Judge strikes down Pennsylvania law barring gay marriage

[rightwinger]

Yeah and you can't go fishing with a hunting license, seems so unfair to have laws.

The laws are changing...haven't you noticed?

No, they aren't. Gay marriage is only allowed in 3 states according to Windsor. When you say "laws", make sure you include the Supreme Law of the land from 2013. It renders all the activist-judges contempt meaningless...as you will soon find out...

Welcome to Fantasy Island

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah and you can't go fishing with a hunting license, seems so unfair to have laws.

The laws are changing...haven't you noticed?

No, they aren't. Gay marriage is only allowed in 3 states according to Windsor. When you say "laws", make sure you include the Supreme Law of the land from 2013. It renders all the activist-judges contempt meaningless...as you will soon find out...

According to Windsor the SCOTUS recognized SSCM in 11 States and DC at the time it was issued.

The SCOTUS isn't going to be revoking SSCM in any State were they've already recognize SSCM at the state level whether legislatively, at the ballot box, or via State court action.

You keep says "3 States" only, yet the SCOTUS itself recognized 11 + DC which is 12 legal entities...


As you will soon find out.



(Queue your out of context quote.)


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

If the government offers civil marriage, they cannot deny it based on gender.

They don't. In all but three states, any man may marry any woman who he isn't related to closely by blood. And he can only marry one of them. And both have to be legal adults who are consenting.



In three states the ACT [verb] of marrying a person of your same gender is allowed by law. In the other 47 states, as Upheld by Windsor 2013, the ACT [verb] of marrying someone of your same gender, multiple people, incest and minors is illegal.

Dimwits are still trying to play the card...



Gays can marry people of the opposite sex so everything is fair

That's because it worked to keep blacks and whites from marrying for decades.

 

[Silhouette]

The laws are changing...haven't you noticed?

No, they aren't. Gay marriage is only allowed in 3 states according to Windsor. When you say "laws", make sure you include the Supreme Law of the land from 2013. It renders all the activist-judges contempt meaningless...as you will soon find out...

According to Windsor the SCOTUS recognized SSCM in 11 States and DC at the time it was issued.

The SCOTUS isn't going to be revoking SSCM in any State were they've already recognize SSCM at the state level whether legislatively, at the ballot box, or via State court action.

You keep says "3 States" only, yet the SCOTUS itself recognized 11 + DC which is 12 legal entities...


As you will soon find out.



(Queue your out of context quote.)


>>>>

That remains to be seen. Why just 11? [they didn't include California at that time, which LGBTs claims as the 13th state]. Why not 50? Why not [according to their Upholding as to "how" gay marriage is legalized state by state] just 3?

That is what will need clarification. That is the contested issue to be sure. That is what attorneys on both sides are scrambling to address and seek clarification on and/or revision of...

And yes, as you said, we will see. There is no way out of a clear Verdict from SCOTUS this time around the block..

In context enough for you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

You can't put toothpaste back into the tube.
Like it or not every state and D.C. will be recognizing gay marriages within 20 years. Might be even faster than that. I never thought it would move as fast as it has already.

The real race is between gay marriage and legalized pot. Which will hit 50 states first? I'm betting gay marriage, but pot is moving pretty fast now too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, they aren't. Gay marriage is only allowed in 3 states according to Windsor. When you say "laws", make sure you include the Supreme Law of the land from 2013. It renders all the activist-judges contempt meaningless...as you will soon find out...

According to Windsor the SCOTUS recognized SSCM in 11 States and DC at the time it was issued.

The SCOTUS isn't going to be revoking SSCM in any State were they've already recognize SSCM at the state level whether legislatively, at the ballot box, or via State court action.

You keep says "3 States" only, yet the SCOTUS itself recognized 11 + DC which is 12 legal entities...


As you will soon find out.



(Queue your out of context quote.)


>>>>

That remains to be seen. Why just 11? [they didn't include California at that time, which LGBTs claims as the 13th state]. Why not 50? Why not [according to their Upholding as to "how" gay marriage is legalized state by state] just 3?

