Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[Silhouette]

Either you are delusional or you are delusional.

The Supreme Court said that Federal law cannot over rule State marriage laws- but said very clearly that marriage laws are subject to the Constitution.

And that is exactly what these judges are deciding.

They DID NOT find a Meritous conclusion that gay marriage is supported by the Constitution. That is A FACT. Zero meritous conclusion. Got that through your thick head? Shadowy stay denials don't count.

Next, they DID find a meritous conclusion on state's power and authority on the question of gay marriage. In fact, 56 times in Windsor 2013 the Court avered that it was because of state's essential authority on this question, that Ms. Windsor got her money and part of DOMA was struck down.

Now, either states are the MERITOUS supreme authority on marriage UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, or they are not. If stays keep getting issued, or rather, because they keep getting issued to assist the forced-attrition of state sovereignty without a meritous reason to do so, I think Ms. Windsor needs to give her money back. Either states tell the fed what's what about marriage or they don't. Can't have it both ways simultaneously.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think Ms. Windsor needs to give her money back.

Please explain you logic in making this repeated statement. Ms. Windsor was Civilly Married to her wife in Canada in 2007. When and where they got married was perfectly legal at that time and location. The United States Federal government recognizes as valid Civil Marriages from all over the world.

So under what reasoning would Ms. Windsor owe the Federal government the money that should never have been taken to begin with?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I think Ms. Windsor needs to give her money back.

Please explain you logic in making this repeated statement. Ms. Windsor was Civilly Married to her wife in Canada in 2007. When and where they got married was perfectly legal at that time and location. The United States Federal government recognizes as valid Civil Marriages from all over the world.

So under what reasoning would Ms. Windsor owe the Federal government the money that should never have been taken to begin with?

Wow, so you minored in playing-dumb in law school...OK...I'll indulge your rhetorical question...again...

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money.

If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

 

[Skylar]

They DID NOT find a Meritous conclusion that gay marriage is supported by the Constitution. That is A FACT.

They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. Thus, any federal court that found that state marriage laws violated constitutional guarantees found ample support in Windsor for overruling such bans.

Next, they DID find a meritous conclusion on state's power and authority on the question of gay marriage.

Subject to constitutional guarantees. And every federal court that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of these guarantees. Every single one.

Now, either states are the MERITOUS supreme authority on marriage UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, or they are not.

Says you. You are offering a false dychotomy. Where either the States can do anything they wish, including violating constitutional guarantees......or they have no authority over marriage at all.

There's no such dichotomy. The States can create any marriage laws they wish, on the condition that they don't violate constitutional guarantees. Any state marriage law that does is void. And every federal court ruling overturning gay bans has done so on this exact basis: the violation of constitutional guarantees.

You say it can't happen. Reality demonstrates gay marriage bans can be overturned, and have been 26 times. With the USSC preserving each and every ruling overturning gay marriage bans.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored.

Nope. Not even close. No where does Windsor say that the states have dominance over the 'fed'. They stated that State marriage laws are supreme over Federal Marriage laws. Thus, NY's marriage laws trump DOMA.

They never said that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees, individual rights, or are immune to judicial review. You imagined all of it. Instead, the Windsor court explicitly stated that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

And every federal ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans were done on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which the Windsor court recognizes that the States are subordinate to.

Your understanding of the Windsor ruling is, and has always been, uselessly wrong. As the courts have demonstrated to you with every denial of stay, every preservation of every ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans. With even Scalia chiming in that the rationale of the Windsor ruling being applied to overturn same sex marriage bans in the states was 'inevitable'.

And the federal courts have done exactly that.

I can't stress this point enough, Silo.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think Ms. Windsor needs to give her money back.

Please explain you logic in making this repeated statement. Ms. Windsor was Civilly Married to her wife in Canada in 2007. When and where they got married was perfectly legal at that time and location. The United States Federal government recognizes as valid Civil Marriages from all over the world.

So under what reasoning would Ms. Windsor owe the Federal government the money that should never have been taken to begin with?

Wow, so you minored in playing-dumb in law school...OK...I'll indulge your rhetorical question...again...

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money.

If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

Pssst...

Ms. Windsor was married where SSCM was legal.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Either you are delusional or you are delusional.

The Supreme Court said that Federal law cannot over rule State marriage laws- but said very clearly that marriage laws are subject to the Constitution.

And that is exactly what these judges are deciding.

They DID NOT find a Meritous conclusion that gay marriage is supported by the Constitution. That is A FACT. Zero meritous conclusion. Got that through your thick head? Shadowy stay denials don't count.

The Supreme Court also didn't find that unicorns are real- another question that wasn't before the court.

In Windsor the Court found one thing- and its best to use the courts own words:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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.

 

[Syriusly]

I think Ms. Windsor needs to give her money back.

