Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

He did back it up. You are incapable of understanding, but that's not a reflection on him.

care to show us where??

 

[asaratis]

I see you missed the point too. God forgives all sin. Kim doesn't need YOUR forgiveness at all. I doubt she expects it. So your lack of forgiveness is meaningless.

..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....

Yes, I did. And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages. What is your point?

Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.

Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made. At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.

I'll be waiting....in the wings.

There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.

So you lied to the readers when you said I did 180.

You should stick to using facts regarding what I said or didn't say in a post.

A good debater doesn't have to lie to win a point. I know it's very comforting for you bed-wetters to compliment each other after misrepresenting what someone else said that may have been construed as being against your cause. It is expected. After all, small minded people gotta stick together.

BTW, what do you want to be when you grow fucking up?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Kim Davis ordeal reveals a frightening truth about a desperate, radicalized Christian right The Kim Davis ordeal reveals a frightening truth about a desperate, radicalized Christian right

The saga of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail for a weekend rather than sign off on same-sex marriage certificates, might seem like it’s a last gasp for the anti-gay right; an attempt to eke out some kind of victory after having lost their two-decade fight against same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, though, Davis’s behavior isn’t just a bratty tantrum. This whole incident is also a sign of a troubling development in the religious right: As their cultural power declines in the face of growing diversity and liberalism, religious conservatives are embracing scary levels of radicalism. They don’t have the numbers anymore, so they are turning to scarier and more radical demands to seize power in any way that they can.

......she’s being used by her legal team and other religious right leaders to spread the idea that religious conservatives are entitled to ignore — or even overthrow — democracy and seize power just because they feel like it.

Some supporters, like Ryan Anderson of the New York Times, are claiming that Davis wants an “accommodation” for her religious beliefs. This is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Davis was offered just such an accommodation and told that she doesn’t have to personally issue the licenses so long as her deputies were allowed to do so. She declined that compromise, insisting that she be able to actually prevent same-sex couples from getting licenses in her county altogether.

It’s not just her, either. Rena Lindevaldsen, who works for the Liberty Counsel that is handling Davis’s case, has taken to boldly arguing that Christians have the right to overthrow the democratically elected government and simply impose their will by fiat. “Whether it’s zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn’t have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they’re contrary to Scripture,” Lindevaldsen recently argued in front of Liberty University.

Some religious right leaders are, in fact, making noises that sound very much like justifying the use of violent force in order to overturn the social progress brought upon the U.S. from the democratic system. “No one should want it and no one, myself included, does want it,” conservative pundit Erick Erickson argued in an op-ed about the Davis case. “But how much longer until we have another civil war?”

 

[dcraelin]

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

 

[Seawytch]

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

 

[Vandalshandle]

..and yet, you posted the above words in bold.....

Yes, I did. And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages. What is your point?

Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.

Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made. At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.

I'll be waiting....in the wings.

There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.

So you lied to the readers when you said I did 180.

You should stick to using facts regarding what I said or didn't say in a post.

A good debater doesn't have to lie to win a point. I know it's very comforting for you bed-wetters to compliment each other after misrepresenting what someone else said that may have been construed as being against your cause. It is expected. After all, small minded people gotta stick together.

BTW, what do you want to be when you grow fucking up?

Look, Asarat. First you whined that liberals would forgive hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages before we would forgive a homely woman of god. Then I asked you if Kim needs liberals' forgiveness. Then you replied that I missed the point. She doesn't need our forgiveness. Then, I said, that you are now doing a 180 turn by saying that your previous whining about liberals not forgiving Kim doesn't even matter, since only god's forgiveness. matters.

So, Asarat, THAT is your 180 degree turn. First, we are terrible for not forgiving her, and then we don't understand that it doesn't matter if we don't forgive her. Now, Please try to stay up. There may be a pop quiz at any time. Also, there are many conservatives in the remedial logic classes, here, and I can not spend all my time tutoring only you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

First of all, the fact that Kegan and Ginsberg presided over same sex wedding in no way proves that they disregarded the law. That is just a logical fallacy in the form of a false and unwarranted assumption.

