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

[Syriusly]

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.


>>>>​

I expect that at some point Silhouette will revert to claiming that legalizing same sex marriages makes polygamy legal also.

Her analysis of the law is merely silly putty that she twists and twists until she finds a shape she thinks will cause people to hate homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

I expect that at some point Silhouette will revert to claiming that legalizing same sex marriages makes polygamy legal also.

Her analysis of the law is merely silly putty that she twists and twists until she finds a shape she thinks will cause people to hate homosexuals.

Are you trying to dodge that procedure is what denied "standing" to Prop 8 defenders, and that Ruling was not a substantive one? Are you trying to ignore the Ruling at the same time (Windsor) that was substantive? The one that said the question of yes or no to gay marriage specifically was one reserved to the power of the states.

Do you realize that an individual voter in a state like California with initiative law actually does have standing, since they are the ones who made Prop 8 and are the only ones authorized to revoke it? That procedural ruling on Prop 8 was wrong. It was a mistake that SCOTUS made by not examining the power of authority in legislating in CA close enough. Individual voters are THE law there, and the defenders of it.

Meanwhile, while you praise and uphold that wrong procedural ruling about Prop 8; where procedure favored gay marriage (or so you thought) against the will of the lawmakers, suddenly procedure doesn't matter when it is clearly circumvented by lower courts trying to overrule a specific question from underneath. Then, because that discarding of procedural protocol favors gay marriage, you're all good with it.

Long story short, only SCOTUS can overturn Baker 1971 or Windsor 2013. The lower courts do not have "standing" in order to do that. Never have had.

 

[Silhouette]

(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​

Here's the rest of that story (from your second link):

******

Neither the apparent majority of seven nor the two dissenters gave any explanation. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas simply noted that they would have granted the plea by state officials to extend the postponement beyond the early January date.

In refusing the request by Florida officials, the Court followed the pattern that it had maintained for the past two-and-a-half months of routinely turning aside requests to put on hold lower court rulings that had struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.

This one appeared to be different from the others in two respects. First, there was no need for an immediate postponement because the trial judge who nullified the Florida ban had put his decision on hold until January 5. Second, the federal appeals court that presides in the geographic region that includes Florida — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — has yet to rule on the validity of that state’s ban.

In prior cases since early October, the Court had turned down requests for delays where the federal appeals court for a given region had found unconstitutional at least one ban in a state within that circuit, thus setting a precedent apparently binding throughout that area. The Eleventh Circuit is preparing to take up the Florida case early next year.

It is unclear whether either of those differences in the Florida case had shaped the Justices’ response. It could be that the most likely explanation was that the Justices who voted to deny the postponement were simply showing respect for the choice made by the Eleventh Circuit, which also had refused to delay same-sex marriages in Florida, even though it has yet to rule on the merits of the issue.

The Supreme Court’s refusals to delay same-sex marriages despite state officials’ requests have come even though the Justices are clearly aware that federal appeals court are divided on the constitutional question, and even though it is highly likely that the Justices will take up the constitutionality of state bans, and probably will do so during the current Term. So far, though, the Justices have not ruled directly on the validity of any state’s ban.

*********

​

 

[Silhouette]

He gave you the court reference what does anything you posted have to do with this thread?

Logic, reason and the thinking through the consequences of what he is proposing.

So yes, I can understand why all of the above would be things you have never heard of before.

This was said in reference to my points about children needing states to incentivize both blood parents or at least both complimentary genders (in the case of adoption) for their best formative development.

What "consequences" would there be from incentivizing the best formative homes for children of both genders?

 

[WorldWatcher]

(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.

>>>>

Here's the rest of that story (from your second link):

******

Neither the apparent majority of seven nor the two dissenters gave any explanation. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas simply noted that they would have granted the plea by state officials to extend the postponement beyond the early January date.

In refusing the request by Florida officials, the Court followed the pattern that it had maintained for the past two-and-a-half months of routinely turning aside requests to put on hold lower court rulings that had struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.

This one appeared to be different from the others in two respects. First, there was no need for an immediate postponement because the trial judge who nullified the Florida ban had put his decision on hold until January 5. Second, the federal appeals court that presides in the geographic region that includes Florida — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — has yet to rule on the validity of that state’s ban.

In prior cases since early October, the Court had turned down requests for delays where the federal appeals court for a given region had found unconstitutional at least one ban in a state within that circuit, thus setting a precedent apparently binding throughout that area. The Eleventh Circuit is preparing to take up the Florida case early next year.

