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

[Derideo_Te]

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?

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

The SCOTUS effectively invalidated Prop 8 with their DOMA ruling.

 

[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?

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.

Stop talking about something you have absolutely no knowledge of. Logic.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

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.

Stop talking about something you have absolutely no knowledge of. Logic.

Ironic!

 

[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?

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.

Stop talking about something you have absolutely no knowledge of. Logic.

Ironic!

Don't lie the irony is all yours

 

[Syriusly]

The court will likely place control in the hands of the states even after all of the states go ahead and last down arms. Two or three won't. But then people will start suing the state until the court rules doma section three unconstitutional. Then fair faith and credit will take over.

See a special rule was made to subvert the constitution for gay people. They don't have to interfere with states at all. Just reverse a law that they have already deemed half of it unconditional.

So why haven't the LGBT faithful put the initiative on the CA ballot to revoke Prop 8 from the constitution? .

Because it is unnecessary since people in love can get married without discrimination now in California.

 

[Silhouette]

How is PROP 8 dead? Did the supreme court rule on it?

No, they haven't. They just ruled on Windsor, which said that states have the unquestioned authority to give the thumb's up or down to gay marriage. That was their ruling on Prop 8: It's still the law. Rogue county officials, governor and AG do not have the power in California to unmake an initiative law. The only people who can undo Prop 8 are California voters.

And they haven't. So gay marriage is illegal in California and always has been.

I can run around telling people I'm a pilot. I can even get friends of mine to print me up a pilot's license. I can tell myself and my passengers all day long that "I'm a licensed pilot". I can even go on a national campaign to declare "Nobody can keep me from being a pilot! I even have a paper that says I am!".

And it still wouldn't matter. I could do that for 20 years and still it wouldn't matter. I'm still not a pilot.

 

[Syriusly]

How is PROP 8 dead? Did the supreme court rule on it?

No, they haven't. They just ruled on Windsor, which said that states have the unquestioned authority to give the thumb's up or down to gay marriage. That was their ruling on Prop 8: It's still the law. Rogue county officials, governor and AG do not have the power in California to unmake an initiative law. The only people who can undo Prop 8 are California voters.

And they haven't. So gay marriage is illegal in California and always has been.

I can run around telling people I'm a pilot. I can even get friends of mine to print me up a pilot's license. I can tell myself and my passengers all day long that "I'm a licensed pilot". I can even go on a national campaign to declare "Nobody can keep me from being a pilot! I even have a paper that says I am!".

And it still wouldn't matter. I could do that for 20 years and still it wouldn't matter. I'm still not a pilot.

And once again Silhouette provides her bat guano crazy interpretation of the law again.

Meanwhile in California, couples in love are getting married.

And the haters hate that.

 

[Silhouette]

And once again Silhouette provides her bat guano crazy interpretation of the law again.

Meanwhile in California, couples in love are getting married.

And the haters hate that.

Of course couples and polygamists, people and rocks, people and animals, buildings, you name it are all free to marry in California. Just not legally. Prop 8 is the standing law until SCOTUS tells us Windsor is no longer viable.

Anyone who is gay and claiming to be married...and receiving marriage benefits in CA are doing so fraudulently. I'd think especially with gay men that medical insurance companies who are now thinking they are forced to provide spouse coverage for two gay men instead of just the one they insured would do well to have attorneys scan Windsor and the decision at the 6th circuit to find how they could get off the hook for the astronomically-expensive HIV/AIDS costs for two people instead of just one..

 

[Syriusly]

And once again Silhouette provides her bat guano crazy interpretation of the law again.

Meanwhile in California, couples in love are getting married.

And the haters hate that.

Of course couples and polygamists, people and rocks, people and animals, buildings, you name it are all free to marry in California. Just not legally. Prop 8 is the standing law until SCOTUS tells us Windsor is no longer viable.

LOL......and meanwhile once again Silhouette provides her bat guano crazy interpretation of the law. Meanwhile, people in love continue to get legally married in California- and the haters hate that.