Second of all, listen to the ranting of Scalia:

Scalia's dissent in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which officially made marriage equality the law of the land, runs for eight pages, but amounts largely to a big, arms-crossed "harumph." Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think

"I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.

He does not believe in the authority of the Supreme Court

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best."

And...

No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."

Where are his "legal underpinnings? He is just ranting .......and this....

Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

I have to wonder what his marriage is like. Thomas' dissent was even more bizarre:

Clarence Thomas invokes comparison to slavery in raging gay-marriage dissent
Clarence Thomas dissent in gay-marriage case - Business Insider

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Roberts dissent was more measured and less hysterical but focused on the "democratic process" as though an issue of civil rights should be left to the people and as though nation wide same sex marriage would have ever come about in most of our lifetimes had it been left to the people.

 

[Skylar]

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

Who says that the 2 justices 'could care less what the law said'? Both Ginsberg and Kagan performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage had been voted in legislatively. Something that the Windsor decision found that the States had every power to do.

If they'd performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage was NOT legal, you might have a point. But performing a same sex marriage where it WAS legal is perfectly in accordance with existing precedent at the time. And acting in accordance with precedent isn't telegraphing that they 'could care less what the law said'.

Their actions were in perfect accordance with the law.

 

[dcraelin]

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

Who says that the 2 justices 'could care less what the law said'? Both Ginsberg and Kagan performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage had been voted in legislatively. Something that the Windsor decision found that the States had every power to do.

If they'd performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage was NOT legal, you might have a point. But performing a same sex marriage where it WAS legal is perfectly in accordance with existing precedent at the time. And acting in accordance with precedent isn't telegraphing that they 'could care less what the law said'.

Their actions were in perfect accordance with the law.

was it or was it not, a federal question?,....a substantial federal question? ....you cant have it both ways...... I can however....because I say regardless it was an issue before the court.............no it probably wasnt illegal.......but it showed poor form, unbecoming of a judge.

 

[Skylar]

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.

read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.

The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course, every other Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:

"The Casey decision again confirmed

[574]

that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision inBowers would deny them this right."

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words. It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.

Nope. Romer is quite clear:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans

That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker. no substantial federal question.

Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':

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.

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.

 

[dcraelin]

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced., second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

 

[Skylar]

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

Who says that the 2 justices 'could care less what the law said'? Both Ginsberg and Kagan performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage had been voted in legislatively. Something that the Windsor decision found that the States had every power to do.

If they'd performed same sex marriages where same sex marriage was NOT legal, you might have a point. But performing a same sex marriage where it WAS legal is perfectly in accordance with existing precedent at the time. And acting in accordance with precedent isn't telegraphing that they 'could care less what the law said'.

Their actions were in perfect accordance with the law.

was it or was it not, a federal question?

That same sex marriages could be performed in states that voted in same sex marriage? That wasn't a question before the court in Obergefell. Windsor had already ruled that the States could include same sex marriage if they wished.

Making Kagan and Ginsberg's actions in accordance with both legal precedent and local laws. And flushing your argument that performing such marriages telegraphed that they 'could care less what the law said'.

 

[Skylar]

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced.

Says you. Our systems of laws says otherwise. Again, we don't base the validity of an amendment's passage on your personal opinion. Making your opinion on the matter legally irrelevant.

Worse, the 14th amendment was passed in the same manner as the 13th. Does that mean you that you don't believe slavery was forbidden in the US? And since the children of slaves were the property of the owners of their parents, are you arguing that most black folks in the US are still owned property?

If not, why not?

, second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

The 14th amendment never limits itself to race. But instead applies to 'all people'. And applied to 'citizens of the United States'. The word 'race' never even appears in the 14th amendment. With the only mention of slaves being in reference to the public debt.

