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

[J.E.D]

I hope all the judges fuck each other in their asses.

While you watch and pull your stub? You're one sick puppy

 

[Skylar]

What would the conflict of interest be?

Doc your not that dense, by officiating same sex marriages they have demonstrated a bias toward the subject. Even an appearance of bias is enough to justify them recusing themselves but we all know the bias is real.

Nonsense. Both instances of officiating were in States or Districts that had chosen to allow same sex marriage through action of the legislature. Not States that had had their marriage laws overruled by the federal judiciary. Making even the possibility of a conflict of interest impossible.

They didn't officiate a 'same sex marriage' in either instance. They officiated a marriage. As the laws under which they officiated makes no distinction.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser.

Laughing.....I'm the one dancing a jig and eagerly anticipating the June ruling. You're the one pouting and telling us why the court should be impeached. I think you're projecting how you're feeling right now.

And again, same sex marriage was recognized in Maryland and DC by legislative action. The reps of that State voted it in. Kagan and Ginsberg performed weddings in Maryland and DC. How does it create a conflict of interest to officiate a wedding in a state that has passed a law allowing same sex marriage?

Its just marriage in those two states. It would create no more a conflict of interest as marrying a straight couple.

They knew there would most likely be a case before them on the subject and they took sides anyway, that shows bias.

How does it show they 'took sides'? The court already found that the States have the authority to allow same sex marriage in the Windsor ruling. So that's precedent.

Maryland and DC did exactly that. And voted it in. There is no same sex marriage ban in either Maryland or DC. How then does performing a wedding show any bias for or against same sex marriage bans.....when there was no ban in either Maryland or DC?

Its just a wedding in that State and District. No different than a straight couple getting married.

 

[J.E.D]

He's simply paraphrasing Justice Scalia:

Note the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'.

We'll see around June.

Say it with me;

....."inevitable".

Only one thing that is inevitable, death. If it lives death will overtake it.

Laughing....so you know better than Justice Scalia, huh? Good luck with that.

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

Like justice Thomas recused himself during health care cases because his wife stood to make financial gains from its demise and was actively involved in tea party groups who opposed the law?

Oh wait, he didn't recuse himself. Never mind

 

[OKTexas]

Doc your not that dense, by officiating same sex marriages they have demonstrated a bias toward the subject. Even an appearance of bias is enough to justify them recusing themselves but we all know the bias is real.

Nonsense. Both instances of officiating were in States or Districts that had chosen to allow same sex marriage through action of the legislature. Not States that had had their marriage laws overruled by the federal judiciary. Making even the possibility of a conflict of interest impossible.

They didn't officiate a 'same sex marriage' in either instance. They officiated a marriage. As the laws under which they officiated makes no distinction.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser.

Laughing.....I'm the one dancing a jig and eagerly anticipating the June ruling. You're the one pouting and telling us why the court should be impeached. I think you're projecting how you're feeling right now.

And again, same sex marriage was recognized in Maryland and DC by legislative action. The reps of that State voted it in. Kagan and Ginsberg performed weddings in Maryland and DC. How does it create a conflict of interest to officiate a wedding in a state that has passed a law allowing same sex marriage?

Its just marriage in those two states. It would create no more a conflict of interest as marrying a straight couple.

They knew there would most likely be a case before them on the subject and they took sides anyway, that shows bias.

How does it show they 'took sides'? The court already found that the States have the authority to allow same sex marriage in the Windsor ruling. So that's precedent.

Maryland and DC did exactly that. And voted it in. There is no same sex marriage ban in either Maryland or DC. How then does performing a wedding show any bias for or against same sex marriage bans.....when there was no ban in either Maryland or DC?

Its just a wedding in that State and District. No different than a straight couple getting married.

Are you OK, you seem to be repeating yourself. If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Supreme Court justices following settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence is not being "impartial."

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. Both instances of officiating were in States or Districts that had chosen to allow same sex marriage through action of the legislature. Not States that had had their marriage laws overruled by the federal judiciary. Making even the possibility of a conflict of interest impossible.

They didn't officiate a 'same sex marriage' in either instance. They officiated a marriage. As the laws under which they officiated makes no distinction.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser.