That is what will need clarification. That is the contested issue to be sure. That is what attorneys on both sides are scrambling to address and seek clarification on and/or revision of...

And yes, as you said, we will see. There is no way out of a clear Verdict from SCOTUS this time around the block..

In context enough for you?

Just post that you hate gay Americans and leave it at that.

At least your ignorance and hate will be honest and you'll no longer sound like an idiot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, they aren't. Gay marriage is only allowed in 3 states according to Windsor. When you say "laws", make sure you include the Supreme Law of the land from 2013. It renders all the activist-judges contempt meaningless...as you will soon find out...

According to Windsor the SCOTUS recognized SSCM in 11 States and DC at the time it was issued.

The SCOTUS isn't going to be revoking SSCM in any State were they've already recognize SSCM at the state level whether legislatively, at the ballot box, or via State court action.

You keep says "3 States" only, yet the SCOTUS itself recognized 11 + DC which is 12 legal entities...


As you will soon find out.



(Queue your out of context quote.)


>>>>

That remains to be seen.

Exactly that's why you should stop with the poppy-cock about 3-states only. SCOTUS itself identified 11 states and DC.

Why just 11? [they didn't include California at that time, which LGBTs claims as the 13th state].

As has been explained to you multiple times, at the time they were writing the Windsor (DOMA) decision the Perry decision (Prop 8) had not been issued so it was 11. After they issued Perry it became 12 states plus DC because the SCOTUS didn't vacate the district court's ruling.

Why not 50?

Again, as has been explained to you before, the court answers questions before the court. The question was not can states discriminate against homosexuals in the area of Civil Marriage. The question answered by Windsor was "If a state says 'Yes' to Civil Marriage for same-sex couples can the federal government discriminate against legally married individuals?" The answer in Windsor was no.

Why not [according to their Upholding as to "how" gay marriage is legalized state by state] just 3?

Because they are not saying what you're trying to twist their words into saying. They are using consensus in the mode of the issue being settled for that state. As the court noted there were 11 States and DC that have legal SSCM the settling of that issue could (because it did) occur either through State court action, State legislative action, or at the ballot box.

If the court had intended to "consensus" to mean only SSCM achieved at the ballot box then they would not have accepted New York at a case because New York didn't pass SSCM at the ballot box, it was passed by the legislature. By taking the case and ruling in Windsors favor them deomonstrated the legality of SSCM even when not achieved at the ballot box.

That is what will need clarification.

That is the contested issue to be sure. That is what attorneys on both sides are scrambling to address and seek clarification on and/or revision of...

Sorry SIL, there really isn't a "contested issue" here. At the time the Windsor ruling was being written there were 11 States plus DC that had legal SSCM and the SCOTUS acknowledged that they were valid.

The only one trying to contest it is you in a failing attempt to hold out that somehow the SCOTUS is going to ban SSCM in those other 7 States and DC. Not likely to happen.

And yes, as you said, we will see. There is no way out of a clear Verdict from SCOTUS this time around the block..

Yep, by June 30 2015 I expect a ruling, especially if we get conflicting verdicts from the various Circuit Courts of Appeals. That means appeals should go in for the October 2014 term but I wouldn't expect an early decision, I think the Justices would hold it for the last day of release while they head out of time.

In context enough for you?

Context is plenty for me, you should try it sometime.

You cherry-pick dicta and try to imply it's stare decisis. Instead step back and read the case in context instead of trying to come out with your preconceived idea of what you want it to mean.

In context Windsor was a case of Federal law that had nothing to do with whether States could say "Yes" or "No" to SSCM, the case was about the failure of the Federal government to recognize legal marriages equally. Whether States can discriminate against homosexuals on the subject of Civil Marriage is a question the court will be addressing in the near future (probably sooner than they want.)



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You can't put toothpaste back into the tube.
Like it or not every state and D.C. will be recognizing gay marriages within 20 years. Might be even faster than that. I never thought it would move as fast as it has already.

The real race is between gay marriage and legalized pot. Which will hit 50 states first? I'm betting gay marriage, but pot is moving pretty fast now too.