We're clear on your opinion. Its simply poorly founded.

 

[dcraelin]

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.

read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.

The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course, every other Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:

"The Casey decision again confirmed

[574]

that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision inBowers would deny them this right."

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words. It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.

Nope. Romer is quite clear:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans

That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker. no substantial federal question.

Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':

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.

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.

like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. that was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.

 

[dcraelin]

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced.

Says you. Our systems of laws says otherwise. Again, we don't base the validity of an amendment's passage on your personal opinion. Making your opinion on the matter legally irrelevant.

Worse, the 14th amendment was passed in the same manner as the 13th. Does that mean you that you don't believe slavery was forbidden in the US? And since the children of slaves were the property of the owners of their parents, are you arguing that most black folks in the US are still owned property?

If not, why not?

, second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

The 14th amendment never limits itself to race. But instead applies to 'all people'. And applied to 'citizens of the United States'. The word 'race' never even appears in the 14th amendment. With the only mention of slaves being in reference to the public debt.

We're clear on your opinion. Its simply poorly founded.

the 14th was not passed in the same manner as the 13th...the 14th was voted against initially and some states had to "reconsider"

It is common sense who the 14th applied to. Why werent women included then???? if you are right.

I've argued all this with you before......it is apparent you have enough doubts yourself that you feel you have to keep making the same old points again and again....

I urge others who may not have their minds made up by a bias on the question to read Sutton's opinion out of the 6th circuit...he covers far more ground than the other lower court opinions.

read Thomas''s dissent in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission to see the hypocrisy of the 5 justices who ruled in obergefell and then turned around and affirmed democracy (thankfully) in Arizona.

and then I have some good to say for Sotomayer, her partial dissent in the prop 8 case (name?) shows her to be partially on the right path and the dignity she showed in not presiding over a gay wedding in the run-up to these cases shows the proper decorum for a judge.

 

[Skylar]

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.

read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.

The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course, every other Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:

"The Casey decision again confirmed

[574]

that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision inBowers would deny them this right."

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words. It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.

Nope. Romer is quite clear:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans

That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker. no substantial federal question.

Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':

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.

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.

like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.

You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.

Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t

Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.

Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.

You are simply wrong.

hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......

Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.

Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.

Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.

You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless

 

[Skylar]

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

gee, 4 SC justices basically agree that there are no legal, logical underpinnings.........2 of those SC justices that ruled in the majority, couldn't have cared less what the law said, as they telegraphed when they presided over same sex marriages.

now, you have added nothing to the argument for quite a while....I dont suspect I'll reply to further postings by you.

The majority cited both the "legal and logical underpinnings" in their majority decision.

Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Baker v. Nelson overturned.

The 14th Amendment is your "legal and logical underpinnings"

I have argued this to death.............but to begin with the 14th wasnt legally passed, it was coerced.

Says you. Our systems of laws says otherwise. Again, we don't base the validity of an amendment's passage on your personal opinion. Making your opinion on the matter legally irrelevant.

Worse, the 14th amendment was passed in the same manner as the 13th. Does that mean you that you don't believe slavery was forbidden in the US? And since the children of slaves were the property of the owners of their parents, are you arguing that most black folks in the US are still owned property?

If not, why not?

, second it dealt with race and former slaves, as evidenced by common sense and the fact that women couldnt use it to get the right to vote. 3rd some of these cases have come to the courts through ex parti Young...a corrupt bit of federal court BS in itself. and on and on

The 14th amendment never limits itself to race. But instead applies to 'all people'. And applied to 'citizens of the United States'. The word 'race' never even appears in the 14th amendment. With the only mention of slaves being in reference to the public debt.

We're clear on your opinion. Its simply poorly founded.

the 14th was not passed in the same manner as the 13th...the 14th was voted against initially and some states had to "reconsider"

It is common sense who the 14th applied to.

