Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[koshergrl]

If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?

If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?

One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.

When I got married in Norfolk VA in 1985, the only requirement was a blood test to make sure we were both healthy. Nothing else.

Can you provide a link showing states that require a full physical, or, if it's your state that does that, can you provide a link showing a full physical is required?

I don't think any of them do it anymore. This was an old requirement...a friend of my mother's had a huge tumor in her uterus discovered at her pre-marital physical. You used to have to show the clerk the doctor's statement when you applied for the license.

 

[Seawytch]

If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?

If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?

One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.

And for some couples in a few states, they must prove an INABILITY to procreate before a marriage license will be issued...completely blowing the "it's about kids" argument.

 

[Skylar]

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.

 

[Skylar]

If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?

If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?

One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.

When I got married in Norfolk VA in 1985, the only requirement was a blood test to make sure we were both healthy. Nothing else.

Can you provide a link showing states that require a full physical, or, if it's your state that does that, can you provide a link showing a full physical is required?

I don't think any of them do it anymore. This was an old requirement...a friend of my mother's had a huge tumor in her uterus discovered at her pre-marital physical. You used to have to show the clerk the doctor's statement when you applied for the license.

Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married. Making procreation a non-starter as a requirement for gays and lesbians.

Marriage has already evolved from the past. Marriage was an explicitly unequal relationship for most of history, ours included. Women were lesser partners. There was no uniform expectation of child support, no real alimony, no equal division of assets. In some states, women couldn't even petition for divorce.

In such a circumstance same sex marriage was incompatible with the concept of marriage. As same sex marriage would be a union of equals. And marriage was an inherently unequal relationship.

However, marriage has long since changed. Women are now equal partners in marriage. In property. In children. In everything. A heterosexual marriage now has the same characteristics as a same sex marriage.....a meeting of equals. And with that fundamental change to marriage there was no longer any valid reason to prevent same sex couples from joining.

 

[dcraelin]

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.

I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent. Well I do I guess, ignore Romer as it is unintelligible garbage. And that is not an emotional argument...thats just what most people who dont have a dog-in-the-fight so-to-speak would say.

Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments.....its emotion based outcome, that was crystal clear. Sutton too did not "misinterpret the clear message the court was sending" he correctly interpreted what little legal argument there was within the opinion, (basically Baker, i.e. no substantial federal question) , and showed how it did not permit Baker to be ignored, by lower courts especially.

 

[Skylar]

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.

I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.

Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.

You're not offering a legal argument.

The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

I think the final count was something like 48 to 3 in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. As Obergefell demonstrated.

Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments

The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here.

Your argument is so void of merit that you even have to ignore Scalia on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.

No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And for some couples in a few states, they must prove an INABILITY to procreate before a marriage license will be issued...completely blowing the "it's about kids" argument.

LOL! Not even close.

I have a hammer holding down some paperwork on my bench. That use of the hammer being distinct from its purpose, does not alter the purpose of the hammer, dumbass.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids ...

So what?

 

[dcraelin]

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.

I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.

Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.

You're not offering a legal argument.

The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

I think the final count was something like 48 to 3 in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. As Obergefell demonstrated.

Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments

The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here.

Your argument is so void of merit that you even have to ignore Scalia on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.

No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.

I didnt say I disliked the opening quote, I said it didn't fit with the majority opinion.In fact it fit better with the minority arguments.

from Wikipedia
Akhil Amar , a prominent law professor at Yale on Romer
The Constitution does not require that "special" antidiscrimination rights, once extended, irrevocably vest via some magic and antidemocratic one-way ratchet. And if Denver, Aspen, and Boulder can repeal these ordinances, presumably the Colorado legislature can repeal them by statute; and so too the people of Colorado can repeal them by state constitutional amendment (via initiative or referendum). To think otherwise is terminally silly.

also
The case, says law professor Evan Gerstmann, "has left the law of equal protection even murkier than before."

You are deliberately ...or perhaps incredibly stupidly, miss-characterizing what Scalia meant.

look here too "Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case". Los Angeles Times. ..which perhaps given his other idiotic opinions helps explain the garbled mess that Romer is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

b

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.