Your analogy is simplistic. The Supreme Court has ALREADY SPOKEN in Windsor. That's the toothpaste you'll not be getting back in the tube. Might want to read it when you get a chance. All the activist judges are doing is shifting more votes to the right from the middle just in time for the 2014 elections. Any idiot can figure that out.

But just because an activist judge tries to overrule the US Supreme Court doesn't mean a thing. Windsor and all its implications stands on the necks of all those judges combined. In a matter of days you will be hearing about the 10th circuit's decision. And it may surprise you.

Your analogy is like saying "if enough judges say its legal to club baby seals then clubbing baby seals will soon be the rage and legal everywhere". Trouble is that Windsor/DOMA Spelled out that the states citizens get to decide on gay marriage, not judges. That's why all the lawyers fighting to bring that to the public eye are citing Windsor.

You really should read it when you get a chance.. United States v. Windsor The pages of the Opinion that talk about the state's citizens' role in determining if gay marriage is legal or not are between 14-22

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can't put toothpaste back into the tube.
Like it or not every state and D.C. will be recognizing gay marriages within 20 years. Might be even faster than that. I never thought it would move as fast as it has already.

The real race is between gay marriage and legalized pot. Which will hit 50 states first? I'm betting gay marriage, but pot is moving pretty fast now too.

Americans growing up, just a bit, at last.

 

[rightwinger]

You can't put toothpaste back into the tube.
Like it or not every state and D.C. will be recognizing gay marriages within 20 years. Might be even faster than that. I never thought it would move as fast as it has already.

The real race is between gay marriage and legalized pot. Which will hit 50 states first? I'm betting gay marriage, but pot is moving pretty fast now too.

Americans growing up, just a bit, at last.

I suspect much faster than that. Supreme Court will make the decision in 2-5 years. We can't exist with a hodge podge of marriage laws. You are married or you are not. You can't change status as you move between states.

Of course, republicans will belatedly endorse it and claim they supported it all along

 

[Silhouette]

I suspect much faster than that. Supreme Court will make the decision in 2-5 years. We can't exist with a hodge podge of marriage laws. You are married or you are not. You can't change status as you move between states.

Of course, republicans will belatedly endorse it and claim they supported it all along

The Supreme Court ALREADY made that decision. Windsor 2013. As to state's rights to define marriage to include gay or not:

United States v. Windsor

[Page 14 of Opinion]
Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York..recognized same-sex marriages...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...By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

[page 16]

..it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. 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.”...

[page 17]

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v.North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

And how do those states define marriage within their sovereign borders? Via consensus of the governed....NOT one or two activist judges overriding democratic rule.

Loving v Virginia was about race, not a highly exclusive cult of sexually deviant behaviors called "LGBT" that doesn't carry polygamy or incest or pedophilia on its shoulders...oh, wait, check that last one. They do hold pedophilia on their shoulders, just under an invisibility cloak.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-celebrate-jerry-sandusky-s-equivalent.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

A PERVERT strikes down a law against PERVERTS. Perverts are running the Justice System of this Country.

So what is so perverted about the Judge, he's straight, married to the same woman for 32 years and has two children?


In addition to being a Republican and nominated by a Republican President.


>>>>

He upholds perversion. If the judge ruled that men had a right to rape women in short skirts would it matter that the judge had never committed a rape himself to have a wrong ruling? The judge accepts perversion as normal behavior. That makes him a pervert even if he doesn't practice that particular perversion. Someone should check his desk drawers for child porn.

Your opinion on perversion is not factual, only your opinion, thus your argument fails. Step along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the government offers civil marriage, they cannot deny it based on gender.

They don't. In all but three states, any man may marry any woman who he isn't related to closely by blood. And he can only marry one of them. And both have to be legal adults who are consenting.

In three states the ACT [verb] of marrying a person of your same gender is allowed by law. In the other 47 states, as Upheld by Windsor 2013, the ACT [verb] of marrying someone of your same gender, multiple people, incest and minors is illegal.

And those laws are falling by the wayside.

Sil, your arguments on this subject have been proven repeatedly to be deficient constitutionally and logically. When you failed with that, you tried smear campaigns only to be thrown back in your face.

You have failed.