Laughing.....I'm the one dancing a jig and eagerly anticipating the June ruling. You're the one pouting and telling us why the court should be impeached. I think you're projecting how you're feeling right now.

And again, same sex marriage was recognized in Maryland and DC by legislative action. The reps of that State voted it in. Kagan and Ginsberg performed weddings in Maryland and DC. How does it create a conflict of interest to officiate a wedding in a state that has passed a law allowing same sex marriage?

Its just marriage in those two states. It would create no more a conflict of interest as marrying a straight couple.

They knew there would most likely be a case before them on the subject and they took sides anyway, that shows bias.

How does it show they 'took sides'? The court already found that the States have the authority to allow same sex marriage in the Windsor ruling. So that's precedent.

Maryland and DC did exactly that. And voted it in. There is no same sex marriage ban in either Maryland or DC. How then does performing a wedding show any bias for or against same sex marriage bans.....when there was no ban in either Maryland or DC?

Its just a wedding in that State and District. No different than a straight couple getting married.

Are you OK, you seem to be repeating yourself. If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

You won't answer my question. What possible bias against same sex marriage bans are created by performing a wedding when there are no bans prohibing it? Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage.

You have no answer.

If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

I'm saying that the Windsor decision found that States have the authority to extend same sex marriage. The Windsor decision doesn't even mention same sex marriage bans.

DC and Maryland both voted in same sex marriage. So what does performing any kind of wedding in either place have to do with same sex marriage bans.....when no such bans exist in Maryland or DC?

Again, you can't say.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette would have TH3 GAYZ locked up in sanitariums. Or concentration camps.

Is that your rebuttal to the Prince's Trust study? You would have children locked up in homes without their gender present or implicitly mattering.. Trying to avoid talking about that using hyperbole?

 

[Skylar]

Silhouette would have TH3 GAYZ locked up in sanitariums. Or concentration camps.

Is that your rebuttal to the Prince's Trust study? You would have children locked up in homes without their gender present or implicitly mattering.. Trying to avoid talking about that using hyperbole?

What rebuttal is needed? The Prince Trust Study never mentions same sex parents, nor measures anything about any kind of parenting. As the standard it measured wasn't a 'same sex role model'. But a GOOD same sex role model.

You insist that happens 100% of the time in opposite sex families. But Prince Trust Study doesn't say this. You do. And you're nobody.

Thus, what is there to rebut? Your imagination?

 

[Silhouette]

Supreme Court justices following settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence is not being "impartial."

No, it isn't. They found, 56 times, in Windsor 2013 that the definition of marraige outside any potential Loving v Virginia applications (a merit question not up for discussion that day) is unquestionably up to the states. That was and is the status quo. Need I remind you they left off of Windsor saying gay marraige was only legal in a total of 12 states. California would have been the 13th, except that it wasn't.

And that's because California said no to gay marraige twice, legally, as of 2013 to present time. The Hearing has not been held yet.

This BS is creating conditions of tyranny, confusion and sedition in the various states as authorities defy the will of their electorate and democracy unravels as the power of the People to self-govern and control their surroundings vanishes in legal-chaos.

This is an impeachable situation. Notwithstanding the evident and advertised bias some of the Justices are up to. I think that's why Thomas and Scalia wrote the harsh dissent and made sure it went public. They don't want their heads on the chopping block.

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Court justices following settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence is not being "impartial."

No, it isn't. They found, 56 times, in Windsor 2013 that the definition of marraige outside any potential Loving v Virginia applications (a merit question not up for discussion that day) is unquestionably up to the states. That was and is the status quo. Need I remind you they left off of Windsor saying gay marraige was only legal in a total of 12 states. California would have been the 13th, except that it wasn't.

As you know, the Windsor decision was about the applicability of Federal Law (DOMA) prohibiting the recognition of same sex marriage when the State already recognized same sex marriage. With the court finding that Federal marriage law is subordinate to State marriage law. That's every one of your '56 citations'. That state marriage law trumps federal marriage law.

The issue in the Alabama case isn't federal law v state law. The Alabama appeal is about state law v. constitutional guarantees. And the Windsor ruling already affirmed that State marriage laws are subject to those constitutional guarantees.

The SCOTUS found no credible chance that Alabama would win a case defending state marriage bans against the violation of constitutional guarantees. Thus, they denied the stay. As they should have.