It is unclear whether either of those differences in the Florida case had shaped the Justices’ response. It could be that the most likely explanation was that the Justices who voted to deny the postponement were simply showing respect for the choice made by the Eleventh Circuit, which also had refused to delay same-sex marriages in Florida, even though it has yet to rule on the merits of the issue.

The Supreme Court’s refusals to delay same-sex marriages despite state officials’ requests have come even though the Justices are clearly aware that federal appeals court are divided on the constitutional question, and even though it is highly likely that the Justices will take up the constitutionality of state bans, and probably will do so during the current Term. So far, though, the Justices have not ruled directly on the validity of any state’s ban.

*********

​

What "rest of the story"? I linked to the source (the Justices refusal to stay SSCM from starting in Florida and the SCOTUSblog story).

But let's review what you have bolded:

Neither the apparent majority of seven nor the two dissenters gave any explanation.

Yep, 7 of 9 Justices voted to allow SSCM to start in Florida on January 6th. Now if your statements about Baker and Windsor were true (from a legal perspective), then shouldn't it have been a 9 of 9 decision for the SCOTUS to issue the stay and prevent SSCM's from starting?​

First, there was no need for an immediate postponement because the trial judge who nullified the Florida ban had put his decision on hold until January 5.

Yep, the trial Judge stayed his ruling through January 5th to give the state time to appeal. The appeals for a stay have gone to the 11th Circuit (which turned it down) and gone to the SCOTUS which also turned it down. Your point? The SCOTUS is allowing SSCM's to start on January 6th. But if your interpretation of Baker and Windsor was correct they would have put a stop to it right? But they didn't.​

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — has yet to rule on the validity of that state’s ban.

Yep, and now SSCM's will start in Florida even before the 11th Circuit has heard the case. But if your interpretation of Baker and Windsor was correct they would have put a stop to it right? But they didn't.​

it is highly likely that the Justices will take up the constitutionality of state bans, and probably will do so during the current Term. So far, though, the Justices have not ruled directly on the validity of any state’s ban.

Yep again. This is a true statement. The SCOTUS has not ruled on the constitutionality of SSCM's since doctrinal changes have rendered Baker immaterial and Windsor was NOT a ruling on whether States could say legally discriminate against homosexual couples. Windsor ONLY ruled that if a State did say "Yes" that the Federal government could not not recognize those legal marriages.​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

As you know, their procedural rulings on this question have been very tight-lipped, and brief. Do you suppose that's because they're bursting at the seams with overwhelming zeal to suppress states' rights on the question of a lifestyle-marriage change so fundamental that it stands to skew untold 100s of millions of kids' formative years into the unforseeable future, and indeed the very core of society's values right along with those kids-grown-to-adults?

If they were so zealous and so heavily leaning towards forcing gay marriage on the states that don't want that culture club to replace normal values at such a fundamental and permanent level, why not an extra sentence or two explaining themselves "pro gay"?

If you read Windsor, you see that the Court does not lean heavily towards this forced acceptance by states. You would be a stone cold liar if you said the intent of that Ruling was anything other than affirming state's choice on gay marriage.

So, we are left with a mystery. But not really. Because the standing law on the specific question is Windsor until further notice. And Windsor uses as its hub to reverse in favor of the plaintiff, the fact that states have the "unquestioned authority" on the choice to ratify gay marriage or not; and from that hub SCOTUS struck down part of DOMA.

You can't have it both ways. Just as you cannot celebrate to the high heavens a procedural ruling (non substantive) on Prop 8 while excusing breach of procedure (all the lower federal courts in clear and inarguable violation of the word and spirit of Windsor 2013) to say "well it's OK if it favors gay marriage."

We have stepped out of the gay marriage question altogether and have entered a very disturbing realm where cult activists are rewriting our judicial system to their liking. While society and apparently SCOTUS too stands by with "you're a bigot, hater, homophobe" colored duct tape strapped around their mouths..

 

[Syriusly]

I expect that at some point Silhouette will revert to claiming that legalizing same sex marriages makes polygamy legal also.

Her analysis of the law is merely silly putty that she twists and twists until she finds a shape she thinks will cause people to hate homosexuals.

Are you trying to dodge that procedure is what denied "standing" to Prop 8 defenders, and that Ruling was not a substantive one? Are you trying to ignore the Ruling at the same time (Windsor) that was substantive? The one that said the question of yes or no to gay marriage specifically was one reserved to the power of the states.

