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

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

 

[g5000]

From Thomas's dissent:

Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor

 

[Silhouette]

From Thomas's dissent:

Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor

It left the question open but the STATUS QUO, in the interim, reiterated 56 TIMES in Windsor was that the question of gay marriage was up to the states.

THAT is Thomas' objection and rightly so. This forced-attrition and then the Court throwing its hands up in the air later on saying "gee there's so many now married I guess we have to decide to mandate gay marriage federally" is the illegal BS that certain Justices have overstepped their authority on.

It's that the latest Decision on the matter left it up to the states...but then the Court has been pinning the states down by their necks on the sly (refusing to uphold the stays) so that attrition can do their dirty work for them. THAT is the issue of this thread. It's low-down judicial activism at the Supreme Court level!

Unheard of. If Windsor had reiterated 56 times that Loving v Virginia might apply at some future date (which it only mentioned once) instead of stringently avering that the matter was under the "unquestioned" current and past "authority of the states", it would be one thing. But this is a clear and purposeful erosion of state-avered powers to favor one set of litigants over the other.

That is called judicial bias and it isn't allowed. It is an impeachable offense because it is directly harming state powers and eroding law and order in those states that are in an uproar over the confusion and wilfull obfuscation.

Maybe the states currently being forced to "allow" illegal gay marriage could organize to petition an emergency stay to preserve the status quo, using Thomas' & Scalia's argument to support their plea? The damage being done to democratic rule and state powers is far far worse than any damage being done to "the children of gay couples" in the interim. Particularly if you read the Prince's Trust study on the damage done to kids by being raised without an adult of their gender in their young lives...or worse (as in the case with gay marriage) the daily modeling that their gender doesn't matter at all..

 

[Silhouette]

..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...

Windsor cannot affirm the status quo of the "unquestioned authority" of the states to define marriage under the laser narrow question of gay marriage, doing that 56 times in 26 pages no less, and then turn around and provide you with the fodder you seek out of Windsor/Prop 8 Rulings to say that with no meritous decision on the lower court's determination that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, that somehow California was exempt from Windsor's findings on the states' role in determining who may or may not marry!

You can't have it both ways. And in Windsor, only a mindless idiot would argue or even claim that the Court had anything in mind but leaving the question of gay marriage up to the states until further notice.. And guess what? California is a state the last time I checked...

 

[Skylar]

From Thomas's dissent:

Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor

It left the question open but the STATUS QUO, in the interim, reiterated 56 TIMES in Windsor was that the question of gay marriage was up to the states.

Subject to constitutional guarantees. The State violating constitutional guarantees is no 'status quo' in the Windsor decision. And the Alabama ruling overturning state gay marriage bans was on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

You can ignore the constitutional guarantees. But as yesterdays refusal to stay gay marriage in Alabama demonstrates, you can't make the court ignore constitutional guarantees.

If Windsor had reiterated 56 times that Loving v Virginia might apply at some future date (which it only mentioned once) instead of stringently avering that the matter was under the "unquestioned" current and past "authority of the states", it would be one thing. But this is a clear and purposeful erosion of state-avered powers to favor one set of litigants over the other.

Says you. But you are fucking clueless. As Scalia makes mind numbingly clear:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of the Windsor v. US ruling

As Scalia points out, the courts position against state gay marriage bans is 'beyond mistaking'. And its 'inevitable' that the court will apply the very logic of Windsor to overturn state gay marriage bans.

You read the Windsor ruling wrong. You can pretend that you know more than Scalia on the ruling. But you don't. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Maybe the states currently being forced to "allow" illegal gay marriage could organize to petition an emergency stay to preserve the status quo, using Thomas' & Scalia's argument to support their plea? The damage being done to democratic rule and state powers is far far worse than any damage being done to "the children of gay couples" in the interim. Particularly if you read the Prince's Trust study on the damage done to kids by being raised without an adult of their gender in their young lives...or worse (as in the case with gay marriage) the daily modeling that their gender doesn't matter at all..

Blithering nonsense. You can't erode a State power that the State doesn't possess. The States have no power to violate constitutional guarantees. Thus, invalidating laws that violate such guarantees causes the State no harm. As the act being restricted by the court is beyond the State's authority.

