In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Skylar]

Same rationale as the State of Virginia used "White Males can marry any woman they want....as long as they are White"

Exactly. When pressed for why States are denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, their arguments typically bold down to this:

Because we can.

Which is an argument without corners. And as federal court decision after federal court decision demonstrates, an argument with a very finite shelf life.

 

[ShackledNation]

The ruling was far from elegant. There is a reason so few judges are ruling this way--it is simply incorrect. The judged cited Baker v. Nelson. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and involved a gay couple suing for the right to marry. The court dismissed the case in a single line "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." There weren't even oral arguments.

Now the case is binding precedent only because laws existed at the time forcing the Supreme Court to rule on certain cases (they couldn't dismiss things at their discretion). Had the laws not existed, the court would likely have said nothing about this case and not bothered to even look at it.

Since Baker there have been enormous changes that make it very hard to consider controlling in any case.

1. There is a much greater understanding of the LGBT community and gay relationships today than in the 70s--the "facts" have changed. For example. homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental disorder.
2. Gender was not a protected class at the time of this ruling--now it is, and cases of gender discrimination face heightened scrutiny.
3. Same-sex sexual relationships were illegal in many states at the time of Baker. Those laws have since been ruled unconstitutional.
4. As Justice Ginsburg noted, "The Supreme Court hadn't even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. And the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so I don't think we can extract much in Baker v. Nelson"
5. The mandatory jurisdiction laws that resulted in Baker being precedent were struck down under Ronald Reagan
6. Windsor set a precedent that is much more favorable to gay rights, pointing out that DOMA deprived same-sex couple of dignity.
7. SCOTUS dismissed federal appellate court appeals, effectively affirming their decisions to strike down same-sex marriage bans as unconsitutional, the precise opposite of Baker.
8. To say same-sex marriage today is not "a substantial federal question" is clearly not accurate given the number of controversy and legal conflicts surrounding it.
9. Not one single federal appellate court has cited Baker, and all that have ruled have struck down same-sex marriage bans.

The judge in Puerto Rico ignored all of this. Baker is as useless as cases go, and is an incredibly weak leg to base a decision on given all of the precedent and relevant evidence to the contrary.

 

[Skylar]

Shit, Shackled. You did your fucking homework.

 

[Skylar]

The only portion of your post I take issue with is this:

SCOTUS dismissed federal appellate court appeals, effectively affirming their decisions to strike down same-sex marriage bans as unconsitutional, the precise opposite of Baker.

I'd argue that the SCOTUS didn't affirm anything. Denials of cert are prejudice free. They carry no binding precedent, affirming nothing. They are simply refusals by the court to hear a case. The lower court ruling stands and applies only to the circuit district from which the appeal came from and no other.

Its nitpicky, but its essentially the argument you made regarding Baker: that the case was little more than a rejection by the USSC to hear the case from the federal appeals circuits. I'd say you made your argument so well that your logic carries over into the USSC denials of appeal from federal appeals circuit on gay marriage today.

 

[ShackledNation]

The only portion of your post I take issue with is this:

SCOTUS dismissed federal appellate court appeals, effectively affirming their decisions to strike down same-sex marriage bans as unconsitutional, the precise opposite of Baker.

I'd argue that the SCOTUS didn't affirm anything. Denials of cert are prejudice free. They carry no binding precedent, affirming nothing. They are simply refusals by the court to hear a case. The lower court ruling stands and applies only to the circuit district from which the appeal came from and no other.

You've made an excellent argument for the lack of applicability of Baker with the case being little more than a rejection by the USSC to hear the case from the federal appeals circuits. I'd say you made your case so well that your logic carries over into the USSC denials of appeal from federal appeals circuit today.

I agree, there was no precedent set by the dismissal. However, if the mandatory jurisdiction laws were still on the books, SCOTUS would have been forced to issue a ruling that set precedent. If the legal environment were the same as it were when Baker was at issue, the dismissal would have been binding precedent.

