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

[Silhouette]

Yeah it's called being a hypocrite. No wonder the courts have already ruled on this and it's a dead issue that Sil just can't let go of.

Are you talking about the 6th circuit that didn't overstep it's authority and defaulted to Baker and Windsor until SCOTUS says otherwise? Or are you talking about the other rogue circuit courts who come January may see a few impeachments for what can only be called sedition for discarding procedural rules as they sought to overrule SCOTUS from underneath?...

...and in the 9th circuit's case, walking both sides of that line when it favors the LGBT cult they are beholden to (They're situated in San Francisco, CA). Remember how the federal courts said that for procedural reasons that Prop 8 defenders (registered voters from California who wanted their vote to count essentially) "didn't have standing"?

They used procedure to favor a gay outcome and then circumvented procedure to favor a gay outcome.

Pretty neat trick eh? And fodder for impeachment proceedings.... If I was a judge on the 9th circuit especially, I would be very nervous as January approaches. Maybe start filling out a resume and a "thank you card" for Mark Leno. That's the guy who is the main engine in that machine that's tearing through the country.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you talking about the 6th circuit that didn't overstep it's authority and defaulted to Baker and Windsor until SCOTUS says otherwise? Or are you talking about the other rogue circuit courts who come January may see a few impeachments for what can only be called sedition for discarding procedural rules as they sought to overrule SCOTUS from underneath?...

...and in the 9th circuit's case, walking both sides of that line when it favors the LGBT cult they are beholden to (They're situated in San Francisco, CA). Remember how the federal courts said that for procedural reasons that Prop 8 defenders (registered voters from California who wanted their vote to count essentially) "didn't have standing"?

They used procedure to favor a gay outcome and then circumvented procedure to favor a gay outcome.

Pretty neat trick eh? And fodder for impeachment proceedings.... If I was a judge on the 9th circuit especially, I would be very nervous as January approaches. Maybe start filling out a resume and a "thank you card" for Mark Leno. That's the guy who is the main engine in that machine that's tearing through the country.

And again you demonstrate no understanding of the issues involved. The 9th Circuit Court didn't rule that the proponents of the amendment didn't have standing - actually they ruled just the opposite:

"Before considering the constitutional question of the validity of Propositions 8's elimination of the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we first decide that official sponsors of Proposition 8 are entitled to appeal the decision below, which declared the measure unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement." (italics in the original, Bold/Underline added for emphasis)

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf​

The 9th Circuit Court's ruling was based on the merits of the case and not on standing, it was the SCOTUS that allowed SSCM to resume in California by ruling proponents didn't have standing.

The SCOTUS vacated the 9th Circuit Court decision and allowed the Fedreal District Court ruling to stand. If Baker applied as you claim, then they could have simply vacated BOTH rulings and allowed Prop 8 to remain in force. But they didn't.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

And again you demonstrate no understanding of the issues involved. The 9th Circuit Court didn't rule that the proponents of the amendment didn't have standing - actually they ruled just the opposite....The SCOTUS vacated the 9th Circuit Court decision and allowed the Fedreal District Court ruling to stand. If Baker applied as you claim, then they could have simply vacated BOTH rulings and allowed Prop 8 to remain in force. But they didn't.

Hmmm...OK, my bad.

So SCOTUS insisted doggedly on procedural technicalities when it came to ruling in favor of the LGBT cult.

So then no doubt they are extremely angry at the lower circuit courts who defied procedure to overturn Baker and Windsor from underneath...

So which are you saying? Lower circuit judges should be impeached or the Supremes?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And again you demonstrate no understanding of the issues involved. The 9th Circuit Court didn't rule that the proponents of the amendment didn't have standing - actually they ruled just the opposite....The SCOTUS vacated the 9th Circuit Court decision and allowed the Fedreal District Court ruling to stand. If Baker applied as you claim, then they could have simply vacated BOTH rulings and allowed Prop 8 to remain in force. But they didn't.

Hmmm...OK, my bad.

So SCOTUS insisted doggedly on procedural technicalities when it came to ruling in favor of the LGBT cult.

So then no doubt they are extremely angry at the lower circuit courts who defied procedure to overturn Baker and Windsor from underneath...