I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent. Well I do I guess, ignore Romer as it is unintelligible garbage. And that is not an emotional argument...thats just what most people who dont have a dog-in-the-fight so-to-speak would say.

Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments.....its emotion based outcome, that was crystal clear. Sutton too did not "misinterpret the clear message the court was sending" he correctly interpreted what little legal argument there was within the opinion, (basically Baker, i.e. no substantial federal question) , and showed how it did not permit Baker to be ignored, by lower courts especially.

It would appear that there will be no end to the wrangling about who is right with respect to constitutional law and issues such as the relevance of Baker. Let’s face these facts, while many of us have a better than average knowledge of the constitution, none of us here are constitutional scholars. (If I’m mistaken and someone actually is, please make that known) Secondly, we all have our biases and our interpretation of the constitution is shaped by those biases. Of course, that is no less true of the judges and the justices, although they are better disguising those biases through more sophisticated legal jargon and their knowledge of case law.

Therefore, I want to try a slightly different approach. My intention here is to expose Judge Sutton for the biased bigot that he is, not by attacking his legal theories, but by taking a long hard look at his illogical and nonsensical remarks about marriage and children. While there are other inane, subjective, and biased remarks such as his fear mongering about polygamy, I will just focus on the children for now.

As you read through these excerpts from the opinion, and my comments, be cognizant of Sutton’s underlying premise that bans on same sex marriage is not worthy of heightened scrutiny.

A link to the full text of the opinion is contained in this article:

Sixth Circuit: Now, a split on same-sex marriage

Posted Thu, November 6th, 2014 4:50 pm by Lyle Denniston

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the legal advocacy groups involved in the case, said “we will be filing for Supreme Court review right away.” Presumably, the other attorneys involved will coordinate their filings, although each case is likely to be appealed separately.

Breaking ranks with a wide array of other federal courts, and coming close to setting up almost certain review by the Supreme Court, a divided federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Thursday upheld bans on same-sex marriage in four states. Dividing two to one, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned lower-court rulings in cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Sixth Circuit: Now, a split on same-sex marriage

The discussion of marriage and children begins on pg. 29

……….One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse.

Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children.

Yes just imagine a world without marriage. And while you’re at it judge, try to imagine a world in which same sex couples cannot get married , many of whom have children in their care, who in the absence of marriage, may not be able to provide two legal parents to those children through third party adoption. Please explain why, when the government puts children at a disadvantage in such a way, that doing so is not worthy of heightened scrutiny. He goes on.....

May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children?

Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and raise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married. What exactly are you talking about judge? He also states....

Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can wellappreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them.

One way to pursue this objective is to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidiesand other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative.

Yes, the need to create stable families. That’s right judge. And we need those stable families to provide stability and security for all children, including the children of gay people whose existence you seem to be unable to acknowledge.

And you say that the way to pursue the creation of stable families is “to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidiesand other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means.” Again judge, gay people have children in their care, gay people will persist in acquiring children, even in the absence of their ability to marry, and those children are deserving of those “stable families” that you refer to. How the hell do laws that deprive children-any children of that stability not deserving of heightened scrutiny?

There is more

Gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of sharing such relationships. And gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of raising children and providing stable families for them. The quality of such relationships, and the capacity to raise children within them, turns not on sexual orientation but on individual choices and individual commitment.

Here judge, you are acknowledging the fact that same sex couples are capable of raising children and providing stable families for them. However, you are willing to undermine their ability to provide that stable family by denying them the ability to marry. That does not make any sense, either morally, logically or legally.

Then, on rational basis review:

But rational basis review does not permit courts to invalidate laws every time a new and allegedly better way of addressing a policy emerges, even a better way supported by evidence and, in the Michigan case, by judicial fact finding.

If legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,” What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g.,with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people whoprocreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring.

That does not convict theStates of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices toallow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning.