And that's because California said no to gay marraige twice, legally, as of 2013 to present time. The Hearing has not been held yet.

Of course it has. There was an elaborate hearing in Perry v. Brown where the federal judiciary found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. That ruling went all the way to the USSC, and remained intact. Thus, Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Remember, Silo...and this point is fundamental: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You don't know how the law works. And you laughably misread the Windsor ruling. As Scalia's dissent demonstrates.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course it has. There was an elaborate hearing in Perry v. Brown where the federal judiciary found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. That ruling went all the way to the USSC, and remained intact. Thus, Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Remember, Silo...and this point is fundamental: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You don't know how the law works. And you laughably misread the Windsor ruling. As Scalia's dissent demonstrates.

The US SUPREME COURT found SUBSEQUENTLY that marriage was up to the states until further notice. They made ZERO findings on the merit of Prop 8 except that they made 100% findings on those merits IN WINDSOR by REITERATING 56 TIMES THAT MARRAIGE WAS UP TO THE STATES UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. That WAS a finding on the merits of Prop 8....IN FAVOR OF IT.

And you know that. Shame on you! This is exactly the type of legal-chaos and confusion the Justices (you know who you are) who are purposefully obfuscating the legal question are up to. Their job isn't to befuddle the public and decide cases before they're heard by procedural trickery and allusion..tipping the balance in one side's favor by attrition...(allowing gay marriage to go forward in states where it is banned as the status quo)! This undermines the stability of our country and could lead to an uprising!

Supreme Court justices following settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence is not being "impartial."

No, it isn't. They found, 56 times, in Windsor 2013 that the definition of marraige outside any potential Loving v Virginia applications (a merit question not up for discussion that day) is unquestionably up to the states. That was and is the status quo. Need I remind you they left off of Windsor saying gay marraige was only legal in a total of 12 states. California would have been the 13th, except that it wasn't.

And that's because California said no to gay marraige twice, legally, as of 2013 to present time. The Hearing has not been held yet.

This BS is creating conditions of tyranny, confusion and sedition in the various states as authorities defy the will of their electorate and democracy unravels as the power of the People to self-govern and control their surroundings vanishes in legal-chaos.

This is an impeachable situation. Notwithstanding the evident and advertised bias some of the Justices are up to. I think that's why Thomas and Scalia wrote the harsh dissent and made sure it went public. They don't want their heads on the chopping block.

 

[Syriusly]

The Prince's Trust survey will not be raised by either side, and the Supreme Court will never, ever, even consider it- as it is not germane to the issue.

Nobody is stupid enough to try to bring that study to the Supreme Court- no one would want to look that stupid.

You seem to know a lot about what the US Supreme Court would or wouldn't do. That's the problem indicated in the OP of this thread.

You think a Supreme Court that has indicated its sympathy for the plight of children in this question...

I don't pretend to be able to accurately predict how the Supreme Court will rule- but I am quite comfortable predicting that not a single party involved with the case that will go before the court will raise "Prince's Trust' because nobody would want to look that stupid before the Supreme Court'

And the Supreme Court doesn't consider anything not brought before it.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course it has. There was an elaborate hearing in Perry v. Brown where the federal judiciary found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. That ruling went all the way to the USSC, and remained intact. Thus, Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Remember, Silo...and this point is fundamental: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You don't know how the law works. And you laughably misread the Windsor ruling. As Scalia's dissent demonstrates.

The US SUPREME COURT found SUBSEQUENTLY that marriage was up to the states until further notice..

Subject to constitutional guarantees- referencing the court specifically overturning state marriage law in Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't pretend to be able to accurately predict how the Supreme Court will rule- but I am quite comfortable predicting that not a single party involved with the case that will go before the court will raise "Prince's Trust' because nobody would want to look that stupid before the Supreme Court'

And the Supreme Court doesn't consider anything not brought before it.

Apparently lying and child endangerment are part of LGBT cult values (see my signature for veneration of Harvey Milk: pedophile)

First of all you and your friends here whom you spam post constantly with in nefarious ways to make topics and good points like the Prince's Trust survey "disappear" on pages or entire threads if you're able...have CONSTANTLY said you know how the Supreme Court will vote, in your favor. Constantly. And really, who could blame you given the advertised bias and trickery the Justices have pulled on the American public, forcing two interim status quos to exist side by side as the question waits to be answered.