So which are you saying? Lower circuit judges should be impeached or the Supremes?

Neither 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.​

You wish the first was the only way and ignore the second. Even Sutton makes note of the second in his opinion: "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."

Now, he disagrees with the 3 other Circuit Courts that have ruled on the matter, which is fine. But to ignore the doctrinal development provisions of such cases (which Sutton didn't do, he just disagreed) - is dishonest.

If what you say is true, that Baker is still binding in the view of the SCOTUS - then the funny thing is that the SCOTUS could have accepted anyone of the 7 cases from 5 States and 3 Circuits and summarily reversed their decision noting that Baker was still applicable. BUT THEY DIDN'T instead they allowed those rulings that addresses Baker and noted the reason that Baker didn't apply was due to doctrinal changes, letting those ruling stand and SSCM be become a reality in those states.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The Big Court didn't "allow" anything. Sotomayor at the helm has been manipulating procedure to the gays advantage. Which may be an impeachable offense. She herself is not allowed to breach procedure in such a grotesque way in order to disenfranchise the power of the states to incentivize marriages in order to protect children.

That her conservative fellows have been allowing her to run off at the bit in her unilateral power play is interesting. It could be they are reeling out just enough rope for her to hang herself with.

 

[Syriusly]

[
The state's concern with marriage is singularly and only for the benefit of children in them. It is an incentive program, not a right. And its that way for the kids. Even in divorce the state sort of forces the two original parents to keep acting as "father and mother" to the child.

Marriage is a right

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."


Divorce doesn't 'force' parents to act parently- all the non-custodial parent is required to do is pay child support.

So much for 'blood parents' and how critical the state deems them.

You argument is nothing more than a porous excuse for discrimination against same gender couples and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

The Big Court didn't "allow" anything. Sotomayor at the helm has been manipulating procedure to the gays advantage. Which may be an impeachable offense. .

More bat guano crazy Silhouette crap.

 

[Syriusly]

People aren't actually fully divorced from each other in other words until the last kid in the house is of age.

That must be a rude shock to the new wife.......or do you consider this to be a form of polygamy?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Big Court didn't "allow" anything. Sotomayor at the helm has been manipulating procedure to the gays advantage. Which may be an impeachable offense. She herself is not allowed to breach procedure in such a grotesque way in order to disenfranchise the power of the states to incentivize marriages in order to protect children.

That her conservative fellows have been allowing her to run off at the bit in her unilateral power play is interesting. It could be they are reeling out just enough rope for her to hang herself with.

What the hell are you talking about?

If you are posting about Prop 8. Again you are wrong. Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kegon voted in the majority to decide the case based on standing. Sotomayor, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito voted in opposition to the standing ruling.

If you are posting about circuit court appeals, the court has rejected appeals from the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts. Sotomayor on only gets appeals from one of those (the 10th) and even then she referred it to the full court to determine if they would enact a stay or not (they didn't of course). For the 9th it's Kennedy, for the 7th it's Kegan and for 4th it's Chief Justice Roberts. In all those appeals cases the request for stay was referred to the full SCOTUS and not made by a single Justice.



>>>>

 

[Inevitable]

Yeah it's called being a hypocrite. No wonder the courts have already ruled on this and it's a dead issue that Sil just can't let go of.

Are you talking about the 6th circuit that didn't overstep it's authority and defaulted to Baker and Windsor until SCOTUS says otherwise? Or are you talking about the other rogue circuit courts who come January may see a few impeachments for what can only be called sedition for discarding procedural rules as they sought to overrule SCOTUS from underneath?...

...and in the 9th circuit's case, walking both sides of that line when it favors the LGBT cult they are beholden to (They're situated in San Francisco, CA). Remember how the federal courts said that for procedural reasons that Prop 8 defenders (registered voters from California who wanted their vote to count essentially) "didn't have standing"?

They used procedure to favor a gay outcome and then circumvented procedure to favor a gay outcome.

Pretty neat trick eh? And fodder for impeachment proceedings.... If I was a judge on the 9th circuit especially, I would be very nervous as January approaches. Maybe start filling out a resume and a "thank you card" for Mark Leno. That's the guy who is the main engine in that machine that's tearing through the country.

