges felt like changing ANYTHING that the public objected to, that would amount to tyranny. And hence the emphasis on procedure for only SCOTUS overruling itself on a particular question of law. Like whether or not states have the "unquestioned authority" on the specific question of "gay marriage". SCOTUS ruled in Windsor that they did. And that Ruling from 2013 binds fast through today until SCOTUS and SCOTUS alone changes it, if they ever do.

Funny thing, you cut out the quote from Sutton where he acknowledges that doctrinal changes can also change the legal landscape from previous SCOTUS rulings, now he disagrees with the other courts that such changes have occurred. But he points out they exist. "Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name, the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision."

Whether the 5 other Circuit Courts are correct or whether Sutton is correct will be determined by the SCOTUS, probably by next summer. But even Sutton says you are wrong on this point of law.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Funny thing, you cut out the quote from Sutton where he acknowledges that doctrinal changes can also change the legal landscape from previous SCOTUS rulings, now he disagrees with the other courts that such changes have occurred. But he points out they exist. "Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name, the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision."

Whether the 5 other Circuit Courts are correct or whether Sutton is correct will be determined by the SCOTUS, probably by next summer. But even Sutton says you are wrong on this point of law.

Here's what Sutton said about that specific point: (unlike you, I'll include a link) 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
*******

"What remains is a debate about whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit to extend the definition of marriage to encompass gay couples. Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution. Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. What we have authority to decide instead is a legal question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?... "
*******

As to that very last point, I would say that any state's sigular and only interest in setting definitions of marriage is by and for the protections and best interest of incentivizing an environment in which is best for children that they can mold themselves in their formative years. Other than that a state could give a flying *&%$.

And as to that directive, a child does best with both blood parents in the home or two people of the complimentary gender so that children OF BOTH GENDERS have the balance of role models in their home in order to best prepare by extension to their environment when they leave the home.

Two gay people can never provide that vital role modeling for them. That could be predicted to adversely affect the self esteem of a child who finds himself or herself in a home where his or her gender is not represented. As with the case of Thomas Lobel of California. Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

He suffers not from "gender identity disorder" but rather "my gender doesn't matter disorder".

And THAT is was states have a right to DE-incentivize on behalf of the best interest of children within their borders.

 

[Silhouette]

Just look at that poor kid's face they're drugging to prepare him to have his junk cut off. Look how he's clamping his hands between his legs.

Body language folks. Gotta learn how to read it. It's a lost art for sure.

 

[Silhouette]

The U.S. Federal Court, and that decision was confirmed by the Appellate Court, and left standing by the Supreme Court.
Ever since then, couples in love have been getting married.

So it wasn't the supreme court that struck it down?

Right. It wasn't. And Prop 8 was not "struck down" by the 2013 decision. They just decided to "let the lower court ruling stay" not because it had merit, but because the petitioners "didn't have standing" . It was a procedural ruling and not a substantive one. The substantive one was Windsor 2013, released the same day. It said that states (all of them, including California) had the "unquestioned authority" on the topic of gay marriage.

Prop 8 is how California makes law, via the initiative system. It is still on the books and viable today, Upheld that way by Windsor's decision.

Until further notice. And this is the case with all marriage laws that states have chosen. Again, citing procedure, a lower federal court may not overturn a substantive specific question that SCOTUS has made a determination on. Their default is the last Decision SCOTUS made. That's how they must rule. It is the burden of the ones who want to fundamentally change that last decision to wait while they march their case upwards.

That's why none of these so called "gay marriages" in states where it was attempted forced by lower courts is worth the paper they're written on. It's a procedural thing. Which LGBTs love to cite when it appears to give them an advantage ( it doesn't, Prop 8 is the law) and to declare "doesn't matter!" when it works against their agenda.

 

[Syriusly]

The U.S. Federal Court, and that decision was confirmed by the Appellate Court, and left standing by the Supreme Court.
Ever since then, couples in love have been getting married.

So it wasn't the supreme court that struck it down?

Right. It wasn't. And Prop 8 was not "struck down" by the 2013 decision.

LOL.....like I said- couples in love are getting married, and the haters hate that.

Prop 8 is dead. Long live love.

 

[Syriusly]

Line it out Syriusly. About what on each point specifically?

Everything you ever post- about anything- ever.

That is pretty specific.

Your posts are full of lies, hypocrisy and knowing misrepresentations, all intended to foment hatred towards homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Just as I thought, you cannot. Because you know they are excellent points you can't argue.

LOL....you purposely don't quote me, so I won't notice your response...and then claim victory because I don't respond.

So typically dishonest of you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Right. It wasn't. And Prop 8 was not "struck down" by the 2013 decision. They just decided to "let the lower court ruling stay" not because it had merit, but because the petitioners "didn't have standing" .

You are demonstrating your unfamiliarity with law and proceedings again.

Prop 8 was in fact "struck down" by the District Court ruling issued August 4, 2010 and in fact the ruling was based on the merits of the case as the Prop 8 proponents defended the case in court, the case at the District Court was not ruled on based on "standing" it was ruled on based on the "merits".

This was the decision the SCOTUS allowed to stand instead of vacating the deciesion and remainding it back to the District Court (and by this time a new Judge since the original Judge had retired).