How many times do you have to be wrong, how many times does the federal judiciary have to contradict your pseudo-legal gibberish, how many times does the court have to act counter to your assumptions before you realize that you simply have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

..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...

Windsor cannot affirm the status quo of the "unquestioned authority" of the states to define marriage under the laser narrow question of gay marriage, doing that 56 times in 26 pages no less, and then turn around and provide you with the fodder you seek out of Windsor/Prop 8 Rulings to say that with no meritous decision on the lower court's determination that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, that somehow California was exempt from Windsor's findings on the states' role in determining who may or may not marry!

No where in the Windsor ruling does the court find that the State has the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. Not in any of your '56 times'. The court does however confirm that the State marriage 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.

Windsor v. US

The basis of the Perry v. Brown ruling was the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which is perfectly consistent with the Windsor ruling which found that State laws are subject to them. The Perry ruling went all the way to the USSC and was never overturned. It stands, gay marriage is legal in California, and Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

You can't have it both ways. And in Windsor, only a mindless idiot would argue or even claim that the Court had anything in mind but leaving the question of gay marriage up to the states until further notice.. And guess what? California is a state the last time I checked...

Says you. Justice Scalia, the most ardent opponent of gay marriage on the court explicitly contradicts you:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

He says that the courts take on state gay marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking'. He says that its 'inevitable' that the court will use the rationale of Windsor to overturn state gay marriage bans.

You insist you know better. Only a mindless idiot would assume that YOU know better what the USSC justices meant by the Windsor ruling than the a USSC Justice does. Especially when every action taken by the court is an explicit contradiction of your assumptions.

You insist the court wanted gay marriage bans preserved. The USSC has instead preserved every federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. Without exception. Exactly opposite of what you assume.

I can't stress this point enough, Silo.....but you're completely clueless. You have no idea what you're talking about. And your every assumption has been contradicted by the court.

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor cannot affirm the status quo of the "unquestioned authority" of the states to define marriage under the laser narrow question of gay marriage, doing that 56 times in 26 pages no less, and then turn around and provide you with the fodder you seek out of Windsor/Prop 8 Rulings to say that with no meritous decision on the lower court's determination that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, that somehow California was exempt from Windsor's findings on the states' role in determining who may or may not marry!

No where in the Windsor ruling does the court find that the State has the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. Not in any of your '56 times'. The court does however confirm that the State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees..

Nowhere in Windsor or any other Supreme Court Finding was it Found that gay marriage is a constitutionally-protected institution.

THEREFORE interim law goes by what the Supreme Court DID find constitutionally in Windsor: United States v. Windsor

Page 17

"“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

Page 18

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.”

Page 19

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.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). 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 inter-action with each other.

The consensus in California was to disallow gay marriage. The consensus in New York was to allow it. No SCOTUS Finding has been written that gays have a constitutionally-protected "right" to marry each other against the will of the state's sovereign authority they live in.

However, it was Found that any given state has the right to regulate marriage where the Constitution does not. And THAT is the INTERIM LAW until further notice.

Windsor was the "States' Authority on Marriage" affirmation Decision. It has yet to be overturned. It is therefore the binding law over all 50 states in the Union until They and THEY ALONE say differently..as a group...officially...on the merits.

I think they're just seeing how big of pussies the AGs of the forced-states will be in the face of all these stays. If the states got together and cited Thomas's dissent, the Court would be put on its heels and called out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The OP thinks the justices are judging a beauty contest.

Indeed, the ruling should be 9 – 0 to reverse the Sixth Circuit and allow same-sex couples to marry in all 50 states, given the fact it's incumbent upon all jurist to in good faith follow established, settled, and accepted precedent, in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law as enshrined in the 14th Amendment, where measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are clearly un-Constitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

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 .

Silhouette, you are delusional and/or you are a liar.

Nothing you say is actually the truth- at best you get close to half truths and misappropriations of facts.