Do you realize that an individual voter in a state like California with initiative law actually does have standing,.

More bat guano craziness from you.

The Federal Court ruling that declared Prop 8 void was based upon the evidence- not standing. After reviewing the evidence the Judge declared that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the rights of Californians.

That decision was appealed to the Appeals Court- which affirmed the lower courts ruling.

The Supreme Court held hearings on Prop 8, but in the end decided that no- individual citizens did not have standing to appeal the decision- and that since no one with standing appealed, the Federal Court decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional was left standing.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, all the appeals failed, and there are no additional appeals pending or possible- Prop 8 is dead.

And Californians in love are getting married.

 

[Syriusly]

He gave you the court reference what does anything you posted have to do with this thread?

Logic, reason and the thinking through the consequences of what he is proposing.

So yes, I can understand why all of the above would be things you have never heard of before.

This was said in reference to my points about children needing states to incentivize both blood parents or at least both complimentary genders (in the case of adoption) for their best formative development.

What "consequences" would there be from incentivizing the best formative homes for children of both genders?

Well presuming that marriage is beneficial for children- as Justice Kennedy does- it would mean that the children of same gender homes would have married parents.

You would deny the children of same gender couples marriage. Justice Kennedy sees a problem with that.

 

[Syriusly]

If you read Windsor, you see that the Court does not lean heavily towards this forced acceptance by states. You would be a stone cold liar if you said the intent of that Ruling was anything other than affirming state's choice on gay marriage...

Well lets look at the language from Windsor again

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26.

(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.

Again its that phrase- 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' that you keep wanting to ignore.

Later in the Windsor the court goes further


In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradi-tion. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

That is very clear- States regulate marriage but those regulations cannot violate constitutional rights.

You want Windsor to say that whatever the States decide is law without restriction- but the court was very clear that the States- not the Federal Government- decide on how marriage can be regulated- but the States are constrained by the Constitution.

And all of the lawsuits against State laws- such as Prop 8- have been suits claiming that constitutional rights have been violated. Exactly what Windsor talked about.

 

[Silhouette]

..The Supreme Court held hearings on Prop 8, but in the end decided that no- individual citizens did not have standing to appeal the decision- and that since no one with standing appealed, the Federal Court decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional was left standing.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, all the appeals failed, and there are no additional appeals pending or possible- Prop 8 is dead.

And Californians in love are getting married.

It was a procedural Ruling by SCOTUS. Not a ruling on the merits. Just as lower courts may not circumvent procedure and attempt to "mind read" a future verdict or overrule from underneath a standing verdict (Windsor 2013) that reaffirms states' choice on the specific question of gay marriage.

Windsor is the current and standing interpretaion of the gay marriage/states' right question until further notice. Ergo, Prop 8 is the standing law until further notice. There's your Ruling on the merits of Prop 8..

 

[Silhouette]

..The Supreme Court held hearings on Prop 8, but in the end decided that no- individual citizens did not have standing to appeal the decision- and that since no one with standing appealed, the Federal Court decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional was left standing.
The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, all the appeals failed, and there are no additional appeals pending or possible- Prop 8 is dead. And Californians in love are getting married.

It was a procedural Ruling by SCOTUS. Not a ruling on the merits. Just as lower courts may not circumvent procedure and attempt to "mind read" a future verdict or overrule from underneath a standing verdict (Windsor 2013) that reaffirms states' choice on the specific question of gay marriage. Windsor is the current and standing interpretaion of the gay marriage/states' right question until further notice. Ergo, Prop 8 is the standing law until further notice. There's your Ruling on the merits of Prop 8..

Windsor WAS the Prop 8 appeal that was Upheld. California, last time I checked, is one of the 50 states with the "Unquestioned authority" to approve or disapprove of gay lifestyle marriage. Read Windsor. It is the affirmation of Prop 8.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Windsor WAS the Prop 8 appeal that was Upheld. California, last time I checked, is one of the 50 states with the "Unquestioned authority" to approve or disapprove of gay lifestyle marriage. Read Windsor. It is the affirmation of Prop 8.

Wrong.

Prop 8 was the appeal by the supporters of Proposition 8 out of California. Windsor was a case based on tax law and persons legally married in the State of New York.

Windsor wasn't ruling on California. There is only one place in the ruling where your quote of "unquestioned authority" exists and it doesn't say what you think it says.

