Justice Kennedy Halts "Gay Marriage" in Idaho & Nevada

[Stephanie]

yea for that black robe justice, eh?

 

[Silhouette]

yea for that black robe justice, eh?

What this? Are you for or against sodomy marriage?

1. You left off the limited by the United States Consitution part.
2. Sigh... The 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the States, it applies to the Fedreal government and was the basis for declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. However the 14th Amendment does apply to the States and it's protections have already been recognized for homosexuals in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
>>>>

2. Romer, which set the stage for Lawrence v Texas was about decriminalizing sodomy. It in no way elevates sodomy or sodomites [people who practice sodomy] to an elevated class status. It simply stopped people who were consenting adults from going to jail for doing it.
Of note is in most states, peforming sodomy on a minor carries a heavier criminal sentence than just plain statutory rape. And that's probably because of the HIV epidemic and the hugely elevated potential of making a child a receptive anal sex object/likely to get HIV. Turns out that sodomy being criminalized is a good idea after all. If the HIV/AIDS epidemic numbers in boys ages 13-24 keeps climbing [virginal boys do not get HIV from gay sex with other virginal boys by and large...they get it from older men], perhaps the SCOTUS will revisit Lawrence v Texas...but just not in the way you're thinking...
Eventually the SCOTUS might want to be seen as the court that protects children first and adults second. But who knows? Maybe the trends where children are seen as objects or chattel, 2nd class citizens [like in Ancient Greece] will be the 21st century's new "vogue" in Supreme Court Rulings?

 

[JakeStarkey]

State power many not limit civil liberties as defined by SCOTUS review.

States have not had that power since 1868, although the national government permitted them to do so wrongfully.

There is no federal protection in the US constitution for driving or gay marriage. They are both state-regulated priveleges.

If you are telling the truth about gay marriage being so popular these days, just put new measures on the states' ballots and be done with it. But you're not doing that are you? And the reasons is, quite obviously, that you know in reality it isn't as popular as you say it is. Hence all the fuss with "needing federal protection".

If you are telling the truth about marriage, you will admit SCOTUS has determined by refusing to hearing the cases that while states regulate marriage they cannot discriminate against individuals as a class from marrying those whom they wish.

The states have made it quite clear over two centuries plus that citizens need federal protection against them.

All courts are for protecting children.

To suggest otherwise is to reveal your inner lack of integrity.

 

[dcraelin]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.
That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.>>>>

I dont think u r correct in that.....especially not regarding Roberts opinion. As a generic statement everything is subject to Constitutional guarantees.

If the Windsor case was so clear cut, why didnt the SC just go ahead and legalize gay marriage at the time?.....

From the opinion of the court, showing that State marriage laws are still limited by the Constitutional guarentees:

"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority 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.”

<<SNIP>>

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003)."​

From the opinion of the court, showing that the Windsor decision was limited to lawful marriages entered into under State law (i.e. it was about States that said "Yes"):

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

From the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, showing that the Windsor did not answer the question of whether States could Constitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.​

>>>>

And you think this proves your point?????

quoting Roberts " The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

What about that would indicate to any appeals court judge that any State's ban on gay-marriage was unconstitutional?.........not a damn thing.

 

[Silhouette]

If you are telling the truth about marriage, you will admit SCOTUS has determined by refusing to hearing the cases that while states regulate marriage they cannot discriminate against individuals as a class from marrying those whom they wish.
.

Refusing to hear the case is no more telling that Kennedy granting a stay for Idaho two days ago. I like how y'all hang absolute concrete conclusions when it serves your purpose and then deny them when it doesn't. Is "smoke and mirrors" that integral to your success? I think it is. Too bad in the end it's the children who are going to lose if we have fake mom & dad be legitimized.

As they say, "it ain't over till the fat lady sings". You may think she has sung. But let me remind you that in October before any key election that may shift power, all manner of odd Kabuki theater pops up..

