Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses. In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.We are a nation of laws.Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.What law did they make? Statute pleaseThe surpreme court doesn't make laws. that's the legislative branch. That's legislating from the bench. They far overstepped their bounds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are a nation of laws.Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.What law did they make? Statute please
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are a nation of laws.Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are a nation of laws.The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
I really have to wonder if some of these people actually believe their own equine excrement or if it is just a sick game they play. One would have to be bat-shit crazy and delusional, or profoundly intellectually challenged to actually think they are right.
So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are a nation of laws.Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.
The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are a nation of laws.The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
Which law would that be?
Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses. In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.We are a nation of laws.Exactly. No law was passed by any legislature that this woman violated. I'm glad you see it too.What law did they make? Statute please
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The court overturned same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional. She was ordered by the governor of the State to issue the licenses. She refused, imposing her religion unconstitutionally on unwilling people.
She was checked. I suspect she'll go back to jail whenever a gay couple is denied a marriage license. And in her 'vacation', the license will be issued.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
You still haven't answered the question. What law did the clerk violate?
Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are a nation of laws.
We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
No governor can issue an executive order except to enforce an existing law. Courts do not make laws neither do governors.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
Faggots can't win every battle.
Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
Faggots can't win every battle.
Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.We are. And in our system of laws, the judiciary can overturn unconstitutional laws and protect the rights of individual citizens. They did so in Obergefell. All laws prohibiting same sex marriage are thus null and void.
You ignore this. Our nation of laws doesn't. And your willful ignorance doesn't magically change our nation of laws to suit your religious beliefs.
A governor can absolutely issue an order that mandates that clerks abide a court ruling. And the governor did.
Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. The governor does.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
Faggots can't win every battle.
Wrong. Even court orders must have basis in law. We are a nation of laws, not of men and their arbitrary commands.So you can't answer the question. I'll answer it for you. You can't keep people in jail unless they've broken a law.Incorrect. The SC does not have the power to make a clerk issue fag licenses.
The SC does have the power to rule that laws forbidding same sex marriage violate constitutional guarantees. And have. The ruling in question applies to the entire US. Including every county in Kentucky.
You claim it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. Remember, just because you ignore our system of laws doesn't mean it magically ceases to exist. Alas, the world doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.
In fact, a state can respond to the ruling by abolishing all state recognition of marriage altogether rendering ludicrous your claim that every clerk all across the country is bound by the ruling.
Kentucky did no such thing. Rendering even your hypothetical argument moot.
You can keep people in jail for contempt of court. And Kim Davis refused to abide a court order.
Again, your imaginary version of the law is gloriously irrelevant to the real world. As we're not bound to your pseudo-legal gibberish. We're bound to the actual system of laws that we have. Which includes court orders and contempt of court.
Ignore as you wish. Your willful ignorance and imagination has no effect nor point.
You lose. She's out because there was no legal mechanism to detain her.
Faggots can't win every battle.
They won this one old sport. They are getting married in Rowan County and if the drama queen tries to stop them her ass will be back in the slammer
What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it alreadyI almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.
I did see one case mentioned Baker v. Nelson
which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.
You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
The issue of Baker being a controlling precedent had been questionable for some time as it was from a prior era in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN, .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court. I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it alreadyYou never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?
The issue of Baker being a controlling precedent had been questionable for some time as it was from a prior era in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.
some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN, .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court. I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it alreadysome of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.
Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN, .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.
Your living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court. I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Equine excrement. You saidI don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it alreadyYour living in a by-gone fantasy world as all bigots are. A few dozen lower court brushed Baker aside or just ignored it and for good reason........
“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .
In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.
Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” Searching for Greater Freedom
archaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court. I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Equine excrement. You saidI don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it alreadyarchaic language is what the Constitution is. archaic language is what the Court derives its power from.......to dismiss archaic language is really to dismiss the reasoning for the courts.
To say that the mess of a decision in Romer v Evans makes Baker v. Nelson obsolete is pathetic. No person who tries to read through the muddle that that decision is comes away with any confidence in the logic of the court. I don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though...............if it didnt say it did, it wasn't claiming it did......
Lawrence v. Texas seems like it has more to do with the right to privacy among couples....that wasnt a concern in the gay marriage debate.
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Equine excrement. You saidI don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
What are you blathering about now?? It's stupid to be discussing Baker at this late date. Before Obergefell, the bigots continued to cling to it as there last pathetic hope despite the questionable applicability. Then Justice Kennedy SPECIFICALLY stated in the majority opinion that Baker is overturned. If you don't know that, look it up. Get over it already
look it up?! I pointed it out to YOU, from your "list of cases cited in support"..... indicating you didnt even read your own cut and paste post, or if you did, didn't understand it.
It's lack of citation in numerous pre-obergefell lower federal court rulings however shows,....just as the Valentines Day ruling, that the lower courts were ruling out of emotion rather than law.
Equine excrement. You saidI don't recall it saying it overturned Baker v. Nelson though.............
The facts as of now
1. Obergefell rules
2. Baker is history
I have better things to do than to have this stupid ass and pointless discussion
precedent is there to keep the court in line.......perhaps in the future other courts will ignore obergefell like the lower courts ignored Baker the last few years. ...the courts attitude toward Baker shows what a joke the federal judiciary is.
my initial post here had to do with the hypocrisy of the judicial system, you led us down this "pointless discussion".
Ridiculous! They can't ignore Obergefell like they ignored Baker. Baker was not actually reviewed It was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question" That procedusre is not even used anymore
While it was considered a binding precedent at the time , when dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[18] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[19]
- The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[20]
- The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[21]
- Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[22]
- Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Im not sure what all the above lawyer speak means.....................but I suggest it is just a fancy way of giving an excuse for court laziness and desire for a different outcome.
the failure even to mention it in numerous lower court opinions shows however that the above guidelines weren't even considered.