Really, it's called the states already removed their bans on same sex marriage and thus the court ruling isn't really relevant.

 

[Silhouette]

So much for 'blood parents' and how critical the state deems them.

You argument is nothing more than a porous excuse for discrimination against same gender couples and their children.

I get it. You don't care whether or not children have the advantage of both blood parents in the home. Or at the very least the complimentary genders as mother/father for their best shot at a well-rounded social preparation and/or self esteem and grasp of their place in the world.

I get it. You're all about the adults involved. Kids be damned.

But fortunately, states don't see it your way. Marriage is all about the kids as far as the state is concerned. And, therefore, a state has a right to incentivize that environment that data shows is the best for the formative years of a child: Father/Mother Man/Wife.

Children are not lab rats in your grand experiment of role-playing "mom" or "dad" with the wrong gender..kids know there's something wrong. Ask Thomas Lobel...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah it's called being a hypocrite. No wonder the courts have already ruled on this and it's a dead issue that Sil just can't let go of.

Are you talking about the 6th circuit that didn't overstep it's authority and defaulted to Baker and Windsor until SCOTUS says otherwise? Or are you talking about the other rogue circuit courts who come January may see a few impeachments for what can only be called sedition for discarding procedural rules as they sought to overrule SCOTUS from underneath?...

...and in the 9th circuit's case, walking both sides of that line when it favors the LGBT cult they are beholden to (They're situated in San Francisco, CA). Remember how the federal courts said that for procedural reasons that Prop 8 defenders (registered voters from California who wanted their vote to count essentially) "didn't have standing"?

They used procedure to favor a gay outcome and then circumvented procedure to favor a gay outcome.

Pretty neat trick eh? And fodder for impeachment proceedings.... If I was a judge on the 9th circuit especially, I would be very nervous as January approaches. Maybe start filling out a resume and a "thank you card" for Mark Leno. That's the guy who is the main engine in that machine that's tearing through the country.

Really, it's called the states already removed their bans on same sex marriage and thus the court ruling isn't really relevant.

Not all states have done this.

 

[Silhouette]

Not all states have done this.

True. In fact, California, the poster-state for forced gay marriage against voters' Will, still bears Prop 8 in its constitution and that may not be changed unless by the voters themselves.

Strange how the LGBT lobby hasn't put it on the ballot yet... at ground-zero for "the majority of Americans now support gay marriage"....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same with North Carolina we have a constitutional amendment for the same purpose.

 

[Syriusly]

So much for 'blood parents' and how critical the state deems them.

You argument is nothing more than a porous excuse for discrimination against same gender couples and their children.

I get it. You don't care whether or not children have the advantage of both blood parents in the home..

You don't get anything other than your insane obsession with fomenting hatred towards homosexuals.

Preventing same gender marriage achieves nothing other than prevent the children of same gender couples from having married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Not all states have done this.

True. In fact, California, the poster-state for forced gay marriage against voters' Will, still bears Prop 8 in its constitution and that may not be changed unless by the voters themselves.

Strange how the LGBT lobby hasn't put it on the ballot yet... at ground-zero for "the majority of Americans now support gay marriage"....

Why would we put something on the ballot that is already legal?

Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional, and is invalid.

Same gender couples in love are getting married every day here.

Love is a wonderful thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not all states have done this.

True. In fact, California, the poster-state for forced gay marriage against voters' Will, still bears Prop 8 in its constitution and that may not be changed unless by the voters themselves.

Strange how the LGBT lobby hasn't put it on the ballot yet... at ground-zero for "the majority of Americans now support gay marriage"....

Why would we put something on the ballot that is already legal?

Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional, and is invalid.

Same gender couples in love are getting married every day here.

Love is a wonderful thing.

What court struck down Prop 8? Supreme court or lower court?

 

[Syriusly]

Same with North Carolina we have a constitutional amendment for the same purpose.

Mixed race marriage ban was still on the books in North Carolina until 1971, 4 years after the Supreme Court ruled such bans were unconstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same with North Carolina we have a constitutional amendment for the same purpose.

Mixed race marriage ban was still on the books in North Carolina until 1971, 4 years after the Supreme Court ruled such bans were unconstitutional.

Irrelevant try again.