 

[Syriusly]

Windsor cannot affirm the status quo of the "unquestioned authority" of the states to define marriage under the laser narrow question of gay marriage, doing that 56 times in 26 pages no less, and then turn around and provide you with the fodder you seek out of Windsor/Prop 8 Rulings to say that with no meritous decision on the lower court's determination that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, that somehow California was exempt from Windsor's findings on the states' role in determining who may or may not marry!

No where in the Windsor ruling does the court find that the State has the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. Not in any of your '56 times'. The court does however confirm that the State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees..

Nowhere in Windsor or any other Supreme Court Finding was it Found that gay marriage is a constitutionally-protected institution.

THEREFORE interim law goes by what the Supreme Court DID find constitutionally in Windsor: United States v. Windsor
.

subject to constitutional guarantees.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"It's the highest perversion of that federal Office which his held more stringently than any other court to an appearance of impartiality" is the biggest falsehood of the day.

Windsor left it open, and now SCOTUS will shut the door on you freaks, Sil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Its just you finally clueing in to the fact that you've been laughably, comically wrong about the USSC's take on same sex marriage bans."

Sil is far more than just comically wrong.

She is forever wrong.

 

[Skylar]

Windsor cannot affirm the status quo of the "unquestioned authority" of the states to define marriage under the laser narrow question of gay marriage, doing that 56 times in 26 pages no less, and then turn around and provide you with the fodder you seek out of Windsor/Prop 8 Rulings to say that with no meritous decision on the lower court's determination that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, that somehow California was exempt from Windsor's findings on the states' role in determining who may or may not marry!

No where in the Windsor ruling does the court find that the State has the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. Not in any of your '56 times'. The court does however confirm that the State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees..

Nowhere in Windsor or any other Supreme Court Finding was it Found that gay marriage is a constitutionally-protected institution.

Then you just conceded the point that the Windsor ruling doesn't doesn't find the States have any authority to violate constitutional guarantees. Ending your entire argument. As the basis of every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans is the violation of constitutional guaranteees.

Including the Alabama ruling. You can ignore constitutional guarantees, but your willful ignorance won't change a thing about any ruling. As the courts most definitely do recognize them. And protect them.

THEREFORE interim law goes by what the Supreme Court DID find constitutionally in Windsor: United States v. Windsor

You're hallucinating again. The Windsor court NEVER found that any state same sex marriage ban was constitutional. They didn't even mention same sex marriage bans. You've completely fabricated the entire claim from nothing. And you never been able to find a single instance where the courts found such bans constitutional in the entire Windsor ruling.

Worse for you, the court explicitly stated that all state marriage 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. "

Windsor v. US

And every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis of these very constitutional guarantees that Windsor affirms.....and you bizarrely pretend don't exist. Your willful ignorance makes neither the constitutional guarantees disappear, nor the federal rulings that protect them.

Page 17

"“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”


Page 18

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.”

Page 19

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.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). 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 inter-action with each other.

Exactly. And just as I said, there's not a single mention anywhere in the Windsor ruling where State marriage laws trump constitutional guarantees. While the Windsor court does find that the State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

You lose again.

I think they're just seeing how big of pussies the AGs of the forced-states will be in the face of all these stays. If the states got together and cited Thomas's dissent, the Court would be put on its heels and called out.

I think you're in naked denial. Thomas contradicts you. Scalia contradicts you. Roberts contradicts you. Every denial of stay contradicts you. Gay marriage in 37 states contradicts you. The Windsor ruling itself contradicts you. Constitutional guarantees contradict you.

And you ignore it all.

And....so what? You can imagine whatever pseudo-legal fantasy you'd like. Its completely irrelevant to the actual law, the actual courts, the actual rulings. As the gay marriages in Alabama today demonstrate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Windsor is not close ended.

That guts Sil's argument right there.

Nothing else matters.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they routinely officiated hetro weddings as well, but they don't do they. Hence demonstrated bias.

 

[Silhouette]

Nowhere in Windsor or any other Supreme Court Finding was it Found that gay marriage is a constitutionally-protected institution.

THEREFORE interim law goes by what the Supreme Court DID find constitutionally in Windsor: United States v. Windsor

Page 17

"“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

Page 18

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.”

Page 19

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.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). 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 inter-action with each other.