If it did, then the SCOTUS would have issued the stays that had been requested in cases from the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts and not allowed SSCM's to start.

>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

..The Supreme Court held hearings on Prop 8, but in the end decided that no- individual citizens did not have standing to appeal the decision- and that since no one with standing appealed, the Federal Court decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional was left standing.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, all the appeals failed, and there are no additional appeals pending or possible- Prop 8 is dead.

And Californians in love are getting married.

It was a procedural Ruling by SCOTUS. Not a ruling on the merits. Just as lower courts may not circumvent procedure and attempt to "mind read" a future verdict or overrule from underneath a standing verdict (Windsor 2013) that reaffirms states' choice on the specific question of gay marriage.

Windsor is the current and standing interpretaion of the gay marriage/states' right question until further notice. Ergo, Prop 8 is the standing law until further notice. There's your Ruling on the merits of Prop 8..

Since I have already refuted that entire pile of bat guano craziness, I will just point out again- just more bat guano craziness.

 

[Syriusly]

..The Supreme Court held hearings on Prop 8, but in the end decided that no- individual citizens did not have standing to appeal the decision- and that since no one with standing appealed, the Federal Court decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional was left standing.
The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, all the appeals failed, and there are no additional appeals pending or possible- Prop 8 is dead. And Californians in love are getting married.

It was a procedural Ruling by SCOTUS. Not a ruling on the merits. Just as lower courts may not circumvent procedure and attempt to "mind read" a future verdict or overrule from underneath a standing verdict (Windsor 2013) that reaffirms states' choice on the specific question of gay marriage. Windsor is the current and standing interpretaion of the gay marriage/states' right question until further notice. Ergo, Prop 8 is the standing law until further notice. There's your Ruling on the merits of Prop 8..

Windsor WAS the Prop 8 appeal that was Upheld. California, last time I checked, is one of the 50 states with the "Unquestioned authority" to approve or disapprove of gay lifestyle marriage. Read Windsor. It is the affirmation of Prop 8.

Well lets look at the language from Windsor again

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26.

(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia,388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.

Again its that phrase- 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' that you keep wanting to ignore.

Later in the Windsor the court goes further


In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradi-tion. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

That is very clear- States regulate marriage but those regulations cannot violate constitutional rights.

You want Windsor to say that whatever the States decide is law without restriction- but the court was very clear that the States- not the Federal Government- decide on how marriage can be regulated- but the States are constrained by the Constitution.

And all of the lawsuits against State laws- such as Prop 8- have been suits claiming that constitutional rights have been violated. Exactly what Windsor talked about.

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong. Prop 8 was the appeal by the supporters of Proposition 8 out of California. Windsor was a case based on tax law and persons legally married in the State of New York. Windsor wasn't ruling on California. There is only one place in the ruling where your quote of "unquestioned authority" exists and it doesn't say what you think it says. If it did, then the SCOTUS would have issued the stays that had been requested in cases from the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts and not allowed SSCM's to start.

>>>>

By "SCOTUS", you mean Sotomayor...

California is a state, last time I checked. And the Windsor decision hinged on state's choice on gay marriage. It Upheld states' "unquestioned authority" on the question of ratifying gay marriage. Then it concluded the Opinion of Windsor by saying that as of that date, only a limited number of states had legal gay marriage. That is a vote of "no confidence" on a sweeping application of forced gay lifestyle marriage on the 50 states.

California's initiative system outweighs other forms of lawmaking. The individual voters there have the power. Prop 8 is their voice. So, unless that state voted to strip itself of the intiative system and unless SCOTUS has overturned states' choice on gay marriage in Windsor, Prop 8 is the valid and operable law of California. In Windsor they affirmed this state's authority retroactive to the founding of the country.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. Prop 8 was the appeal by the supporters of Proposition 8 out of California. Windsor was a case based on tax law and persons legally married in the State of New York. Windsor wasn't ruling on California. There is only one place in the ruling where your quote of "unquestioned authority" exists and it doesn't say what you think it says. If it did, then the SCOTUS would have issued the stays that had been requested in cases from the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts and not allowed SSCM's to start.

>>>>

By "SCOTUS", you mean Sotomayor...

No by "SCOTUS" I mean the Supreme Court of the United States which includes 9 Justices. Sotomayor the Justice that receives appeals from the 10th Circuit Court. When she received the appeal she referred it to the full court for a decision.