Judge, we are not talking about just any policy issue here. We are talking about a policy, about a law, that has a real material impact on human lives that is measurable and observable. Laws that the states have not been able to defend by articulating a rational basis for and it is doubtful that they could articulate a compelling interest either.


Now, judge, you refer to the Michigan case and “judicial fact finding” but you fail to go into much detail about that. Could it be that you want to avoid the reality that the “judicial fact finding” engaged in by the Michigan District court exposed the State of Michigan’s biased, dishonest and unethical attempt to convince the court that same sex marriage should be banned in order to protect children? For those who don’t know, the state of Michigan, out of desperation to protect the gay marriage ban, hired a fraud and a charlatan who presented a bogus study on gay parenting, that was discredited in court.


Judge, is that why you decry “judicial fact finding.” I will add that the “empirical evidence that you refer to overwhelmingly supports the validity of parenting by gay couples and the values of marriage to those couples and families, you the legislature, that you prefer as the “policy maker” failed to act on that data. ( I have ample documentation of all of this-much of which I have already posted and will be happy to do so again)


Lastly, in this passage, you again refer to “procreation” and talk about how gay people do not procreate in the same way as heterosexuals. Except judge, many heterosexuals-where one or both cannot have a child in the” usual way” do in fact procreate or otherwise have children EXACTLY like gay couples to. And why, may I ask, should the state not be providing the same incentives for gay couples as for straight couples to procreate and maintain a family? Because only straight couples may have “unintended offspring”? What sense does that make? The issue is not why we should encourage anyone to marry buy why we should prohibit certain people from marrying. Do you not understand that when it comes to the denial of a right, that the burden of proof is on the state to justify it ? Do you not know those seeking rights need not prove that they deserve the same rights as others?


And from Pg 34

The debate over marriage of course has another side, and we cannot deny the costs to the
plaintiffs of allowing the States to work through this profound policy debate. The traditional
definition of marriage denies gay couples the opportunity to publicly solemnize, to say nothing
of subsidize, their relationships under state law. In addition to depriving them of this status, it
deprives them of benefits that range from the profound (the right to visit someone in a hospital as
a spouse or parent) to the mundane (the right to file joint tax returns). These harms affect not
only gay couples but also their children. Do the benefits of standing by the traditional definition of marriage make up for these costs? The question demands an answer—but from elected legislators, not life-tenured judges.

Here again Judge, you are acknowledging that fact that children are harmed by discrimination against the parents. However, you fall back on the well worn tact of those who really want to maintain the status quo, who really want same sex marriage to not happen at all, but don’t want to admit that. Hence the mantra “leave it to the states” and “leave it to the law makers”

Judge, Michigan and far too many other states are decades away from bringing social justice to those children who you purport to care about. As proof, even as we speak, Michigan and a number of other states are attempting to enact legislation to circumvent Obergefell by removing marriage from the government purview altogether, despite the many thorny legal issues that it raises, including the unknown effect that it would have on recognition by the federal government and other states.

Judge, do you not understand that when the state does not uphold the constitution, that it is a basic tenant of our Constitutional Republic, that the Federal Judiciary has a responsibility to step in and ensure the rights of all people?


This all amounts to nothing more than an emotional rant, wrought with logical fallacies and bizarre assumptions about gays , parenting, and family life. If he is capable of going off the rails to that extent just on the subject of parenting, we should anyone believe or expect that his legal analysis of Baker’s applicability, or anything else is more rational and objective. It is quite clear that Sutton’s agenda was to find ways of justifying his siding with the states and that he began with the conclusion that the bans on gay marriage must be upheld, and proceeded to construct his argument around that preconceived idea.

 

[dcraelin]

your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic. What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature. I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.

I will start tho to wade through your arguments.

may not be able to provide two legal parents to those children through third party adoption. Please explain why, when the government puts children at a disadvantage in such a way, that doing so is not worthy of heightened scrutiny. He goes on.....

this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny. It certainly doesn't point to a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.