The consensus in California was to disallow gay marriage. The consensus in New York was to allow it. No SCOTUS Finding has been written that gays have a constitutionally-protected "right" to marry each other against the will of the state's sovereign authority they live in.

However, it was Found that any given state has the right to regulate marriage where the Constitution does not. And THAT is the INTERIM LAW until further notice.

Windsor was the "States' Authority on Marriage" affirmation Decision. It has yet to be overturned. It is therefore the binding law over all 50 states in the Union until They and THEY ALONE say differently..as a group...officially...on the merits.

I think they're just seeing how big of pussies the AGs of the forced-states will be in the face of all these stays. If the states got together and cited Thomas's dissent, the Court would be put on its heels and called out.

subject to constitutional guarantees.

Which have not been found yet for gay marriage, but HAVE been found for states to allow or not allow it..until SCOTUS tells us ON THE MERITS differently.

One-liner allusions to possibility in the future doesn't have the same weight as say page 19 of the Windsor Decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil's understanding of Windsor is very shallow and mostly mistaken.

 

[Skylar]

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.

It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they routinely officiated hetro weddings as well, but they don't do they. Hence demonstrated bias.

Nonsense. There can be no bias against same sex wedding bans......as there is no such ban in either Maryland or DC where the weddings were performed. Both states legislatively included same sex marriages into their definition of weddings.

Thus, there's no possible conflict of interest. And no plausible reason for anyone to recuse themselves.

 

[Skylar]

Nowhere in Windsor or any other Supreme Court Finding was it Found that gay marriage is a constitutionally-protected institution.

THEREFORE interim law goes by what the Supreme Court DID find constitutionally in Windsor: United States v. Windsor

Nope. Not even close. The Windsor ruling explicitly found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. Thus, any lower court that found that state gay marriage bans violated constitutional guarantees would be authorized by Windsor to overturn such bans. As virtually every federal court to hear challenges to same sex marriage bans did.

As long as state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees, your argument is already dead. As the 37 of 50 States with gay marriage demonstrate, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Page 17

"“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

Page 18

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.”

Page 19

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.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). 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 inter-action with each other.

Exactly. As I said, not a single mention anywhere in the WIndsor ruling of state marriage laws trumping constitutional guarantees. Its a point you've already conceded. Exactly as I said, the Windsor ruling found the exact opposite, that state marriage laws were 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.

Windsor v. US

Destroying your entire argument. As no State marriage laws has the power to violate constitutional guarantees. The Windsor court never ruled that gay marriage bans were constitutional, or even mentioned such bans. Thus, if any federal court finds that a state marriage ban violates constitutional guarantees, such a finding is perfectly consistent with the Windsor ruling which explicitly found that marriage laws were subject to those exact guarantees.

And every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of those exact constitutional guarantees.

Windsor was the "States' Authority on Marriage" affirmation Decision.

Nope. Windsor was a ruling on DOMA, a federal law. Not on the constitutional it any state law. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

It has yet to be overturned. It is therefore the binding law over all 50 states in the Union until They and THEY ALONE say differently..as a group...officially...on the merits.

Says you, citing yourself. You're contradicted by Roberts and Thomas, both who confirm that the Windsor ruling didn't decide if gay marriage bans were constitutional. You're contradicted by Scalia, who said that the Windsor ruling's rationale being used to overturn state gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'. And you're contradicted by 37 of 50 states with gay marriage, 26 of them via federal court ruling. You insist this could never happen.

History demonstrates it can. And has....26 times.

Its not that the entire federal court system is confused about what the Windsor decision means. Its just you who is comically clueless.

 

[Skylar]

Sil's understanding of Windsor is very shallow and mostly mistaken.

Notice how he won't touch Scalia's dissent with a 10 foot pole, ignoring it completely.

Despite Scalia confirming that the court's take on state gay marriage bans were 'beyond mistaking' and the court using the rationale of Windsor to overturn state gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'. Exactly opposite of what Silo claims Windsor 'really means'.

Yet when I ask him why any rational person would ignore Scalia on the meaning of Windsor and instead believe Silo........he just runs. Willful ignorance, it seems, is all that he's got left.