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will report in the entirety and let you respond to it all instead of dicing it and taking it out of context. Reported.

If you are telling the truth about marriage, you will admit SCOTUS has determined by refusing to hearing the cases that while states regulate marriage they cannot discriminate against individuals as a class from marrying those whom they wish.

The states have made it quite clear over two centuries plus that citizens need federal protection against them.

All courts are for protecting children.

To suggest otherwise is to reveal your inner lack of integrity.

 

[Silhouette]

I will report in the entirety and let you respond to it all instead of dicing it and taking it out of context. Reported.

If you are telling the truth about marriage, you will admit SCOTUS has determined by refusing to hearing the cases that while states regulate marriage they cannot discriminate against individuals as a class from marrying those whom they wish.

The states have made it quite clear over two centuries plus that citizens need federal protection against them.

All courts are for protecting children.

To suggest otherwise is to reveal your inner lack of integrity.

Report away dipshit.

Meanwhile there is no more certainty attached to SCOTUS' refusal to hear the case right now than there is to Kennedy granting the stay two days ago in Idaho. Children will hopefully be at the front of SCOTUS' mind when they decide this. And while they're mulling that over, I hope they have these posters sitting in life-sized scale right in front of them:

Best to know what the culture is collectively-proud of in front of children before you make that crucial decision...

 

[mdk]

State power many not limit civil liberties as defined by SCOTUS review.

States have not had that power since 1868, although the national government permitted them to do so wrongfully.

There is no federal protection in the US constitution for driving or gay marriage. They are both state-regulated priveleges.

If you are telling the truth about gay marriage being so popular these days, just put new measures on the states' ballots and be done with it. But you're not doing that are you? And the reasons is, quite obviously, that you know in reality it isn't as popular as you say it is. Hence all the fuss with "needing federal protection".

You are correct, driving is a privilege. Marriage on the other hand is a right. The SC has ruled 14 since 1888 that marriage is a right. You can claim all you wish that marriage is a privilege but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Silhouette]

You are correct, driving is a privilege. Marriage on the other hand is a right. The SC has ruled 14 since 1888 that marriage is a right. You can claim all you wish that marriage is a privilege but that doesn't make it so.

Race isn't the same as sexual behavior. And that's a hurdle you're going to have to clear. Good luck with that. Setting a precedent for just a certain set of behaviors to get special treatment under the constitution is not something the SCOTUS will be anxious to do. Unravelling state power and the fundamentals of democracy inadvertently is not something they would relish, I'd think. Nor would be opening the doors wide open to adoption agencies to a subculture who venerates a man who sodomized teens boys, one of which he was officiating as a father figure to [see my signature]. Or, who get behind displays of cultural "pride" like the ones in the pictures on this page.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sexual behavior has nothing to do with the right of marriage.

No children are present in your pictures.

I, and you, and a good number of the Board, know why you are sick in the head on this issue.

That is too bad. Marriage equality is here to stay.

 

[mdk]

You are correct, driving is a privilege. Marriage on the other hand is a right. The SC has ruled 14 since 1888 that marriage is a right. You can claim all you wish that marriage is a privilege but that doesn't make it so.

Race isn't the same as sexual behavior. And that's a hurdle you're going to have to clear. Good luck with that. Setting a precedent for just a certain set of behaviors to get special treatment under the constitution is not something the SCOTUS will be anxious to do. Unravelling state power and the fundamentals of democracy inadvertently is not something they would relish, I'd think. Nor would be opening the doors wide open to adoption agencies to a subculture who venerates a man who sodomized teens boys, one of which he was officiating as a father figure to [see my signature]. Or, who get behind displays of cultural "pride" like the ones in the pictures on this page.

None of what you posted supports your assertion that marriage is a privilege. It is a right and has been ruled as such many times. That of course won't stop you from claiming otherwise.