Do gay man and lesbians not have “procreative urges”? Do they not desire to be parents and to have the opportunity to nurture and rise children? Is parental responsibility no also an issue among heterosexual individuals and couples? Judge, are you alluding to the well-worn and bigoted view that only heterosexual couples need to get married because they are the only ones who have children “spontaneously” ? Are heterosexuals the only people who encounter custody and parental rights issues-that –by the way-are often exacerbated by not being married. What exactly are you talking about judge? He also states....

Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges. You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.

Now, judge, you refer to the Michigan case and “judicial fact finding” but you fail to go into much detail about that. Could it be that you want to avoid the reality that the “judicial fact finding” engaged in by the Michigan District court exposed the State of Michigan’s biased, dishonest and unethical attempt to convince the court that same sex marriage should be banned in order to protect children?

Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue " legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”

Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding. It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters. You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.

Do you not understand that when it comes to the denial of a right, that the burden of proof is on the state to justify it

Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.

Michigan and a number of other states are attempting to enact legislation to circumvent Obergefell by removing marriage from the government purview altogether

Good, I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with. It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.

Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.

 

[Skylar]

Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids ...

So what?

So any talk about 'procreation' as a standard of marriage has no legal leg to stand on. The requirement doesn't exist.

 

[Skylar]

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.

I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.

Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.

You're not offering a legal argument.

The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

I think the final count was something like 48 to 3 in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. As Obergefell demonstrated.

Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments

The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here.

Your argument is so void of merit that you even have to ignore Scalia on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.

No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.

I didnt say I disliked the opening quote, I said it didn't fit with the majority opinion.In fact it fit better with the minority arguments.

You gave the opening sentence as your justification for ignoring the ruling. Just as you ignored Lawrence. Just as you ignored Windsor. And you ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument.

Nor does your ignoring these rulings have any relevance to a lower court citing them. Romer still exists and still applies. Its still binding precedent. And while you're utterly confounded by the ruling, incapable of understanding it......the rest of us aren't similarly hampered.

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

Because you can't comprehend any of that doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to ignore such binding precedent.

Your personal opinion has no bearing on the validity of their rulings. They're REQUIRED to abide Romer. And Lawrence. And Windsor. That you don't like the rulings or don't understand them is gloriously irrelevant to that requirement.

Citing binding precedent of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor when they they are required to follow isn't 'lazy'. Ignoring all binding precedent in favor of a 1 sentence denial of cert from 1972?

That's lazy.

 

[bodecea]

Not one. No one in any state is required to have kids ...

So what?

Exactly. So anyone making a claim that marriage is about procreation ergo gays can't legally marry because we cannot "naturally" procreate is a meaningless argument.

 

[dcraelin]

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

And when you speak of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor....its to tell us why you're ignoring them. Feel free. But that's not a legal argument. That's an emotional one. One that I'm sure Silo responds to. But one that has no relevance to the law.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic....is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

I never said that Scalia agreed with the majority. I said that Windsor was crystal clear and that even Scalia could see that. The lower courts are to interpret the law in accordance with existing precedent. Sutton largely dismissed Windsor, misinterpreted the clear message the court was sending, and came to faulty conclusions that were ultimately unconstitutional.

Making your reliance on his argument all the more nonsensical. As he was obviously wrong.

I did not ignore them per se, but showed how they are irrelevant to the argument at hand...especially as the lower courts used them as an excuse for striking down existing law, and binding precedent.

Oh, you ignored each and every one of them. One because you didn't like the opening quote. And you didn't 'show' anything. You merely typed a claim. Which I refuted with actual quotes from the rulings. When faced with the actual quotes, the actual ruling......you complained about how long my post was.

You're not offering a legal argument.

The lower courts aren't supposed to ignore precedent, they're supposed to follow it. And Romer, Lawrence and Windsor pointing at a pretty obvious conclusion. One so obvious that virtually every court to rule on the topic came to the same conclusion: that same sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

I think the final count was something like 48 to 3 in favor of overturning same sex marriage bans. And the overwhelming majority of lower court rulings were right. As Obergefell demonstrated.

Scalia would not say Windsor was crystal clear either...and least not it legal arguments

The exact words he used were 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. There's no real wiggle room here.

