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

[Silhouette]

Is Sutton's informed opinion. Just like the other Judges have their informed opinions. But Sutton's opinion is only legally binding on the courts under his jurisidiction. And the other Appeals court decisions are binding upon the courts in their jurisdiction. Simple as that.

No, it isn't so simple. Federal procedure isn't merely "Sutton's opinion". He was reciting it for sure and talking about it and outlining it. But the procedure stands apart from his Opinion. And that procedure says that no lower court may overturn a SCOTUS Decision upon summary judgment (Baker 1971) or actual judgment (Windsor 2013) on a specific question of law.

The last word that SCOTUS gave the People of the United States of America on the specific question of whether or not states have the power to affirm or deny gay marriage was Windsor 2013. In that Decision, the Court said that such affirmations or denials are not within the federal power and that that power was the "unquestioned authority" of the states. Windsor ended with the Court saying gay marriage was only allowed "in some states" (but not all). That is the last US Supreme Court word on the specific question of if states do or do not have the power to affirm or deny gay marriage.

Simple as that. The answer is "yes they do".

So when the other lower circuit courts following that decision said "No they don't", they are in contempt of federal procedure and the US Supreme Court and the power of the separate states they are seeking to rule over like miniature kings.

Not one of those states told by the lower courts has to abide by a single word any of those courts said as to telling their clerks to illegally ratify gay marriage against the Will of their state's democratic process. None. Gay marriage is ONLY legal in those states who used the normal processes of legislating to ratify it.

 

[Syriusly]

Is Sutton's informed opinion. Just like the other Judges have their informed opinions. But Sutton's opinion is only legally binding on the courts under his jurisidiction. And the other Appeals court decisions are binding upon the courts in their jurisdiction. Simple as that.

No, it isn't so simple. Federal procedure isn't merely "Sutton's opinion". He was reciting it for sure and talking about it and outlining it. But the procedure stands apart from his Opinion. And that procedure says that no lower court may overturn a SCOTUS Decision upon summary judgment (Baker 1971) or actual judgment (Windsor 2013) on a specific question of law.
.

And who decides if those courts have overreached their authorities?

Well of course the Appellate Courts- who rule on the decisions of Federal Judges.

And all the other Appellate Courts have confirmed those Federal Judges decisions.

And who decides if the Appellate Courts have made a wrong interpretation?

Well that would be the Supreme Court- and so far the Supreme Court has been letting the Appeals Court decisions stand.

"Federal Procedure' has been followed- the Federal Judges decisions were appealed and upheld by the Appellate Courts responsible for reviewing their decision. Federal Procedure has been followed, and those decisions were appealed to the Supreme Court and refused review.

Unless and Until the Supreme Court overturns all of the Federal cases that found that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional, then those judgements stand.

And that is Federal Procedure.

And in 35 states- people in love can get married. Even if they are gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Not one of those states told by the lower courts has to abide by a single word any of those courts said as to telling their clerks to illegally ratify gay marriage against the Will of their state's democratic process. None. Gay marriage is ONLY legal in those states who used the normal processes of legislating to ratify it.

And that is just batshit crazy.

Which is why marriages are proceeding in all of those states- and none of those states have even considered such a bat shit crazy tactic.

 

[Silhouette]

And who decides if those courts have overreached their authorities?

Political science 101 that I took in high school and college. That's like asking "who decides if you have to stop at a red traffic light?" Federal procedure is federal procedure. They call the court the "Supreme" court because its decisions bind all lower courts. Did you flunk high school?

The law of the land is that states choose to either ratify gay marriage or not. No further or more recent SCOTUS ruling can be cited on the matter. Ergo it is the law.

All states being forced to allow gay marraige are doing so in violation of democracy. Any citizen in any of those states could sue for suppression of their civil right to self-rule.

 

[Syriusly]

And who decides if those courts have overreached their authorities?

Political science 101 that I took in high school and college. That's like asking "who decides if you have to stop at a red traffic light?" Federal procedure is federal procedure. They call the court the "Supreme" court because its decisions bind all lower courts. Did you flunk high school?

The law of the land is that states choose to either ratify gay marriage or not. No further or more recent SCOTUS ruling can be cited on the matter. Ergo it is the law.

