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

[Silhouette]

Says the poor soul who ignored any mention of constitutional guarantees in the Windsor ruling. Despite every ruling that overturned gay marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Every single one.

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State Marriage Laws

3) Federal Marriage Laws.

Remember that order. Its why you lost.

There were no arguments or findings on merit of whether or not same-sex marriage was/is a Constitutional guarantee. The entirety of the Windsor debate in Court was about whether or not the fed has to listen to a state-defined concept of the word "marriage". And the answer, avered 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion was "YES". That is the law until/unless further notice. They also glanced upon how 13 year olds were legally married in New Hampshire. Will you be insisting now that the Court meant by that passing reference that 13 year olds currently have the right to marry in any state they so challenge? That stays would/should be refused if that challenge makes it to the point where lower circuit judges are ordering states to go ahead and allow 13 year olds to marry? Without a single discussion of that condition on the merits?

 

[Skylar]

There were no arguments or findings on merit of whether or not same-sex marriage was/is a Constitutional guarantee.

Laughing.....sure there is. In every single federal court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Any lower federal court can make a determination of the violation of rights. And unless overturned by a higher court, that lower court ruling stands.

And no higher court overturned the rulings that voided same sex marriage bans. These went all the way to the Supreme Court. And at every level, these rulings overturning same sex marriage bans were preserved.

And you know all of this. You simply pretend otherwise. No one is obligated to pretend with you.

The entirety of the Windsor debate in Court was about whether or not the fed has to listen to a state-defined concept of the word "marriage".

No, the entirety of the Windsor debate is if federal marriage law trumped state marriage law. You carefully and fallaciously characterize it as the 'fed', because you're desperately hoping to fold in the federal judiciary.

But the Windsor ruling *never* puts state marriage laws above judicial review. It finds the exact opposite; that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Even citing the Loving v. Virginia decision where the federal judiciary overturned state marriage laws. Which simply destroys your entire argument.

As you know. But really hope we don't.

And the answer, avered 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion was "YES". That is the law until/unless further notice.

Says you pretending you are the Supreme Court. And you're clueless. In the meantime, the actual Supreme Court has preserved EVERY lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Explicitly contradicting you. And denied stay for EVERY state seeking to defend gay marriage bans. Explicitly contradicting you.

Without exception.

Once again, and I can't stress this point enough: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Laughing.....sure there is. In every single federal court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Any lower federal court can make a determination of the violation of rights. And unless overturned by a higher court, that lower court ruling stands.

You are arguing for shadow justice are you?

The Court said in Windsor 56 times that it, Itself is inferior to state definition of marriage. THAT AND ONLY THAT was/is the most current legal rendering upon the question of the definition of marriage in the Highest Court possible in the land. Even SCOTUS may not overturn Itself by nefarious means. So, until further notice, Alabama is correct, no LOWER court (inferior to the Highest Court) may say that states are not allowed to define marriage.

If SCOTUS felt the situation was pressing enough at the time, they would've simply said that "no gay person should ever be denied the right to marry" and based on THAT premise, we find....yadda yadda...E. Windsor gets her money. But they didn't, did they? Instead they went to great lengths to announce to the public how STRONGLY the Court felt about states' rights as sovereigns to self-determine on the question of defining marriage. That because New York held a consensus and all decided they wanted gays to be included in the mother/father marriage, the fed had to listen. Based on THAT they awared E. Windsor her money..

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....sure there is. In every single federal court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Any lower federal court can make a determination of the violation of rights. And unless overturned by a higher court, that lower court ruling stands.

You are arguing for shadow justice are you?

I'm arguing that you don't have the slightest clue how the federal judiciary works.

Any ruling by any federal court is a ruling from the federal judiciary. It is authoritative unless stayed or overturned by a higher federal court ruling. And any federal court can make a determination that rights have been violated.

As state laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. You keep ignoring these guarantees, keep pretending they don't exist. But we're not going to pretend with you. Neither will the courts.

The Court said in Windsor 56 times that it, Itself is inferior to state definition of marriage. THAT AND ONLY THAT was/is the most current legal rendering upon the question of the definition of marriage in the Highest Court possible in the land.

Says you. Back in reality, the Windsor decision explicitly stated that State laws are subject to constitutional guarantees:

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393."

You make the same, silly mistake every time: you ignore constitutional guarantees and pretend that the States aren't subject to them. But they are. And every federal court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutions.

You can't get around that.

Even SCOTUS may not overturn Itself by nefarious means.

Its not the SCOTUS and the entire federal judiciary that is 'nefarious' and 'overturning itself'.

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

 

[Syriusly]

Which Finding do you think defines interim law?

There is no 'interim law'- other than in your mind.

 

[Syriusly]

Laughing.....sure there is. In every single federal court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Any lower federal court can make a determination of the violation of rights. And unless overturned by a higher court, that lower court ruling stands.

You are arguing for shadow justice are you?.

How can any of us argue for a term you created?

There is no 'shadow justice'.

Meanwhile all of the lower court ruling stand, unless and until overturned by a decision by a higher court.

 

[Syriusly]

Well?

Talking to yourself again?

 

[Silhouette]

Which Finding do you think defines interim law?

There is no 'interim law'- other than in your mind.

And the mind of the State Supreme Court of Alabama, and the entirety of the citizenry of that state. Just me and them.

 

[Skylar]

Which Finding do you think defines interim law?

There is no 'interim law'- other than in your mind.

And the mind of the State Supreme Court of Alabama, and the entirety of the citizenry of that state. Just me and them.

Actually, that's not Ray's argument. His argument is that a State judiciary and legislature can ignore any federal court decision they want save a USSC decision.But has his removal from office in 2003 and the stark lack of the 10 commandments monument he had built for the court house demonstrates.......Ray Moore is wrong.