• June 26, 2013: Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court, the appellants being found to lack legal standing under federal law. Ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to that court with instruction to deny the appeal, leaving the 2010 Walker finding of unconstitutionality the binding decision in the case. The same day the Supreme Court overturned the federal DOMA statute.
• June 28, 2013: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifts their stay, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in California.[106][107] Governor Jerry Brown instructs all California county clerks to immediately begin issuing same-sex marriage licences, and first same-sex marriages since 2008 are performed.[108]
• June 29, 2013: Opponents of same-sex marriage file emergency petition asking Supreme Court to overturn lifting of stay by the 9th Circuit Court.[109]
• June 30, 2013: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy denies the petition.[110]
• July 12, 2013: The backers of Proposition 8 petition California Supreme Court to order its enforcement in the majority of the state's counties, arguing that Judge Walker had no jurisdiction to bar statewide enforcement, that his decision only was binding with respect to either the specific couples involved, or just the two counties in which those couples resided. They argue that California law requires continued enforcement until a ruling of an appeals court, and that of the 9th Circuit Court was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court.[111][112]
• July 15, 2013: The California Supreme Court declined to immediately halt same-sex marriages in response to the July 12 petition but will hear briefs on the merits of the argument.[113]
• July 19, 2013: San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. petitioned the California Supreme Count to immediately halt same-sex marriages based on arguments similar to those of the July 12 petition.[114]
• July 23, 2013: The California Supreme Court declined to immediately halt same-sex marriages in response to the July 19 petition.[115]
• August 2, 2013: Petition in Dronenberg v. Brown to halt the same-sex marriage filed by San Diego County Clerk on July 19 has been withdrawn.[81]
• August 14, 2013: In a one-page order, the California Supreme Court denies a writ of mandate on the July 12 petition without comment, rejecting the last legal challenge to same-sex marriage.[116][117]

 

[Silhouette]

Of course couples and polygamists, people and rocks, people and animals, buildings, you name it are all free to marry in California. Just not legally. Prop 8 is the standing law until SCOTUS tells us Windsor is no longer viable....Anyone who is gay and claiming to be married...and receiving marriage benefits in CA are doing so fraudulently. I'd think especially with gay men that medical insurance companies who are now thinking they are forced to provide spouse coverage for two gay men instead of just the one they insured would do well to have attorneys scan Windsor and the decision at the 6th circuit to find how they could get off the hook for the astronomically-expensive HIV/AIDS costs for two people instead of just one..

It is of note from a financial perspective as to insurers that they may be paying out huge sums of money for people who are not actually legally married. Windsor is the law of the land so far, and that means Prop 8 is the law of the land so far. Imagine being a shareholder of an insurance company and being informed "oh, the company is shitting out truckloads of cash in California and they didn't have to". I don't know of the numbers but a very high rate of adult gay men carry HIV and have to eat those expensive meds every day. Then there's the full blown AIDS which requires numerous hospitalizations and finally permanent nursing care towards the end.

I know insurance companies and they are ALL ABOUT "adjusting" claims. Seems like a place they would always start would be "is this person actually mandated to be on our policy?"...

 

[Syriusly]

Of course couples and polygamists, people and rocks, people and animals, buildings, you name it are all free to marry in California. Just not legally. Prop 8 is the standing law until SCOTUS tells us Windsor is no longer viable....Anyone who is gay and claiming to be married...and receiving marriage benefits in CA are doing so fraudulently. I'd think especially with gay men that medical insurance companies who are now thinking they are forced to provide spouse coverage for two gay men instead of just the one they insured would do well to have attorneys scan Windsor and the decision at the 6th circuit to find how they could get off the hook for the astronomically-expensive HIV/AIDS costs for two people instead of just one..

It is of note from a financial perspective as to insurers that they may be paying out huge sums of money for people who are not actually legally married...

Luckily insurers have real lawyers who know the law so they won't be paying any attention to you.

 

[Silhouette]

Luckily insurers have real lawyers who know the law so they won't be paying any attention to you.

A real lawyer would know that lower circuit courts do not have the authority to overrule SCOTUS from underneath on either Baker 1971 or Windsor 2013. And a smart insurance company would get right on that. Those HIV cases are costing them a tidy sum. Imagine the savings if they realized that Prop 8 was still the law in California and likewise laws in other states current forced to acknowledge illegal marriages within their boundaries?..

...wow! Those tens of millions of dollars would add up.

 

[Syriusly]

Luckily insurers have real lawyers who know the law so they won't be paying any attention to you.

A real lawyer would know that lower circuit courts do not have the authority to overrule SCOTUS from underneath on either Baker 1971 or Windsor 2013. And a smart insurance company would get right on that. Those HIV cases are costing them a tidy sum. Imagine the savings if they realized that Prop 8 was still the law in California and likewise laws in other states current forced to acknowledge illegal marriages within their boundaries?..

...wow! Those tens of millions of dollars would add up.

Luckily insurers have real lawyers who know the law so they won't be paying any attention to you

 

[Silhouette]

Luckily insurers have real lawyers who know the law so they won't be paying any attention to you

Well like I said at the other thread..