Please explain you logic in making this repeated statement. Ms. Windsor was Civilly Married to her wife in Canada in 2007. When and where they got married was perfectly legal at that time and location. The United States Federal government recognizes as valid Civil Marriages from all over the world.

So under what reasoning would Ms. Windsor owe the Federal government the money that should never have been taken to begin with?

n, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

And as usual- you are just wrong.

Bizarrely and completely wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money...If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

And as usual- you are just wrong.

Bizarrely and completely wrong.

Please define precisely how you think I am wrong. Use legal terminology.

 

[Syriusly]

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money...If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

And as usual- you are just wrong.

Bizarrely and completely wrong.

Please define precisely how you think I am wrong. Use legal terminology.

Legally you are batshit crazy.

Precisely- here is the decision from Windsor:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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.

 

[Silhouette]

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money...If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

And as usual- you are just wrong...Bizarrely and completely wrong.

Please define precisely how you think I am wrong. Use legal terminology.

Precisely- here is the decision from Windsor:The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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.

Here, let me put the crucial part of that statement from DOMA in large text because you're having difficulting wrapping your mind around it..

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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

The finding is that within a STATE'S borders according to THAT STATE'S marriage laws, two types who may marry may not be treated differently and the fed must recognize FROM THAT STATE AND THAT STATE ALONE those two types of marriages.

Another example would be of New Hampshire and 13-year olds marrying. DOMA might also have said "and no person under 15 may ever marry". Then we would have the identical case if the surviving spouse of a 13 year old pair marrying claimed survivor's benefits. The finding would have to be the same; and of course that would not mean that 13 year olds would then be automatically eligible to be married in all 50 states.

 

[Syriusly]

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money...If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

And as usual- you are just wrong...Bizarrely and completely wrong.

Please define precisely how you think I am wrong. Use legal terminology.

Precisely- here is the decision from Windsor:The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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.

Here, let me put the crucial part of that statement from DOMA in large text because you're having difficulting wrapping your mind around it..

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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

Actually the entire ruling is crucial.

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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.

 

[Skylar]

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money...If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

And as usual- you are just wrong.

Bizarrely and completely wrong.

Please define precisely how you think I am wrong. Use legal terminology.

I already have.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually the entire ruling is crucial.

The 56 times in 26 pages in Windsor that the Court affirmed marriage under the question of "gay marriage" was the ultimate authority of the states, notwithstanding I suppose? You're right, one should pay attention to the entire Ruling..

 

[Skylar]

The finding is that within a STATE'S borders according to THAT STATE'S marriage laws, two types who may marry may not be treated differently and the fed must recognize FROM THAT STATE AND THAT STATE ALONE those two types of marriages.

Again, for at least the 20th time, state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. You keep trying to ignore this fact. Which is astonishing, given that every ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans have been on the basis of the violation of those constitutional guarantees

Ignore as you wish. The federal rulings will still be on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. As is the specific legal question being answered by the gay marriage case being heard by the Supreme Court this year.

 

[Skylar]

Actually the entire ruling is crucial.

The 56 times in 26 pages in Windsor that the Court affirmed marriage under the question of "gay marriage" was the ultimate authority of the states, notwithstanding I suppose? You're right, one should pay attention to the entire Ruling..

And not once that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. But instead, that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You keep ignoring this. The court won't.

 

[Silhouette]

And not once that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. But instead, that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You keep ignoring this. The court won't.

Will the Court pay as close attention to the Prince's Trust study too? Or will their attention be cut away from the voices of the voteless children yet to be born into time unseen? Their attention will suddenly wander then?

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

 

[Skylar]

And not once that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. But instead, that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You keep ignoring this. The court won't.

Will the Court pay as close attention to the Prince's Trust study too? Or will their attention be cut away from the voices of the voteless children yet to be born into time unseen? Their attention will suddenly wander then?

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

The Prince Study says nothing about same sex parents or same sex parenting or its effects on their children. So probably not.

They may pay attention to the dozen or so studies that actually measure the effects of same sex parenting on children and found that the kids are fine, however.

 

[mdk]

And not once that State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. But instead, that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You keep ignoring this. The court won't.

Will the Court pay as close attention to the Prince's Trust study too? Or will their attention be cut away from the voices of the voteless children yet to be born into time unseen? Their attention will suddenly wander then?

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

The courts may as well pay attention to a study that shows which ice cream flavors people prefer. It has the same relevance to gay marriage as your beloved and often spammed Prince's Trust.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually the entire ruling is crucial.

The 56 times in 26 pages in Windsor that the Court affirmed marriage under the question of "gay marriage" was the ultimate authority of the states, notwithstanding I suppose? You're right, one should pay attention to the entire Ruling..

Actually the entire ruling is crucial.

The 56 times in 26 pages in Windsor that the Court affirmed marriage under the question of "gay marriage" was the ultimate authority of the states, notwithstanding I suppose? You're right, one should pay attention to the entire Ruling..

Here is the decision:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. 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.