Remember the order of authority established by the Windsor ruling:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State marriage laws.

3) Federal marriage laws.

And while you and Mr. Moore may ignore Constitutional guarantees, the courts won't.

 

[Syriusly]

Which Finding do you think defines interim law?

There is no 'interim law'- other than in your mind.

And the mind of the State Supreme Court of Alabama, and the entirety of the citizenry of that state. Just me and them.

No- none of them are making your bizarre argument about 'interim law'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID: ↑

“There were no arguments or findings on merit of whether or not same-sex marriage was/is a Constitutional guarantee.”

Likely because no one ever said there was; indeed, there is no such thing as 'same-sex marriage.'

Each of the 50 states has one marriage law written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related to each other in a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

There is a Constitutional guarantee to due process and equal protection of the law, and the Supreme Court has held that gay Americans are entitled to those Constitutional protections (Romer v. Evans), where to deny same-sex couples assess to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

...Each of the 50 states has one marriage law written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related to each other in a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference...

.

It makes a difference to kids wanting/psychologically needing both a father and a mother.

It apparently also makes a difference to California because here is how the law stands there in their Constitution at this very moment in time..:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

BTW, how come there wasn't an intiative on the ballot in CA this past Fall to revoke that law in their Constitution? You realize that's the only way that law can be revoked. And if you claim it has already been revoked by a lower court attempting to overturn Windsor without SCOTUS' permission, or via the shadowy-attrition forced by SCOTUS without merits aimed at packing numbers of illegally-"gay married' people in states where it is now and still lawfully forbidden (Windsor 2013), why wasn't there an intitative on the ballot to formalize that?

The answer of course is that the cult of LGBT knows one of two things:

1. That the intiative would fail

2. That removing an intiative law that is still valid from the Constitution without the voters of the State of California's permission would be a violation of the constitutional provisions of that state and therefore a violation of the civil rights of voters of California: their right to self-govern.

 

[Skylar]

...Each of the 50 states has one marriage law written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related to each other in a marriage contract – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference...

.

It makes a difference to kids wanting/psychologically needing both a father and a mother.

And how does allowing same sex parents of a child to marry hurt that child?

And please be specific. Because the courts certainly were specific in elaborately describing the immediate legal harm caused to these children by DENYING marriage to same sex parents. Show us the harm done by allowing such marriage.

As remember: if same sex parents aren't married, their children have same sex parents. If same sex parents are married, their children have same sex parents.

Denying their parents marriage doesn't change it.

 

[protectionist]

I still don't see how this changes much of anything. Gays lived with each other before the SCOTUS ruling, they'll live with each other now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With the benefit of marriage.

This is over.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

With the benefit of marriage.

This is over.

About bloody time. I wonder what Sil will obsess over now?

 

[protectionist]

With the benefit of marriage.

This is over.

WHAT is over ? What is the debate ?

 

[protectionist]

Using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to say that states cannot ban SSM is like saying states cannot ban arson (because arsonists wouldn't have the equal protection of the law). Or that they can't ban rape, or burglary, or vandalism. 5 members of the SCOTUS have descended into madness.

Somehow it is necessary for the American people to reform the judicial system. A good start might be to remove the lifetime service stipulation, and make these despots become accountable to the American people, and legal common sense.

And I don't believe the polls that say 61% of he American people support SSM. Sounds very fishy. The support level for SSM has been under 50% for 50 years, and suddenly it surges to 61% ? Polls are quite susceptible to corruption, like anything else. All it would take would be for a few rich gays to offer a large sum of money to a pollster who has a very sick kid in the hospital, just as an example. In addition, studies are showing that opposition to SSM is understated.

A better poll would be last November's congressional election

Why Polls Overstate Support for Gay Marriage Fox News

Study Opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls Pew Research Center

 

[protectionist]

The madness is not only in 5 members of the SCOTUS, but it's in the White House too. Did everyone see the White all lit up in rainbow colors last night ? Good grief! What a disgrace to America, and a laughingstock in the eyes of the rest of the world, this idiot president has made us.

This damn fool is reacting (as he typically does) to the POLLS. The most recent Gallup poll (Obama thinks) is showing a 61% majority favoring Same Sex Marriage. To Obama (who whom the thought of VOTES is hard wired in his brain) this means automatic support. And he thought it would be a good idea to broadcast his support by illuminating the White House in rainbow colors. The dumbass never considered that this poll is a joke, which has no similarity to consistent polls of the past 50 years right up until 2012.

It looks like this poll is a result of corruption of polling officials and could be the result of bribery from rich gays, who would not be adverse to such activity. If Obama had a brain in his head, and he really cared about his precious VOTES, he would look at the REAL POLL, and only one that matters >> the 2014 November election.

Madness in the Supreme court coupled with stupidity in the White House. Sad day for America.

 

[protectionist]

Ah yes. DE FACTO, An important concept. We should always remember that de jure (court rulings) are not necessarily the last word. It was always a matter of contention back in the days when blacks were a low income group, that housing complexes that wanted to discriminate against blacks could do it by raising their rents up high.

With respect to gay marriage, I would guess with some degree of clever creativity, those who might be forced (by law) to engage in this idiotic perversity, could find ways to circumvent it. Example: if a gay couple came into a bakery wanting a wedding cake, while they where waiting, the clerks could loudly have a conversation that degraded the gay couple in some way. When the gays began to get abusive, with loud foul language (on video), they could be evicted from the store, and given a no trespass warning by the police, prohibiting them from coming back. That's just one example.

Maybe this could be a new occupation. De facto gay immunization consulting.