Legal scholars cannot unmake the power of the CA initiative system as enshrined in the CA Constitution. That's set in stone. There isn't any "interpretation" to it.

Either the voters have repealed Prop 8 or they haven't (they haven't). Either a state has a right to say yes or no to gay marriage or they don't (they do, Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013). Either lower circuit courts can circumvent procedure to overrule from underneath or they can't (they can't).

Ergo, Prop 8 is viable, enforceable law.

And like I said here, insurance companies would be the first to head up the "hey, wait a minute!..." campaign to illuminate the charade.

 

[Syriusly]

Ergo, Prop 8 is viable, enforceable law..

\

Ergo you have a profound ignorance of the law.

Proposition 8 was found by a Federal court to be unconstitutional.

It was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which left the ruling standing

Ergo- Prop 8 is unconstitutional and null and void.

Which is why people in love are getting married in California and you hate that.

 

[Silhouette]

Tell me precisely how I'm "ignorant of the law" instead of blanket statements you never back up. Let's hear some rebuttal. And no, "lower circuit courts fundamentally opposing Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013" is not a viable rebuttal. Lower courts are forbidden from retooling from underneath same questions that have been previously decided by SCOTUS without SCOTUS themselves visiting the question and overturning their own previous ruling(s).

 

[WorldWatcher]

Tell me precisely how I'm "ignorant of the law" instead of blanket statements you never back up. Let's hear some rebuttal. And no, "lower circuit courts fundamentally opposing Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013" is not a viable rebuttal. Lower courts are forbidden from retooling from underneath same questions that have been previously decided by SCOTUS without SCOTUS themselves visiting the question and overturning their own previous ruling(s).

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

1. By direct reversal of the SCOTUS.

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

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.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Tell me precisely how I'm "ignorant of the law" instead of blanket statements you never back up. Let's hear some rebuttal. And no, "lower circuit courts fundamentally opposing Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013" is not a viable rebuttal. Lower courts are forbidden from retooling from underneath same questions that have been previously decided by SCOTUS without SCOTUS themselves visiting the question and overturning their own previous ruling(s).

I already explained precisely how you are 'ignorant of the law' and posted a specific time line showing exactly how Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional, appealed and lost.

But glad to do it again.


Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbian couples from state-sanctioned wedlock.

The ruling clears the way for same-sex marriages in California to resume.

The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states.

Read the ruling

At issue was whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law prevents states from defining marriage to exclude same-sex couples, and whether a state can revoke same-sex marriage through referendum, as California did, once it already has been recognized.

Photos: Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Toobin: Prop 8 ruling 'puzzling'

Prop 8 attorney: Wonderful day for U.S.

Prop 8 plaintiff: Our family is equal
But a majority of the Supreme Court opted not to rule on those issues. Instead, it ruled on "standing" -- whether those who brought the suit to the court were entitled to do so.

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He was supported by an unusual coalition: fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and more liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

By dismissing the case, the court leaves in place the lower court decision in California that allows same-sex marriage to be reinstated. The federal appeals court stay on the decision will be lifted.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on subsequent same gender marriage cases, Prop 8 was appealed as far as it could be appealed- it is forever dead.

 

[Syriusly]

Tell me precisely how I'm "ignorant of the law" instead of blanket statements you never back up. Let's hear some rebuttal. And no, "lower circuit courts fundamentally opposing Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013" is not a viable rebuttal. Lower courts are forbidden from retooling from underneath same questions that have been previously decided by SCOTUS without SCOTUS themselves visiting the question and overturning their own previous ruling(s).

I already explained precisely how you are 'ignorant of the law' and posted a specific time line showing exactly how Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional, appealed and lost.

But glad to do it again.


Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbian couples from state-sanctioned wedlock.

The ruling clears the way for same-sex marriages in California to resume.

The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states.

Read the ruling

At issue was whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law prevents states from defining marriage to exclude same-sex couples, and whether a state can revoke same-sex marriage through referendum, as California did, once it already has been recognized.

Photos: Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Toobin: Prop 8 ruling 'puzzling'

Prop 8 attorney: Wonderful day for U.S.

Prop 8 plaintiff: Our family is equal
But a majority of the Supreme Court opted not to rule on those issues. Instead, it ruled on "standing" -- whether those who brought the suit to the court were entitled to do so.

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He was supported by an unusual coalition: fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and more liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

By dismissing the case, the court leaves in place the lower court decision in California that allows same-sex marriage to be reinstated. The federal appeals court stay on the decision will be lifted.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on subsequent same gender marriage cases, Prop 8 was appealed as far as it could be appealed- it is forever dead.

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

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