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

[Silhouette]

You don't have any room to tell anybody they are being illogical.

You are being downright hysterical.

Please describe specifically how the following is "hysterical"..

page 14 of Opinion: United States v. Windsor
After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...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

"Against this background (a statewide deliberative process) of lawful same-sex marriage in some States (but not all, because we just said it's arrived at by a statewide, not federal, deliberative process of a state's citizens)..."

After reading that, how is again that lower circuit courts can order states to perform gay marraiges against the will of the deliberative consensus?
How again is it that "Prop 8 isn't the law anymore"?

You realize of course that the intiative system in California and other states is a "statewide deliberative process"...and that the ruling against defenders of Prop 8 was procedural, not on the merits of their case? The Court effectively (but not purposefully) let stand the lower court ruling in the federal system, for what it was worth. Which is exactly bupkiss upon the reading of Windsor. In June 2013, the US Supreme Court affirmed the merits of Prop 8 as binding law.

[Below]

Just as I thought...you have no lucid rebuttal, only smears. I hope that's not going to be how your lawyers are arguing "the inevitable" in the SCOTUS hearing this year. Because if it is, you'll have to change your name here to "blind-arrogance"..

 

[Inevitable]

You don't have any room to tell anybody they are being illogical.

You are being downright hysterical.

Please describe specifically how the following is "hysterical"..

page 14 of Opinion: United States v. Windsor
After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...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

"Against this background (a statewide deliberative process) of lawful same-sex marriage in some States (but not all, because we just said it's arrived at by a statewide, not federal, deliberative process of a state's citizens)..."

After reading that, how is again that lower circuit courts can order states to perform gay marraiges against the will of the deliberative consensus?
How again is it that "Prop 8 isn't the law anymore"?

You realize of course that the intiative system in California and other states is a "statewide deliberative process"...and that the ruling against defenders of Prop 8 was procedural, not on the merits of their case? The Court effectively (but not purposefully) let stand the lower court ruling in the federal system, for what it was worth. Which is exactly bupkiss upon the reading of Windsor. In June 2013, the US Supreme Court affirmed the merits of Prop 8 as binding law.

Well, more hysteria.

 

[Silhouette]

I wasn't aware that page 14 of the Windsor Opinion was "hysterical". I think it was written by a man.

 

[Inevitable]

I wasn't aware that page 14 of the Windsor Opinion was "hysterical". I think it was written by a man.

You're bogus conclusions are hysteria.

 

[Silhouette]

They aren't my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the US Supreme Court in Windsor 2013. Refer to the top of this page. I did not write the part in the quote with the link to the Windsor Decision.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again- gay marriage has nothing to do with whatever injury that you imagine.

As Justice Kennedy points out- the children of gay parents denied marriage have an immediate legal injury.

Gay couples have children with or without marriage- your solution only guarantees that their children will not have married parents.

And the children of monosexuals (single parents), polygamists and incestuous couplings are NOT having immediate injury? I'll await your calculated dodge on that point.

Just like Justice Kennedy- we are talking about gay marriage and the children you want to deny the benefits of marriage- not your strawman.

Once again- what Justice Kennedy said about the children of gay couples:

"DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others," the decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.

 

[Syriusly]

They aren't my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the US Supreme Court in Windsor 2013. Refer to the top of this page. I did not write the part in the quote with the link to the Windsor Decision.

The conclusion of Windsor are very clear- and have nothing to do with your 'conclusions'

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

 

[Syriusly]

[
How again is it that "Prop 8 isn't the law anymore"?
.

Because Prop 8 was struck down as unconstitutional by a Federal Court, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which left the Federal Court's decision stand.

Which is why couples in love are getting married.

Don't believe me?

June 26, 2013
Prop. 8 dismissed, defense of Marriage Act struck down
By Michael Doyle
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/supreme-court-overturns-prop-8.html#storylink=cpy

USA JUSTICE
Prop. 8 struck down: Will California's gay couples flock to the altar?
Prop. 8 struck down Will California s gay couples flock to the altar - CSMonitor.com


The high court also paved the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. It left in place a 2010 district court decision that found Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved ban on gay marriages, was unconstitutional.

Not that any of that will mean anything to you- you are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Read this again and tell me how Windsor was not a determination of whether or not denying gay marriage is legal:.

Windsor concluded one thing- and one thing only-

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

 

[Silhouette]

Spamming to burn out pages again I see..

 

[Silhouette]

[ DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Now that we are on a new page...