But you are absolutely right, their dismissal is not binding precedent at all, but that is precisely because the rules of the court have changed. I mentioned that only to point out how weak using Baker is. If mandatory sentencing laws didn't exist, Baker would not have set precedent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flakey Jakey Gays could always marry. No lie, reality One simply had to be male, the other female. Link one place where I've said same genders could. Oh Snap, you can't. Your delusions are even blinding yourself. LMAO. Poor you, so sad

translating Pop: I always denied that gays could not marry each other, until I finally admitted that, yes, they could not marry each other. Know I have admitted it, I still don't want to own that I lied.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.

Then perhaps you could educate us all and show us where in the Windsor ruling it says that gay marriage bans are constitutional and that Prop 8 is reauthorized.

Unless you haven't actually read the ruling and you're once again talking out of your ass about a topic you know nothing about. Then you might find it a bit more difficult.

Go ahead and read the ruling. Get an adult to explain it.

If you're an adult you can explain it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

Rights are protected by judges.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.

Your second paragraph is a fallacy. The claim is that states ought to be able to determine appropriate policy for their state,not unelected judges who are unaccountable to the people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.

Your second paragraph is a fallacy. The claim is that states ought to be able to determine appropriate policy for their state,not unelected judges who are unaccountable to the people.

Being a libertarian, I don't think government (state or federal) should be involved in any of it. Marriage is a sacred charge, not something a government can determine on its own. The states need to stay out of marriage. Government uses marriage as a way gain taxable income. Marriage isn't something to be regulated, not by anyone.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.

Your second paragraph is a fallacy. The claim is that states ought to be able to determine appropriate policy for their state,not unelected judges who are unaccountable to the people.

Being a libertarian, I don't think government (state or federal) should be involved in any of it. Marriage is a sacred charge, not something a government can determine on its own. The states need to stay out of marriage. Government uses marriage as a way gain taxable income. Marriage isn't something to be regulated, not by anyone.

OK. Do you think government should stay out of adoption, child support, divorce and inheritance?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.

Your second paragraph is a fallacy. The claim is that states ought to be able to determine appropriate policy for their state,not unelected judges who are unaccountable to the people.

Being a libertarian, I don't think government (state or federal) should be involved in any of it. Marriage is a sacred charge, not something a government can determine on its own. The states need to stay out of marriage. Government uses marriage as a way gain taxable income. Marriage isn't something to be regulated, not by anyone.

OK. Do you think government should stay out of adoption, child support, divorce and inheritance?

Sorry for taking so long, I had to get my thoughts in order to provide you with a cogent response.

Now, I think they (government) should stay out of all human affairs that don't pertain to its designed function. Government's sole purpose is to protect the people, not regulate them.

1) People should be able to marry and divorce on their own accord, without the government watching over them.

2) Child support boils down to this: if you can't support a child, don't adopt one; don't have one. Taking on the responsibility of a child is a burden that requires forethought. Nobody else should be held responsible for your inability to support a child, nobody else should be made to pay for it. Think wisely. Don't subject a child to that kind of life, don't make the child bear the weight of an ill advised decision. Make sure you can handle the burden.

3) Inheritance shouldn't be under the purview of government either.

4) People should be free to make their own choices whether it be love, family or property.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.

Good points. But the privelege, duty and right to define marriage at the state level was just decided in Windsor 2013 as a state's "unquestioned authority". The exception they pointed out was if Loving applied. IF. Not THAT it already did. Loving made zero anticipation of a person's sexual behaviors "as race" when it was decided. Since sexual behaviors AREN'T a race...and so far they aren't a religion, the only reason opponents point to the 14th in these discussions is to say, as you just did, "where in the Constitution does it say two people of the same gender wanting to marry enjoy the right to defy the definition of the mechanics of marriage [not the constitution as to race] but the actual machinery "man/woman ...father/mother..resulting children with male/female parents" agains the majority Will of their state.

The constitution of the individuals in marriage, the nouns, the beings can be any race whatsoever. But they must be adult and they must consent. The mechanics "male/female" are not up to completely change as a "right". One of the main and most important reasons that is, is that a state enjoys the dominant right to incentivize marriage to provide BOTH a mother AND a father to children. This is in its best interest because statistically children do best with BOTH their mother AND their father raising them. Mothers and fathers of children, their natural blood kin in the overwhelming majority of cases [every child has a mother and a father without exception] are biologically predisposed and instinctively tuned to provide the most regard to their young. This is the case in the overwhelming majority of the time. And each state's majority has a RIGHT to incentivize this relationship, while it discourages things like two people of the same gender role-playing a fake version of "mom" or a fake version of "dad" to a child.