The 11th Circuit Court is Justice Thomas
The 9th Circuit Court is Justice Kennedy
The 7th Circuit Court is Justice Kegan
The 4th Circuit Court is Chief Justice Roberts

In each case the appeal referred to the cognizant Justice who received the stay requests and in each case they were referred to the full court to decide whether to issue the stay or not.

In each case the full SCOTUS voted to allow SSCM's to commence in the states under the jurisdictions of those Circuit Court. In the initial three stay requests in October there were no descenting Justices noted, the last two were votes of 7-2 to allow SSCM's to begin with only Thomas and Scalia voting against.

So no, when I say SCOTUS I'm not saying Sotomayor.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong. Prop 8 was the appeal by the supporters of Proposition 8 out of California. Windsor was a case based on tax law and persons legally married in the State of New York. Windsor wasn't ruling on California. There is only one place in the ruling where your quote of "unquestioned authority" exists and it doesn't say what you think it says. If it did, then the SCOTUS would have issued the stays that had been requested in cases from the 11th, 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts and not allowed SSCM's to start.

>>>>

By "SCOTUS", you mean Sotomayor...

California is a state, last time I checked. And the Windsor decision hinged on state's choice on gay marriage. It Upheld states' "unquestioned authority" on the question of ratifying gay marriage. Then it concluded the Opinion of Windsor by saying that as of that date, only a limited number of states had legal gay marriage. That is a vote of "no confidence" on a sweeping application of forced gay lifestyle marriage on the 50 states.

California's initiative system outweighs other forms of lawmaking. The individual voters there have the power. Prop 8 is their voice. So, unless that state voted to strip itself of the intiative system and unless SCOTUS has overturned states' choice on gay marriage in Windsor, Prop 8 is the valid and operable law of California. In Windsor they affirmed this state's authority retroactive to the founding of the country.

Just bat guano crazy.

 

[Silhouette]

Bat guano or not. Windsor set the Ruling for states' choice on gay lifestyle marriages. Prop 8 was California's choice. Do the math. Initiative law is top dog in that state.

 

[Silhouette]

In each case the appeal referred to the cognizant Justice who received the stay requests and in each case they were referred to the full court to decide whether to issue the stay or not.

In each case the full SCOTUS voted to allow SSCM's to commence in the states under the jurisdictions of those Circuit Court. In the initial three stay requests in October there were no descenting Justices noted, the last two were votes of 7-2 to allow SSCM's to begin with only Thomas and Scalia voting against.

So no, when I say SCOTUS I'm not saying Sotomayor.>

That was before the elections. This is now. My crystal ball tells me that conservatives will not want to extinct their own mindset by promoting a culture that seeks to destroy them at their foundation (homosexual lifestyles vs their antithesis: christian values and mandates). The new conservative Congress convenes in a few short weeks. If you think they're going to sit on their hands while activists judges underneath SCOTUS circumvent procedure by trying to overturn Windsor or mindread a "likely future decision" by the Supremes...well... enjoy your world of delusion.

You see, the family is the nucleus of society. Society is filled with voters. If conservatives do nothing to stop the spread of a subculture who has made it implicitly clear that it means to do away with christian values in the hearts of the faithful where the church resides (think of the lawsuits against florists and bakers), then they must surely be able to do the math on what type of values (and voters) will be around two generations hence.

Pretty sure they're going to put up a fight before they go belly up and piss on themselves at the sight of rainbow-colored jackboots....and an 82% disapproval rating on that subcultural takeover of christian values at their core:Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 591 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

We are talking about THE environment where childrens' minds are primarily formed. Children, might I remind you, are the future political climate...a thing you and your ilk are VERY familiar with and have used your buddies in Hollowood to get deep inside the psyches of.

All Hail Harvey Milk...

 

[WorldWatcher]

In each case the appeal referred to the cognizant Justice who received the stay requests and in each case they were referred to the full court to decide whether to issue the stay or not.

In each case the full SCOTUS voted to allow SSCM's to commence in the states under the jurisdictions of those Circuit Court. In the initial three stay requests in October there were no descenting Justices noted, the last two were votes of 7-2 to allow SSCM's to begin with only Thomas and Scalia voting against.

So no, when I say SCOTUS I'm not saying Sotomayor.>

That was before the elections. This is now.

The 10th, 7th, and 4th were before the elections, the 11th and the 9th were AFTER the elections.

Your track record with your crystal ball has been consistently incorrect, don't use it to place any bets.



>>>>