Gays are already allowed to adopt in most states but again that want stop you from trying to paint all gay parents as sexual predators. In fact, I implore you keep doing so, you only alienate people further. Thank you for your service.

 

[Silhouette]

None of what you posted supports your assertion that marriage is a privilege. It is a right and has been ruled as such many times. That of course won't stop you from claiming otherwise.

Gays are already allowed to adopt in most states but again that want stop you from trying to paint all gay parents as sexual predators. In fact, I implore you keep doing so, you only alienate people further. Thank you for your service.

Marriage has only been found a right with respect to race. In case it hasn't occured to you, it is currently being legally tested as a "right" for certain limited sexual behaviors...a limit that I've argued encompasses currently polygamy as well..

It is my argument and I stand by it. Of course the ultimate decision lies with SCOTUS's final say. We are both engaged in arguing our side of the debate. You act though as if there is no debate at all going on and that the decision on it is merely a formality and will happen with 100% certainty in you favor.

I'd say in any legal question of such high controversy, that is optimisim that boders on delusion.

 

[mdk]

None of what you posted supports your assertion that marriage is a privilege. It is a right and has been ruled as such many times. That of course won't stop you from claiming otherwise.

Gays are already allowed to adopt in most states but again that want stop you from trying to paint all gay parents as sexual predators. In fact, I implore you keep doing so, you only alienate people further. Thank you for your service.

Marriage has only been found a right with respect to race. In case it hasn't occured to you, it is currently being legally tested as a "right" for certain limited sexual behaviors...a limit that I've argued encompasses currently polygamy as well..

It is my argument and I stand by it. Of course the ultimate decision lies with SCOTUS's final say. We are both engaged in arguing our side of the debate. You act though as if there is no debate at all going on and that the decision on it is merely a formality and will happen with 100% certainty in you favor.

I'd say in any legal question of such high controversy, that is optimisim that boders on delusion.

I am well aware that a debate is going one. I've been debating this topic for over a decade. I am also well aware there is a side to this debate that is consistently getting smacked down by the courts. It's isn't my side.

What is delusional is you keep trying to push a narrative that gay parents are sexual predators.

 

[Skylar]

And before you fire back with "in just the last couple years, attitudes towards gay marriage have radically changed...I'll direct you to this poll and remind you of chic fil a and what almost happened to A&E when they threatened to dump Phil Robertson just last year for speaking out against gay marriage...the facebook page "boycott A&E" got like a million likes in the first day...something like that... Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 155 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Gallup is a pretty reliable source, Silo. Far more than you. And you've blundered yet again with your 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings' poll, bizarrely assuming that anyone who didn't think churches should be forced to accommodate gay weddings must be against gay marriage. And ignored anyone who expressed support for gay marriage but didn't think churches should be forced to perform them. Like me.

You're making the same silly mistake you always do: you're projecting what you want to believe onto people that don't necessarily share your views. The electorate isn't with you on this one. The support for gay marriage is a solid majority, leading by 10 full points. And its growing. With support among the youth being closer to 80%.

I suspect a measurable portion of the increase in gay marriage support is your ilk simply dying off.

...might want to make a mental note of that when you're planning your democratic strategy for wins at the polls this Fall and two from it...

With 55% of the population supporting gay marriage, conservatives have found themselves on the wrong side of yet another divisive issue. With conservatives on one side, and the majority of the country on the other.

Denying a blind person a driver's license isn't "inequality". It's common sense, and the law. Neither the privelege of driving nor the privilege of marriage are mentioned in the constitution.

Marriage isn't a privileged. Marriage is a right. A blind person can't get a driver's license because they can't fulfill the requirements of driving. A gay person can fulfill the requirements of marriage. There's nothing that marriage requires that they can't do.

When it comes to behaviors, you have to have a mention there or you don't qualify.

You do know that what you just posted there is complete made up bullshit, right? The 'behavior' standard isn't any legal standard. There's no precedent for behaviors not being rights. Its not the threshold of denying any right. You've literally made it up.

Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. And they're all rights. A behavior doesn't mean that something can't be a right. Your entire line of reasoning on this point is just meaningless gibbering.

 

[Skylar]

Affirmed the purview of state power.

The only other Federal avenue is 5th/14th AMND equal protection which "gay" is not a protected class.

You say gays aren't protected. Take a look at Romer V. Evans. Read the case and then read who wrote the majority opinion.

The USSC overturned an amendment to the Colorado constitution that specifically targeted gays and lesbians. And the man who wrote the opinion was none other than Mr. swing voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

Now what are the odds that Justice Kennedy is going to ignore his own ruling in Romer V. Evans and instead apply your reasoning? I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[Skylar]

2. Sigh... The 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the States, it applies to the Fedreal government and was the basis for declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. However the 14th Amendment does apply to the States and it's protections have already been recognized for homosexuals in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Most of the 5th amendment has been incorporated. Miranda definitely applies to the States, covering significant portions of self incrimination provisions. Benton V. Maryland takes care of double jeopardy. And just compensation provisions in the 5th amendment were the very first to be incorporated in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago in 1897. I think the only thing that isn't incorporated are grand jury requirements.

 

[Skylar]

2. Romer, which set the stage for Lawrence v Texas was about decriminalizing sodomy. It in no way elevates sodomy or sodomites [people who practice sodomy] to an elevated class status. It simply stopped people who were consenting adults from going to jail for doing it.

An 'elevated class'? Gays and lesbians aren't asking for elevation. They want the same rights as everyone else. In Romer and Lawrence both, the courts struck down laws that specifically targeted gays and lesbians. The former explicitly permitting discrimination against gays, the latter expressly criminalizing sodomy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.
That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.>>>>

I dont think u r correct in that.....especially not regarding Roberts opinion. As a generic statement everything is subject to Constitutional guarantees.

If the Windsor case was so clear cut, why didnt the SC just go ahead and legalize gay marriage at the time?.....

From the opinion of the court, showing that State marriage laws are still limited by the Constitutional guarentees:

"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority 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.”

<<SNIP>>

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003)."​

From the opinion of the court, showing that the Windsor decision was limited to lawful marriages entered into under State law (i.e. it was about States that said "Yes"):

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

From the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, showing that the Windsor did not answer the question of whether States could Constitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.​

>>>>

And you think this proves your point?????

quoting Roberts " The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

What about that would indicate to any appeals court judge that any State's ban on gay-marriage was unconstitutional?.........not a damn thing.

I didn't say that Windsor was a ruling on whether states could say "yes" or "no", as a matter of fact I clearly said that in the majority decision and in Chief Justice Roberts dissent that that question was not answer.

However the LOGIC used in the majority opinion clearly showed that capricious and invidioius laws which were created for no other purpose then to be discriminatory against an unpopular group does not stand against consitutional review.

It was that logic the lower courts used. Logic the SCOTUS choose not to refute and to allow to stand.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. Sigh... The 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the States, it applies to the Fedreal government and was the basis for declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. However the 14th Amendment does apply to the States and it's protections have already been recognized for homosexuals in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Most of the 5th amendment has been incorporated. Miranda definitely applies to the States, covering significant portions of self incrimination provisions. Benton V. Maryland takes care of double jeopardy. And just compensation provisions in the 5th amendment were the very first to be incorporated in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago in 1897. I think the only thing that isn't incorporated are grand jury requirements.

I know, I was talking about the Windsor decision which the court points out was based on the 5th Amendment.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Marriage has only been found a right with respect to race.

Actually, no. Marriage has been found to be a right. There were no caveats. The courts actually called it a 'fundamental right'. They APPLIED that right in terms of race. But there wasn't the slightest indication that it was ONLY in terms of race. Its not like black people are the only one's with a right to marry. Everyone does. Including black folks.