They are deciding the case in-advance using forced-attrition of state laws. I suppose their conclusions at the end of this will be "since so many people have been "legally" gay married since 2013, we have no choice but to mandate gay marriage federally across the 50 states." And at that point, 100s of millions of people will gasp that the third branch of government has ceased to exist.

But don't be surprised if members of the GOP Congress are sharpening their knives as we speak. This shot across the bow of "enough is ENOUGH!" from Thomas and Scalia didn't just come from nowhere you know..

If you care about children, you would care about the conclusions of the Prince's Trust study and how missing the parent of their gender damages children. Gay marraige need not be mentioned. It applies by definition and structure. You would also care about them having a country where the US Supreme Court still functioned as an impartial uninvolved body of review...instead of what it is now: actively causing attrition to state laws... squelching state's rights and the Governed to govern themselves.

 

[Skylar]

The US SUPREME COURT found SUBSEQUENTLY that marriage was up to the states until further notice.

No they didn't. They found that in a contest of federal marriage laws vs. state marriage laws, that state marriage laws were supreme. But in a contest of state marriage laws vs. constitutional guarantees, that constitutional guarantees were supreme:

"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. "

Windsor v. US

And every single lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has been on the basis of that they violate those constitutional guarantees.

Including the ruling that overturned Alabama's ban.

They made ZERO findings on the merit of Prop 8 except that they made 100% findings on those merits IN WINDSOR by REITERATING 56 TIMES THAT MARRAIGE WAS UP TO THE STATES UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. That WAS a finding on the merits of Prop 8....IN FAVOR OF IT.

Obvious nonsense. The Windsor court made no findings that state marriage laws may violate constitutional guarantees. But instead found the opposite: that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Perry v. Brown ruled that California's gay marriage bans violated constitutional guarantees.

Which conflicts with absolutely nothing in Windsor. The Perry ruling stands. The federal judiciary has ruled on the topic as far as California is concerned. Gay marriage is legal in California. Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Windsor v. US never even mentioned gay marriage bans. Let alone ruled in favor of them.

This is exactly the type of legal-chaos and confusion the Justices (you know who you are) who are purposefully obfuscating the legal question are up to. Their job isn't to befuddle the public and decide cases before they're heard by procedural trickery and allusion..tipping the balance in one side's favor by attrition...(allowing gay marriage to go forward in states where it is banned as the status quo)! This undermines the stability of our country and could lead to an uprising!

The USSC has been perfectly consistent: every lower court ruling that has overturned same sex marriage bans has been preserved by the USSC.

Without exception. That's not chaos. That's perfect consistency.

Remember.....you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

I don't pretend to be able to accurately predict how the Supreme Court will rule- but I am quite comfortable predicting that not a single party involved with the case that will go before the court will raise "Prince's Trust' because nobody would want to look that stupid before the Supreme Court'

And the Supreme Court doesn't consider anything not brought before it.

Apparently lying and child endangerment are part of LGBT cult values (see my signature for veneration of Harvey Milk: pedophile)

First of all you and your friends here whom you spam post constantly with in nefarious ways to make topics and good points like the Prince's Trust survey "disappear" on pages or entire threads if you're able...have CONSTANTLY said you know how the Supreme Court will vote, in your favor. Constantly. And really, who could blame you given the advertised bias and trickery the Justices have pulled on the American public, forcing two interim status quos to exist side by side as the question waits to be answered.

You've posted the Prince trust study 19 times in one thread alone. You're spamming it.

And it doesn't even mention same sex parenting. Let alone measure anything about it. While more than a dozens studies directly measure same sex parenting and its effect on children. And the overwhelming consensus is that these kids are fine. That they're as healthy as children from homes of opposite sex parents.

You simply ignore every study that contradicts you, without exception. Any study, from any source, from any university, any organization, any expert, any country, using any methodology, and any sample size.

No court ever would. No rational person ever would.

They are deciding the case in-advance using forced-attrition of state laws.

More accurately they're doing what they are required to do: to assess the likelihood that Alabama's defense of gay marriage bans will be successful. And they found no plausible likelhood that such a case would win, and no credible reason to grant the stay.