Its 'common sense' that its limited to a group that it doesn't even mention? I don't think common sense means what you think it means.

Your entire argument is again based on uselessly subjective self defined terms. Again, the 14th amendment doesn't even mention the criteria of exclusion you insist it is bound to.

I've argued all this with you before......it is apparent you have enough doubts yourself that you feel you have to keep making the same old points again and again...

You argued that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to subject the States to the Bill of Rights. You were obviously wrong.

I've quoted Bingham introducing the 14th amendment on the floor of the House explicitly stating that it was to apply the BIll of Rights to the States. I've quoted Howard to you on the Senate Floor introducing the 14th amendment, reading the Bill of Rights amendment by amendment, stating that the applying the Bill or Rights to the States is the purpose of the 14th amendment.

You ignored them both in favor of what you 'believe'. And your 'belief' is still just as objectively meaningless now as it was then. On the 14th amendment, Lawrence, Romer, Windsor and Obergefell.

Your entire argument is circular. Where you believe what you believe because you believe it. Enjoy your circle. Its not persuasive.

I urge others who may not have their minds made up by a bias on the question to read Sutton's opinion out of the 6th circuit...he covers far more ground than the other lower court opinions.

Sutton never argues that the 14th amendment only applies to race. I urge you to come up with a cohesive argument rather than this rambling, self contradictory mess. Where your own sources don't affirm your claims. And you have to ignore virtually every USSC ruling on the topic for the last 20 years.

Randomly ignoring the Supreme Court isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one.

 

[Debra K]

Ms. Davis's counsel has been busy ... filed emergency motion with the 6th Circuit to stay the District Court's "September 3, 2015, Injunction Order" pending appeal (244 pages).

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...-motion-stay090315injunctionpendingappeal.pdf

See also: Kentucky Clerk Asks For Order Allowing All Couples To Marry To Be Put On Hold

In a new request to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Davis’s lawyers took aim Friday at a Sept. 3 ruling from Bunning that expanded the Aug. 12 ruling to include “other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.”

 

[Skylar]

Ms. Davis's counsel has been busy ... filed emergency motion with the 6th Circuit to stay the District Court's "September 3, 2015, Injunction Order" pending appeal (244 pages).

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...-motion-stay090315injunctionpendingappeal.pdf

See also: Kentucky Clerk Asks For Order Allowing All Couples To Marry To Be Put On Hold

In a new request to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Davis’s lawyers took aim Friday at a Sept. 3 ruling from Bunning that expanded the Aug. 12 ruling to include “other individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.”

She's using Dcrealin's legal logic. That she 'feels' that the something wasn't precise. So it should be ignored.

Lets see how works for her.

 

[dcraelin]

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.

read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.

The opinion of the 6th was overturned by the Supreme Court. Read their ruling to see why you were wrong.

And of course, every other Circuit Court district to rule on the matter contradicted the 6th. Demonstrating that the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings contradict you and that the Supreme Court contradicts you. And as Scalia's dissent (which you still haven't read) as well as almost all lower court rulings within the Circuit Court Districts demonstrate, the court clearly communicated its stance on state same sex marriage marriage bans in Windsor. With Obergefell confirming the same after these rulings.

Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

I get that you believe that. But your belief neither defines the ruling nor any lower court ruling that uses it. None of the lower courts based their rulings on you belief nor were aware of it at the time of their rulings. Making your belief pristintely irrelevant to any discussion of any ruling.

Second, Lawrence was about more than merely privacy. It was about constitutional protections for personal decisions. Which the court explicitly indicated included marriage:

"The Casey decision again confirmed

[574]

that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision inBowers would deny them this right."

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence laid the constitutional framework for the protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Including marriage. Which is far more than merely 'privacy'. You simply ignore the portions of Lawrence that don't conform to your opinion.

Neither we nor any lower court is similarly obligated to ignore what you do.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words. It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.