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You are demonstrating your unfamiliarity with law and proceedings again.
Prop 8 was in fact "struck down" by the District Court ruling issued August 4, 2010 and in fact the ruling was based on the merits of the case as the Prop 8 proponents defended the case in court, the case at the District Court was not ruled on based on "standing" it was ruled on based on the "merits".
This was the decision the SCOTUS allowed to stand instead of vacating the deciesion and remainding it back to the District Court (and by this time a new Judge since the original Judge had retired).>

The 2013 Ruling on Prop 8 did not decide the merits of that "striking down" of Baker 1971. It was a procedural ruling that they had to (apparently, but I would argue any single voter in California has standing because of their power via their intiative system to make their vote count-civil right) deny standing to the defenders of Prop 8. It was in no way an affirmation of the "striking down" of Prop 8. They just made a simple procedural ruling. You understand the vast difference between procedural rulings and rulings upon merit, don't you? Sure you do. You of all people do. How intellectually dishonest of you.

A lower court is not at liberty then to thereafter strike down other similar laws because of Baker 1971 and then Baker's reaffirmation in Windsor 2013. State's choice. That's that until further notice. And last time I checked, California is a state.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are demonstrating your unfamiliarity with law and proceedings again.
Prop 8 was in fact "struck down" by the District Court ruling issued August 4, 2010 and in fact the ruling was based on the merits of the case as the Prop 8 proponents defended the case in court, the case at the District Court was not ruled on based on "standing" it was ruled on based on the "merits".
This was the decision the SCOTUS allowed to stand instead of vacating the deciesion and remainding it back to the District Court (and by this time a new Judge since the original Judge had retired).>

The 2013 Ruling on Prop 8 did not decide the merits of that "striking down" of Baker 1971. It was a procedural ruling that they had to (apparently, but I would argue any single voter in California has standing because of their power via their intiative system to make their vote count-civil right) deny standing to the defenders of Prop 8. It was in no way an affirmation of the "striking down" of Prop 8. They just made a simple procedural ruling. You understand the vast difference between procedural rulings and rulings upon merit, don't you? Sure you do. You of all people do. How intellectually dishonest of you.

A lower court is not at liberty then to thereafter strike down other similar laws because of Baker 1971 and then Baker's reaffirmation in Windsor 2013. State's choice. That's that until further notice. And last time I checked, California is a state.

That is false, as Judge Sutton notes, there are TWO methods whereby a SCOTUS decision becomes ineffectual: (1) by the SCOTUS directly reversing a previous decision, (2) the second is through doctrinal changes. The Circuit Courts, with the exception of Sutton's ruling for the 6th have all recognized the doctrinal changes since Baker in 1971. Re; Windsor, you are lying about what Windsor said.


The fact is that given your view of Windosr and Baker, and your assertion that the SCOTUS agrees with you, you've never been able to explain why the SCOTUS didn't issue a one-page binding precedent on the merits (as it did in 1971's Baker case), dismissing the cases - reaffirming Baker - and stopping about 20 more states being added to the now 35 States where SSCM is legal. Instead they denied the writ's of certiorari in 7 cases, from 5 states, and 3 Circuit Courts (with a couple of more since if IIRC).

There is another at the SCOTUS now to Justice Thomas, I think it's the 11th and Florida, it will interesting to see if he issues a stay on his own authority or refers it to the entire court. Justice Thomas (along with Justice Scalia) appear to be the only two that voted against the stays in the prior cases. If he issues a ruling himself had can have a stay, on the other hand if he refers it to the court - prior actions indicate a stay will be denied. I think briefs are due to him today.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The fact is that given your view of Windosr and Baker, and your assertion that the SCOTUS agrees with you, you've never been able to explain why the SCOTUS didn't issue a one-page binding precedent on the merits (as it did in 1971's Baker case), dismissing the cases - reaffirming Baker - and stopping about 20 more states being added to the now 35 States where SSCM is legal. Instead they denied the writ's of certiorari in 7 cases, from 5 states, and 3 Circuit Courts (with a couple of more since if IIRC).

There is another at the SCOTUS now to Justice Thomas, I think it's the 11th and Florida, it will interesting to see if he issues a stay on his own authority or refers it to the entire court. Justice Thomas (along with Justice Scalia) appear to be the only two that voted against the stays in the prior cases. If he issues a ruling himself had can have a stay, on the other hand if he refers it to the court - prior actions indicate a stay will be denied. I think briefs are due to him today.



>>>>

(ORDER LIST: 574 U.S.)
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2014
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
14A650 ARMSTRONG, JOHN H., ET AL. V. BRENNER, JAMES D., ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Thomas and by
him referred to the Court is denied.
Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas would grant the
application.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/14A650-order-12-19-14.pdf
Court won 8217 t add to delay of Florida same-sex marriages SCOTUSblog

So Baker is still binding precedent and not subject to doctrinal changes that have occurred in the last 43 years, Windsor unequivocally says States can discriminate against homosexuals (it doesn't) and as soon as a case reaches the SCOTUS they will squash cases where lower courts have not toed-the-line. Isn't that right Sil?

Well today the SCOTUS, instead of issuing a notice to vacate the case (as they did with Baker) which reaffirms Baker and points out the error of the lower courts interpretation of Windsor, instead of doing that - the SCOTUS again refused to grant a stay, this time in Florida. That means SSCM becomes legal on January 5th.

Sil, you should write a strongly letter to the SCOTUS immediately and point out how they are getting it wrong. Then explain to them the legal reasoning they should be using because obviously they know less about the law than you do.

Yep, that's what needs to be done.


>>>>​