Assessing the strength of the case is what the court are supposed to do. Just as it was in every other instance where they denied stays against rulings that overturned same sex marriage bans. The courts have been perfectly consistent.

Its just you that has suddenly realized that you haven't had the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the Windsor decision or the court's take on state same sex marriage bans.

 

[Silhouette]

The USSC has been perfectly consistent: every lower court ruling that has overturned same sex marriage bans has been preserved by the USSC.

Without exception. That's not chaos. That's perfect consistency.

Remember.....you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then how would you have the American public who has read Windsor 2013 to see 56 references in 26 pages to how the question of gay marriage is unquestionably up to the sovereign states...weighed against these forced-attrition stays? The Supreme Court is eroding their own 56 reiterations without informing the public that this is what they're up to.

Like I said, will their conclusions be at the end of this "gee, since so many people got "legally" gay married since 2013, I guess for their kids' sake we have no choice but to mandate it federally across the 50 states" *shoulder shrug, gavel bang *..

That is BULLSHIT.

Here's where the confusion comes from: United States v. Windsor

Here are the references from Windsor:
**********
Page 1: "In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the concept of same-sex marriage." (1)

Page 2: "..before any State had acted to permit it"... "Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States"..."does not by its terms forbid States from enacting laws permitting same-sex marriages or civil unions"... (3)

Page 13: "When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right."..."Accordingly some States.." (2)

Page 14: "The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion." ...."New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples"..."so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage."..."New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry"..."After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted.."..."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." (7)

Page 16: "persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.."..."In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition."...""regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States." (3)

Page 17: "The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.."..."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."...""[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce.."..."the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce."..."The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States"..."the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.."..."under the Copyright Act "requires a reference to the law of the State which created those legal relationships" because "there is no federal law of domestic relations."...."In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction." (9)

Page 18: "exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations."..."The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States."..."Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State.."..."these rules are in every event consistent within each State."..."it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance."..."The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism."..."When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition.."...." (7)

Page 19: "this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.."...."The Federal Government uses this state-defined class.."..."In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding "to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times."..."These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."..."The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other."..."The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation.." (6)

Page 20: "For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status."...."a relationship deemed by the State.."...."It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality."...."The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people."..."DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here.." (5)

Page 21: "same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.."...."same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.."...."the congressional purpose to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married. As the title and dynamics of the bill indicate, its purpose isto discourage enactment of state same-sex marriage laws and to restrict the freedom and choice of couples married under those laws if they are enacted." (3)

Page 22: "The congressional goal was "to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws."..."New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage.."...."DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law."..."DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages.."...."DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State."...."diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect."..."public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages.." (7)

Page 23: "whose relationship the State has sought to dignify." (1)

Page 25: "those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State."...."persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition.."...."a status the State finds to be dignified and proper"..." (3)

Page 26: "those whom the State, by its marriage laws.." (1)

 

[Syriusly]

The USSC has been perfectly consistent: every lower court ruling that has overturned same sex marriage bans has been preserved by the USSC.

Without exception. That's not chaos. That's perfect consistency.

Remember.....you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then how would you have the American public who has read Windsor 2013 to see 56 references in 26 pages to how the question of gay marriage is unquestionably up to the sovereign states.)

The American Public who has read Windsor knows that Windsor is a decision regarding Federal law not being being able to ignore State marriage law.

The American Public also would know that Windsor makes it very clear that such 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, 4

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.”Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

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.

But there is no such departure when one State adopts or keeps a definition of marriage that differs from that of its neighbor, for it is entirely expected that state definitions would “vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next.

 

[Silhouette]

That's your one vs 56 times the Court said gay marriage was up to the states in Windsor 2013...and then left off with Windsor saying it was only legal in 12 states...the 13th claimed at the time...California...was excluded from that final tally.

This is assisted forced-attrition so the Court can throw its hands in the air and say "gee, so many people are "legally" gay married now that we just have to let them have their way....for the sake of their kids..*looks the other way and ignores the Prince's Trust study*." The cult has taken over every vestige of our psychological and legal institutions.

I've never seen such a display from the US Supreme Court in all my life. Does anyone have any other historical examples where the Court became heavy-handed one-sided nefarious shadow-activists?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why is this debate still going on? It's over kids, you lost. Move on...