All states being forced to allow gay marraige are doing so in violation of democracy. Any citizen in any of those states could sue for suppression of their civil right to self-rule.

Again- entirely bat shit crazy.

The law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. And as Windsor pointed out- marriage law is left to the states- except when the state law violates the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has invalidated state marriage law at least 3 times. Because the U.S. Constitution trumps state law. Doesn't matter if voters vote to legalize slavery- the law would be unconstitutional and invalid.

And we are not a democracy. We are constitutional Republic.

And the court has already settled that issue of the citizen's in the state sueing in Prop 8- in order to have standing a citizen must suffer from immediate and personal harm- allowing gay couples to marry doesn't cause you any immediate or personal harm- you have no standing to sue just because you don't agree with how the Federal courts have ruled.

 

[Silhouette]

Again- entirely bat shit crazy.

The law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. And as Windsor pointed out- marriage law is left to the states- except when the state law violates the Constitution.
.

No, it did not say that. It said at the end of its Windsor Opinion in 2013 that "as of this writing only some states have legal gay marriage". Therefore, they said in that sentence that the power still rested with the states to "say no" to gay marriage.

Sorry. You have to stop at red traffic lights and the lower courts are bound by their Superior until the Superior says otherwise...

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court has invalidated state marriage law at least 3 times. Because the U.S. Constitution trumps state law...And the court has already settled that issue of the citizen's in the state sueing in Prop 8- in order to have standing a citizen must suffer from immediate and personal harm- allowing gay couples to marry doesn't cause you any immediate or personal harm...

Windsor left off with its opinion saying that as of its Writing, gay marriage was ONLY allowed IN SOME STATES. There's their vote on their current interpretation of the 14th as universally applicable.

Ergo, it's still state's choice and always has been.

The Prop 8 issue had no ruling on merit so you're pulling your conclusion there straight out of your ass. The immediate personal harm, nevertheless, is caused to children. Gay marriage guarantees their formative years to be minus the complimentary gender (which may be the child's own) and one blood parent 100% of the time.

There's the harm. Not to me because I'm not a child and I was raised by hetero parents. It is caused to future children yet to be born, depriving them of their rights. They are too young to vote and so adults like me advocate to protect their interests.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court has invalidated state marriage law at least 3 times. Because the U.S. Constitution trumps state law...And the court has already settled that issue of the citizen's in the state sueing in Prop 8- in order to have standing a citizen must suffer from immediate and personal harm- allowing gay couples to marry doesn't cause you any immediate or personal harm...

Windsor left off with its opinion saying that as of its Writing, gay marriage was ONLY allowed IN SOME STATES.

Here are the exact words from Windsor:

In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the
concept of same-sex marriage, see, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74
Haw. 530, 852 P. 2d 44 (1993), and before any State had
acted to permit it, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), 110 Stat. 2419. DOMA contains two
operative sections: Section 2, which has not been challenged
here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex
marriages performed under the laws of other States. See
28 U. S. C. §1738C.

And this

Accordingly some States
concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given
recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex
couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment
to each other. The limitation of lawful marriage
to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been
deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be
seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust
exclusion

And finally this:

Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage
in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA
should be considered as the beginning point in deciding
whether it is valid under the Constitution.

To any rational person- the Supreme Court was discussing the state of the law when analyzing DOMA.

But not to you.

Here is what the Supreme Court specifically said about State's rights to regulate marriage:

Against this background DOMA rejects the longestablished
precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations
of marriage are uniform for all married couples
within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional
guarantees, from one State to the next.

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees,

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,”

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.”

Virtually ever reference the Court makes about State's control of marriage also specifically says that they are 'subject to constitutional guarantees'.

And that why your interpretations continue to be continually crazy.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court has invalidated state marriage law at least 3 times. Because the U.S. Constitution trumps state law...And the court has already settled that issue of the citizen's in the state sueing in Prop 8- in order to have standing a citizen must suffer from immediate and personal harm- allowing gay couples to marry doesn't cause you any immediate or personal harm...

Windsor left off with its opinion saying that as of its Writing, gay marriage was ONLY allowed IN SOME STATES. There's their vote on their current interpretation of the 14th as universally applicable.

Ergo, it's still state's choice and always has been.