Step along. You don't deserve "just once more".

 

[rightwinger]

I suspect much faster than that. Supreme Court will make the decision in 2-5 years. We can't exist with a hodge podge of marriage laws. You are married or you are not. You can't change status as you move between states.

Of course, republicans will belatedly endorse it and claim they supported it all along

The Supreme Court ALREADY made that decision. Windsor 2013. As to state's rights to define marriage to include gay or not:

United States v. Windsor

[Page 14 of Opinion]
Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York..recognized same-sex marriages...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...By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

[page 16]

..it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. 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.”...

[page 17]

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v.North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

And how do those states define marriage within their sovereign borders? Via consensus of the governed....NOT one or two activist judges overriding democratic rule.

Loving v Virginia was about race, not a highly exclusive cult of sexually deviant behaviors called "LGBT" that doesn't carry polygamy or incest or pedophilia on its shoulders...oh, wait, check that last one. They do hold pedophilia on their shoulders, just under an invisibility cloak.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-celebrate-jerry-sandusky-s-equivalent.html

Windsor was a start, not the end

As we approach 50% of the population allowing gay marriage, archaic state by state marriage will become unworkable. The court will also have to decide how one state can disallow legal contracts from another state

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor was a start, not the end

As we approach 50% of the population allowing gay marriage, archaic state by state marriage will become unworkable. The court will also have to decide how one state can disallow legal contracts from another state

So on the one hand you're trying to snow people into believing that a majority of people support gay marriage.

But on the other hand you're so afraid of how states will vote on gay marriage that you're instead using subterfuge, calling a state vote "unworkable" and using that lie to justify forcing gay marriage on the governed...

...Because you're so certain of your numbers for support????

I'm confused. Will you please explain the contradiction in your statements?

Or maybe you and "Paint" below saw these photos and got scared that your lies wouldn't be taken for truth anymore in the "fake it till you make it" campaign?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So on the one hand you're trying to snow people into believing that a majority of people support gay marriage.

The Majority do. Read the polls.

 

[Silhouette]

So on the one hand you're trying to snow people into believing that a majority of people support gay marriage.

The Majority do. Read the polls.

Read them. Don't trust them. See my last post.. A picture trumps a thousand lies about "pollling data".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So on the one hand you're trying to snow people into believing that a majority of people support gay marriage.

The Majority do. Read the polls.

Read them. Don't trust them. See my last post.. A picdture trumps a thousand lies about "pollling data".

You, hiding from the hard truth that your side has already lost? Imagine my surprise...

 

[rightwinger]

Windsor was a start, not the end

As we approach 50% of the population allowing gay marriage, archaic state by state marriage will become unworkable. The court will also have to decide how one state can disallow legal contracts from another state

So on the one hand you're trying to snow people into believing that a majority of people support gay marriage.

But on the other hand you're so afraid of how states will vote on gay marriage that you're instead using subterfuge, calling a state vote "unworkable" and using that lie to justify forcing gay marriage on the governed...

...Because you're so certain of your numbers for support????

I'm confused. Will you please explain the contradiction in your statements?

Or maybe you and "Paint" below saw these photos and got scared that your lies wouldn't be taken for truth anymore in the "fake it till you make it" campaign?

Actually, I don't give a fuck what people think of gay marriage. You should not get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, I don't give a fuck what people think of gay marriage. You should not get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

I give a fuck about it when what they want to "have" involves access to adoptable orphans via the privelege of marriage in the various states. We default to the rights of children over the "rights" of gays to access the privelege of marrige and all that entails..:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...to-celebrate-jerry-sandusky-s-equivalent.html

BTW, do you suppose every person in this crowd is a republican? [Geeze, these crowds were all over the US on that hot sweltering Fall day, those long lines and food running out when people made it to the counter.] That's some statement!

And if they're not all republicans but instead many middle democratic voters, how do you suppose they're going to vote this Fall in close races between GOP and dem candidates, providing they now know who the democratic party is adamantly tied at the hip to..who support activist judges removing the actual rights of their sovereign voters of their respective states?

I can hear the silent shuffling feet stepping to the right. Can you?