Nope. Romer is quite clear:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer v. Evans

That you can neither decipher nor comprehend such statements doesn't change the fact that pretty much every lower court could. As can almost every native speaker of English.

You summarily ignoring Romer because you didn't like the opening quote or didn't understand the ruling doesn't change a thing about its status as binding precedent. Or its relevance in any court ruling involving the rights of gays and lesbians that came after it.

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker. no substantial federal question.

Windsor doesn't agree with Baker. As it indicates that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. It also established, in elaborate detail, the very real harms that same sex couples and their children were subject to by denial of marriage rights. And how the denial of marriage rights infringes upon the dignity of same sex couples. Windsor never finds that there is 'no substantial federal question'. But in fact finds that DOMA violates the federal constitution.

And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans. Even Scalia found the court's communication of its opinion on the topic 'beyond mistaking':

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.

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable' aren't subtle interpretations of the clarity of Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans. You insist that any judge who similarly came to this conclusion after reading Windsor was 'lazy'. I (and Scalia) argue that Windsor communicated its message on state same sex marriage bans clearly. A position that almost all lower court rulings came to. An argument that the Obergefell decision obviously affirms.

Yet bizarrely, and in defiance of all reason......you insist that every lower court should have discounted Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, and instead based their rulings solely on a once sentence denial of a cert from 1972?

Um, no. That's simple nonsense. As the Obergefell ruling demonstrates elegantly.

like I said before...you could use a lesson in clarity and BREVITY from Baker!!!

Or.....you could just stop ignoring the overwhelming binding precedent that contradicts you. Remember, just because your understanding of the issue is one sentence long and 40 years old doesn't mean that Lawrence, Romer and Windsor disappear.

You've been contradicted on Lawrence. It was about far more than merely privacy but includes protection of homosexuals in choices central to personal dignity and autonomy. Which included marriage. You've been contradicted on Romer. It was quite clear, and explicitly forbids laws targeting homosexuals in the denial of rights. And you've been contradicted on Windsor. It holds that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional protections and lays out the harm caused to same sex couples and their children in denying them marriage.

Given that you won't discuss any of these points, I'll accept that as concession on each.

you said "And of course the court communicates its position on same sex marriage so clearly in the Windsor decision that virtually every lower court to rule on same sex marriage after Windsor ruled against same sex marriage bans."

NO one really believes it was Windsors clarity or logic etc. t

Says you, claiming to speak for 'no one'. Which is objectively meaningless.

Windsor's take on state same sex marriage bans was clear. As demonstrated by virtually every lower court ruling on the topic, Scalia's dissent and by the Obergefell ruling itself.

You are simply wrong.

hat was the reason lower courts ruled as they did ( except Sutton's opinion in the 6th which was well reasoned) It was merely the emotional position of the lower courts, as shown by the Valentine's Day opinion......

Again, your standard of 'well reasoned' is merely agreement with your personal opinion. That's a circular argument. As you base your opinion on only those rulings that agree with your opinion. The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity.

Meanwhile, virtually every lower court to rule on the topic contradicted you. As did the Supreme Court itself with the Obergefell ruling. Its not that they are all wrong. Its that you are.

They may have been given some clarity on the SCs positon though by the gay-wedding presiding of Ginsberg and Kagan.

Or.....by actually reading the ruling. Remember, Ginsberg and Kagan acted in perfect accordance with both precedent and local laws when presiding over legal same sex marriages.

You're insinuating that they did something improper or ignored some law. But you can't actually articulate anything wrong that that they did or show us any law they ignored or violated. You're arguing by insinuation. Which, like basing legal validity on your personal opinion, is meaningless

this is a discussion board.....we are meant to discuss and argue on it....... to say such inane things as"The obvious problem being....your opinion is legally meaningless. And doesn't form the basis of any ruling, nor establish any legal validity." which you do over and over again is just stupid.......

of course kagan and Ginsberg didnt do anything technically illegal, never said they did.