That doesn't overturn the SCOTUS finding on states' role in determining the validity of homosexual-lifestyle marriage. Note the part in bold. The lower court may not apply the constitution to overrule a critical point of law on who gets the say-so on gay marriage. You know that's the crucial question. The lower court may suggest that the fifth might be applicable, but it cannot make that determination when the Supremes said in Windsor that as of their Writing, the quote below applies.

After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...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 United States v. Windsor

"Against this background" means "states' deliberative process for and against gay marraige is how it becomes or doesn't become legal". "Some" states means that until further notice from the Supremes, each state has the right to this deliberative process on the "for" and "against" consideration of gay-lifestyle marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

If you are going on sheer numbers, I'd say states had better allow monosexuals to marry themselves because if they choose to be alone and raise children, the state shouldn't punish those kids for the relationship choice of the parents...no? How many MILLIONS (vs thousands caught up in gay lifestyles) of children of single parents are there? Isn't it tens of millions?

LOL- absolutely- the State should allow single parents to marry themselves.

That way- when a single mom dies- she can inherit her own estate without any inheritance tax!

She can visit herself in the hospital!

She can file a joint tax return with herself!

And when she dies- she can get social security survivor's benefits for herself!

Yes- I look forward to your campaign to allow single persons to marry themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

Spamming to burn out pages again I see..

Talking to yourself again I see.

 

[Syriusly]

Spamming to burn out pages again I see..

Speaking to yourself again......why are you spamming pages with these comments to yourself?

 

[Syriusly]

[ DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Now that we are on a new page...

That doesn't overturn the SCOTUS finding on states' role in determining the validity of homosexual-lifestyle marriage..

Let us review what the Supreme Court said in Windsor again:

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits.

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

In Windsor- the Supreme Court references that State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees at least 4 times.

Federal judges- ruling on State laws starting with Prop 8- have ruled that State marriage laws which ban gay marriage ARE subject to constitutional guarantees- and violate those guarantees.

Just as the Supreme Court in Windsor noted- just as the Federal Court did in Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL- absolutely- the State should allow single parents to marry themselves. That way- when a single mom dies- she can inherit her own estate without any inheritance tax! She can visit herself in the hospital! She can file a joint tax return with herself! And when she dies- she can get social security survivor's benefits for herself! Yes- I look forward to your campaign to allow single persons to marry themselves.

Do you have something against monosexuals who choose to not be/aren't in a relationship? Do you hate their children who are being denied benefits of marriage? A monosexual household also denies the children the benefit of the complimentary gendered parent 100% of the time, just like gay marriage. Yet you feel the children caught up in gay-lifestyle houses are somehow superior to the tens of millions of children caught up in monosexual households?

And the children of polygamists? Do you hate them too?

Loving was about race, not lifestyles..

 

[Inevitable]

They aren't my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the US Supreme Court in Windsor 2013. Refer to the top of this page. I did not write the part in the quote with the link to the Windsor Decision.

They aren't my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the US Supreme Court in Windsor 2013. Refer to the top of this page. I did not write the part in the quote with the link to the Windsor Decision.

You are deluded.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- absolutely- the State should allow single parents to marry themselves. That way- when a single mom dies- she can inherit her own estate without any inheritance tax! She can visit herself in the hospital! She can file a joint tax return with herself! And when she dies- she can get social security survivor's benefits for herself! Yes- I look forward to your campaign to allow single persons to marry themselves.

Do you have something against monosexuals who choose to not be/aren't in a relationship? Do you hate their children who are being denied benefits of marriage? A monosexual household also denies the children the benefit of the complimentary gendered parent 100% of the time, just like gay marriage. Yet you feel the children caught up in gay-lifestyle houses are somehow superior to the tens of millions of children caught up in monosexual households?

And the children of polygamists? Do you hate them too?

Loving was about race, not lifestyles..

What is a monosexual? Someone who has sex with his or herself? Like I said before:

LOL- absolutely- the State should allow single parents to marry themselves. That way- when a single mom dies- she can inherit her own estate without any inheritance tax! She can visit herself in the hospital! She can file a joint tax return with herself! And when she dies- she can get social security survivor's benefits for herself! Yes- I look forward to your campaign to allow single persons to marry themselves

 

[ShackledNation]

States are not being illegally forced to do anything. The Judicial branch has power under our constitutional republic, whether you like it or not.

 

[Silhouette]

Monosexual or asexuals are a branch of LGBTQ they are 'queer" in that they don't have sex with others. You will be embracing them yes? Along with polygamists in the new definition of the structure of marriage?