The Prop 8 issue had no ruling on merit so you're pulling your conclusion there straight out of your ass. The immediate personal harm, nevertheless, is caused to children. Gay marriage guarantees their formative years to be minus the complimentary gender (which may be the child's own) and one blood parent 100% of the time..

The only harm recognized by the Supreme Court is to the children of gay couples

Justice Kennedy:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples will not be married.

That is the only harm to children.

 

[Silhouette]

The only harm recognized by the Supreme Court is to the children of gay couples

Justice Kennedy:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples will not be married.

That is the only harm to children.

The voices of children of polygamists, incetuous couples and single parents also want a voice too. Why should we deny any of those much more prevalent numbers of children the benefits of marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

The only harm recognized by the Supreme Court is to the children of gay couples

Justice Kennedy:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples will not be married.

That is the only harm to children.

The voices of children of polygamists, incetuous couples and single parents also want a voice too. Why should we deny any of those much more prevalent numbers of children the benefits of marriage?

Exactly what I hope you tell Justice Kennedy when he asks:


Justice Kennedy:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples will not be married.

 

[Silhouette]

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples will not be married.

Children cannot marry. Not yet anyway, but you'll be working on that next. After all, the "rainbow" is wide enough to encompass all walks. It's a queer concept for children to marry.

I suspect though that you meant "get the benefits of marriage"...so I'll address that flaw in logic here:

"preventing polygamy marriage only insures that the children in those arrangements will not get the benefits of marriage"

"preventing incest marriage only insures that the children in those arrangements will not get the benefits of marriage"

"preventing single parents from marrying themselves only insures that those (collosal numbers of) children will not get the benefits of marriage".

You misunderstand that marriage is not a right. It's an incentivized privelege set up that way for the best benefit of children by enticing the best formative environment for them with special benefits.

Society has decided that polygamists lifestyles present a detriment to children in their formative years; they dilute the amount of resources the parents can devote to the often huge numbers of children present in the arrangement. They certainly dilute the amount of attention the "one" of the dominant gender (usually the father) can give to the offspring of his many wives. So it's illegal.

Society has decided that incestuous lifestyles presents a harm to children in that those children will be expected to languish physically from predictable birth defects common with inbreeding. The fact that incest couples could adopt does not mollify the fact that they will also likely breed. This is unacceptable for the children and so society makes incest marriage illegal, in different ranges in different states.

Society has decided that minors may not marry. This is because minors are children themselves, physically capable of bearing children but not mentally capable of providing the maturity necessary to raise children themselves. So those children would be at risk. And so minors marrying at various ages determined by the separate states is illegal.

Society has decided that gay lifestyle partnerships will deprive any children who find themselves in that home of the complimentary gender (that may be the child[ren]'s own) as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets children at a psychological disadvantage to their peers who have lifelong experience and esteem developed from the daily interaction with parents of both genders. So society disapproves and makes it illegal.

Polygamists, minors, incestuous couples, gays...none of them have a "right" to the privelege of marriage. Lots and lots of people have decided to adopt a deviant lifestyle that would pose a harm to children that society simply cannot tolerate creating incentives to entice. So we don't. And that is a state's RIGHT, not its privelege. Since children are too young to advocate for themselves, the state has to step in. And it does.

Windsor 2013 affirmed until SCOTUS tells us otherwise that states have the final say on what lifestyles are enticed to the privelege of marriage or not.

 

[Silhouette]

Justice Kennedy previously, like most judges handling this topic, have not fully thought through exactly why any state is interested losing money by giving tax breaks to married people. That reason is to insure that children raised in a married environment grow up with complimentary genders, hopefully both blood parents, to see their own gender reflected for their self esteem and identity, and to interact with the opposite gender daily in order to form their social self.

Children raised in such environments are expected to be less mentally ill, have a better self image, do better socially and as such wind up in jail, mental wards and indigent less than other children deprived of that best formative experience. So that's the payoff the state gets for incentivizing father/mother marriage. Otherwise it makes zero sense for the state to be involved in any adult-adult reltionship whatsoever. There is no benefit to the general population of granting tax breaks to "whoever" for "whatever reason" where children may wind up in the experimental-fray...

 

[Syriusly]

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples will not be married.