A child will grow up to know and realize one of its parents was male and one was female. To try to tell it that "the natural arrangement could be anything" [for if same sex marriage gets federal protection, other "arrangements" cannot be denied due to precedent + marriage equality] is going to run up against a questioning adolescent who may have trouble even relating to the gender not represented in his or her home. They may consider that gender "disposable/unnecessary", which has deep psychological ramifications if that happens to be THEIR gender, for example. They may even experience disparaging regard for their gender if it's the opposite of the gay parents.

The perfect example of this is the boy of the two lesbians in California, who, with the assistance of "medical doctors" began drugging their 11 year old son with female hormones because *somehow* the boy got it in his head that he didn't want to be a boy anymore. So the lesbians gleefully began drugging him to be female to "prepare his body better in case he decides he wants to be a girl" when he can legally choose to have the assisted healthy organ amputation:

A lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty Controversial Therapy for Pre-Teen Transgender Patient Raises Questions Fox News

I'd say that's an assited negative view of the boy's gender and males in general in his mind, I'm sure.

Of course all of this is common sense. We know marriage is about children. We know the male/female components natural within marriage prepare the child for interaction with both genders as s/he becomes a fledged member of society. Children come in both genders and raising them to pretend that one gender isn't necessary for "the family" [which in their mind they extrapolate to mean "all society"...and even themselves], is a recipe for social disaster at some point in the future. Certainly it is a disaster immediately if that child happens to be the opposite gender of its "same-sexed parents".

A state has a right not to foster the production of imbalanced individuals. A child may be in a single parent household, but that child looks to society to tell it [if it's gender is the opposite of its parent particularly] "hey, it's unfortunate what happened to both of your male/female parents. But society is demonstrating to you that your gender is necessary and VITAL to a regular married pairing. So as you grow up, you too may be a part of that pair and essential component in order to produce and raise children.

This debate will come down to the rights of children to see both males and females paired as parents in their home, or in society at large [their mental extrapolation of "home"] vs what the cult of LGBT wants to do to the word "marriage".

 

[g5000]

The Puerto Rican judge compared being gay to incest. What a doofus!

The man should read Lawrence v Texas and Loving v Virginia.

There are rational reasons for banning incest. There are no rational reasons for banning gay marriage. The man is an idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

The Puerto Rican judge compared being gay to incest. What a doofus!

The man should read Lawrence v Texas and Loving v Virginia.

There are rational reasons for banning incest. There are no rational reasons for banning gay marriage. The man is an idiot.

Read my last post Doofus. Unless you consider that a child's mental state isn't sufficiently compelling to consider with regards to marriage.

 

[Plasmaball]

In this thread SIl will cling to this ruling like a sucker fish in a fish tank. The reality this will be overturned and forgotten.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

On the other hand, anti-gay proponents have the same problem. They want to use the Constitution to claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sorry, again the Constitution does not define marriage. This is the wrong way to deny someone their rights based on a premise that doesn't exist within the constitution.

Your second paragraph is a fallacy. The claim is that states ought to be able to determine appropriate policy for their state,not unelected judges who are unaccountable to the people.

Conservatives only make that claim when talking about laws they oppose.

But not for instance gun laws.
Or when suing to overturn Civil Rights laws.

Or when overturning the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

Of course if the Federal Courts were unable to overturn State laws mixed race marriages might still be illegal in Virginia, and contraception might still be illegal in Connecticut amongst other things.

 

[Syriusly]

The Puerto Rican judge compared being gay to incest. What a doofus!

The man should read Lawrence v Texas and Loving v Virginia.

There are rational reasons for banning incest. There are no rational reasons for banning gay marriage. The man is an idiot.

Read my last post Doofus. Unless you consider that a child's mental state isn't sufficiently compelling to consider with regards to marriage.

Considering that there is no apparent connection to 'a child's mental state' and marriage......and that a child's mental state doesn't depend on the sexual preference of his or her parents....just more bat guano crazy claims.

 

[Skylar]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.