Justice Kennedy Halts "Gay Marriage" in Idaho & Nevada

[Silhouette]

The one Justice that seems to be pivotal in the gay marriage debate at the SCOTUS level [not the lower levels, but the final word on the question] seems to be leaning in favor of state sovereignty on the question of polygamy and gay marriage.

Justice Kennedy as of yesterday, October 8, 2014, put a halt on gay marriage in Idaho and Nevada. * see below

It begins to become obvious that if these two states can recover their sovereignty in-the-interim, all it would take is for other AGs of other states to simply apply. Due to the equal treatment of states, any denial would, of course, be arbitrary.

So, for any state not happy with being forced to enable homosexual cultural spread within its boundaries, it would just need to appeal to SCOTUS.

Hear that screeching coming from Idaho and Nevada? Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy granted an emergency halt on Wednesday to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday overturning marriage bans from going into effect.
While the application for a stay came from Idaho officials, Kennedy’s order covers both Idaho and Nevada because the cases before the 9th Circuit were consolidated.
- See more at: FrontiersLA.com Justice Kennedy Grants Emergency Stay to Gay Marriages in Idaho and Nevada

Lawyers are now scrambling to figure out and explain why this stay was granted and what it will mean, if anything to the momenteum of the marriage equality movement. In the meantime, exhilarated couples preparing to marry got a cold spalsh of disappointment.

*Title Correction: Apparently JUST Idaho enjoys this sovereignty in-the-interim. So vote on the poll as if just one state enjoys the right to self rule while the other 49 do not.

 

[J.E.D]

Court Says It Mistakenly Blocked Same-Sex Marriage In Nevada
The Supreme Court spokeswoman says Justice Anthony Kennedy mistakenly blocked the start of same-sex marriage in Nevada in an order that spawned confusion among state officials and disappointment in couples hoping to be wed.

Spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Thursday that Kennedy's order issued a day earlier was an error that the justice corrected with a second order several hours later.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, OK. So JUST Idaho enjoys sovereignty in-the-interim.

 

[Silhouette]

As to the obvious, polygamy being the same legal logic as any consenting adult in love argument, there's a new law that maybe Justice Kennedy saw in California that made him rethink this fast-track to anything-goes "marriage":

Is the High Court FINALLY thinking of the children?

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a new provision that will allow the state to recognize more than two legal parents for children. New California Law Will Allow Children More Than Two Legal Parents ThinkProgress

Here's a funny video that for some reason I feel belongs on this thread too. Again, this really is the mindset of the liberal left. I've lived at ground-zero before. And this is actually their level of "blind justice". No kidding. Enjoy! What are we moving towards as each new generation of children are raised in ever-more spiralling permissiveness? Just visit California if you want a preview of your future..

 

[J.E.D]

Oh, OK. So JUST Idaho enjoys sovereignty in-the-interim.

No

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, OK. So JUST Idaho enjoys sovereignty in-the-interim.

No

Explain.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Oh, OK. So JUST Idaho enjoys sovereignty in-the-interim.

No

 

[Skylar]

It begins to become obvious that if these two states can recover their sovereignty in-the-interim, all it would take is for other AGs of other states to simply apply. Due to the equal treatment of states, any denial would, of course, be arbitrary.

So, for any state not happy with being forced to enable homosexual cultural spread within its boundaries, it would just need to appeal to SCOTUS.

I wouldn't call violating the rights of its citizens 'regaining sovereignty'. As the States don't have the sovereign authority to violate the rights of their citizens. They haven't since the 1860s.

 

[Skylar]

As to the obvious, polygamy being the same legal logic as any consenting adult in love argument, there's a new law that maybe Justice Kennedy saw in California that made him rethink this fast-track to anything-goes "marriage":

I think rescinding 'cohabitation' laws are on deck. And in fact, they've already been largely abandoned by their primary user, Utah. Beyond that, the issue doesn't look to go anywhere.

Can I take it from your scramble away from gay marriage and toward polygamy, that you've essentially surrendered on the gay marriage debate?

 

[Silhouette]

I think rescinding 'cohabitation' laws are on deck. And in fact, they've already been largely abandoned by their primary user, Utah. Beyond that, the issue doesn't look to go anywhere.

Can I take it from your scramble away from gay marriage and toward polygamy, that you've essentially surrendered on the gay marriage debate?

Were you always slow from birth or is this a recent affliction? The polygamy discussion IS the gay marriage discussion. They are legally inseparable.

That's the point.

 

[Kosh]

Get government out of the business of Marriage..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only Sil believes that polygamy is the marriage equality issue.

Slh has no logical argument whatsoever, only a slippery slope fallacy.

She can't win on the "children" issue because the issue is about not marriage but rather sexual abuse of children by adult homosexuals and heterosexuals., who may or may not be married.

 

[bodecea]

Get government out of the business of Marriage..

Since when have you actively advocated for that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Zone 2 rules haven't changed.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The whole premise of this thread was completely eviscerated in post #2. Why are people still responding?

Sillhy you should probably ask mods to close it to end your embarrassment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kennedy's error concerning NV's status was corrected fairly quickly.

 

[Silhouette]

The whole premise of this thread was completely eviscerated in post #2. Why are people still responding?

Sillhy you should probably ask mods to close it to end your embarrassment.

Idaho's stay was granted by Kennedy. Has that changed or does Idaho stand as the only state allowed sovereign rule on the question of polygamy and gay marriage?

 

[Skylar]

I think rescinding 'cohabitation' laws are on deck. And in fact, they've already been largely abandoned by their primary user, Utah. Beyond that, the issue doesn't look to go anywhere.

Can I take it from your scramble away from gay marriage and toward polygamy, that you've essentially surrendered on the gay marriage debate?

Were you always slow from birth or is this a recent affliction?

I'm fast enough to know you're scrambling to another topic. Which doesn't bode well for the one you're fleeing from.

The polygamy discussion IS the gay marriage discussion.

Obviously, its not. As polygamy and gay marriage aren't the same thing. In the months and months you've been debating gay marriage, you've never once been able to provide a valid reason why gays and lesbians should be denied the right to marry. Your argument has imploded so utterly that now you refuse to even discuss the topic.

That ought to tell you something about how poor your reasoning was to begin with.

They are legally inseparable.

And yet oddly, virtually everyone, including the courts, separates them. I don't think 'inseparable' means what you think it means.

 

[Silhouette]

And yet oddly, virtually everyone, including the courts, separates them. I don't think 'inseparable' means what you think it means.

Well here's the catch. You're arguing for equality. But at the same time you're arguing for inequality when it comes to marriage. Would you care to share with the readers here just exactly how it is that "the courts separate them" apart from same sex marriage? When you dissolved all the majority voted laws in the many states that said "only between a man and a woman", why exactly do you think "a/a" still applies in that sentence? If a law is dead, a law is dead. Polygamists now are fully legal to marry in any of those states. Unless you have an argument of inequality you'd like to pose to explain to us here why they would not be allowed to marry alongside gays?

I'll wait for your answer to those questions..

 

[Skylar]

Well here's the catch. You're arguing for equality.

I'm arguing that if you want to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you need a good reason.

And you have none. Your argument is so utterly caved in, so void of rhyme or reason.....that you won't even discuss gay marriage anymore. If I were saddled with your anemic little argument, I'd probably abandon it as you have.