Children cannot marry. Not yet anyway, but you'll be working on that next. t.

Preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay couples will not have married parents.

Why do you hate the children of gay couples?

 

[Syriusly]

Justice Kennedy previously, like most judges handling this topic, have not fully thought through exactly why any state is interested losing money by giving tax breaks to married people. That reason is to insure that children raised in a married environment grow up with complimentary genders, hopefully both blood parents, to see their own gender reflected for their self esteem and identity, and to interact with the opposite gender daily in order to form their social self.

Children raised in such environments are expected to be less mentally ill, have a better self image, do better socially and as such wind up in jail, mental wards and indigent less than other children deprived of that best formative experience. So that's the payoff the state gets for incentivizing father/mother marriage. Otherwise it makes zero sense for the state to be involved in any adult-adult reltionship whatsoever. There is no benefit to the general population of granting tax breaks to "whoever" for "whatever reason" where children may wind up in the experimental-fray...

Pure Batshit crazy lies.

You don't have any idea what any judge 'thinks' other than by what they say- and we know what Justice Kennedy says.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you hate the children of gay couples?

Why do you hate the children of polygamists? Why do you hate the children of single parents. Shouldn't ALL children get the benefits of marriage? Do you realize how many children of single parents there are that would benefit from the perks of marriage without forcing their monosexual parent to marry someone if they want to be alone?

 

[Silhouette]

OK, now that that playing field has been leveled...

Back to the real points which are...Which formative environment is best for children? ie which one would the state have interest in enticing with the privelege of marriage in order to benefit and nurture its future citizens {children}?

It would be the one where there is a father and mother, two of the complimentary genders as role models and hopefully blood parents to the children who themselves will be of both genders. Not one like gay marriage or single parenthood which guarantees the children lack of the complimentary gender 100% of the time. That role model will ALWAYS be missing in a gay marriage...

...not good for the kiddies folks.

 

[Inevitable]

OK, now that that playing field has been leveled...

Back to the real points which are...Which formative environment is best for children? ie which one would the state have interest in enticing with the privelege of marriage in order to benefit and nurture its future citizens {children}?

It would be the one where there is a father and mother, two of the complimentary genders as role models and hopefully blood parents to the children who themselves will be of both genders. Not one like gay marriage or single parenthood which guarantees the children lack of the complimentary gender 100% of the time. That role model will ALWAYS be missing in a gay marriage...

...not good for the kiddies folks.

That is a nice opinion, but it isn't relevant.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you hate the children of gay couples?

Why do you hate the children of polygamists? Why do you hate the children of single parents. Shouldn't ALL children get the benefits of marriage? Do you realize how many children of single parents there are that would benefit from the perks of marriage without forcing their monosexual parent to marry someone if they want to be alone?

Unlike yourself- I am not arguing about denying marriage to anyone.
Unlike yourself- i am not bringing in strawmen.

We are talking about gay marriage- and how children are affected- and once again- in the great words of Justice Kennedy:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Kennedy sees harm to children of gay parents deprived of marriage.

Justice Kennedy will be one of the key votes if and when the issue of gay marriage reaches the court.

I can only hope your side makes your argument there.

 

[Syriusly]

OK, now that that playing field has been leveled...

Back to the real points which are...Which formative environment is best for children? ie which one would the state have interest in enticing with the privelege of marriage in order to benefit and nurture its future citizens {children}?

It would be the one where there is a father and mother, two of the complimentary genders as role models and hopefully blood parents to the children who themselves will be of both genders. Not one like gay marriage or single parenthood which guarantees the children lack of the complimentary gender 100% of the time. That role model will ALWAYS be missing in a gay marriage...

...not good for the kiddies folks.

Hmmmm

Maybe someday states will consider incentivizing marriage laws to benefit children.

They haven't so far.

Of course most 'marriage benefits' have nothing to do with children. For instance inheritance laws- spouses get automatic exemptions- children don't. Community property- the same thing- if it was all about children- how come the children don't have community property with their mom and dad?

Marriage laws could be enacted so that states give parents specific incitements to have children once they are married.

But no state does that. Fact is- it costs more to raise a child than any parent gets from a tax deduction. And that tax deduction- parents get that whether they are married or not.