Your argument is so void of merit that you even have to ignore Scalia on how obvious and clear Windsor was. In addition to ignoring Windsor itself, Romer, Lawrence, and virtually every lower court ruling to rule on the topic.

No rational person would. Sutton tried....and the USSC slapped him down because he was obviously wrong.

I didnt say I disliked the opening quote, I said it didn't fit with the majority opinion.In fact it fit better with the minority arguments.

You gave the opening sentence as your justification for ignoring the ruling. Just as you ignored Lawrence. Just as you ignored Windsor. And you ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument.

Nor does your ignoring these rulings have any relevance to a lower court citing them. Romer still exists and still applies. Its still binding precedent. And while you're utterly confounded by the ruling, incapable of understanding it......the rest of us aren't similarly hampered.

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

Because you can't comprehend any of that doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to ignore such binding precedent.

Your personal opinion has no bearing on the validity of their rulings. They're REQUIRED to abide Romer. And Lawrence. And Windsor. That you don't like the rulings or don't understand them is gloriously irrelevant to that requirement.

Citing binding precedent of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor when they they are required to follow isn't 'lazy'. Ignoring all binding precedent in favor of a 1 sentence denial of cert from 1972?

That's lazy.

You gave the opening sentence as your justification for ignoring the ruling.

well in a way, It is a quote from a justice who I am convinced would disagree with the opinion, and which fits closer to the reasoning of the dissents.....so it's use shows lack of logic on the part of the writer. Which is in part why I can bash the opinion as absurd.

And while you're utterly confounded by the ruling, incapable of understanding it......the rest of us aren't similarly hampered.

I showed you other prominent law professors who disagree and are also confounded by the opinion...but you are so so much smarter then them on legal stuff.

hey're REQUIRED to abide Romer. And Lawrence. And Windsor. That you don't like the rulings or don't understand them is gloriously irrelevant to that requirement.

They ARE required to abide by Romer, and Lawrence, and Windsor, I agree .....which does not conflict with abiding by Baker,......which dealt directly with the question at hand in these cases that led to obergefell.

 

[Silhouette]

Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.

THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Well in a way, It is a quote from a justice who I am convinced would disagree with the opinion, and which fits closer to the reasoning of the dissents.....so it's use shows lack of logic on the part of the writer. Which is in part why I can bash the opinion as absurd.

Not 'in a way'. You straight up ignored Romer and its very clear language on discrimination against gays.

Ignoring binding legal precedent isn't a legal argument. Especially when we're talking about lower court rulings that neither know of your arbitrary dismissal of all binding precedent that you don't like.......and care even less.

The lower courts are required to use precedent of the Supreme Court. And the court made its position on same sex marriage bans ludicrously clear in Windsor. With the foundation for those findings in Romer and Lawrence.

That you ignore all such rulings changes nothing.

I showed you other prominent law professors who disagree and are also confounded by the opinion...but you are so so much smarter then them on legal stuff.

And I showed you numerous lower court rulings who found Romer to be immediately relevant. Including the Supreme Court itself which cited Romer in the Windsor decision. Emphasizing its importance and its findings.

Which makes your abitrary dismissal of all lower court rulings citing it, all USSC rulings citing it, and the ruling itself all the more useless.

As your dismissal has no relevance to its legal validity. That you don't like Romer is meaningless in terms of it being binding precedent. And is even more meaningless in the lower court's citation of it.

Your personal opinion v. binding legal precedent has the same winner every time. Not you.

They ARE required to abide by Romer, and Lawrence, and Windsor, I agree .....which does not conflict with abiding by Baker,......which dealt directly with the question at hand in these cases that led to obergefell.

Baker was a one sentence denial of cert from 40 years ago. None of the legal precedent laid out in Romer, Lawrence or Windsor existed when that one sentence was written. And the precedent on the matter that has come since changed the legal landscape dramatically.

You ignored them all in favor of a denial of cert. You were just plain wrong. But even Scalia makes it clear that the court's position was beyond mistaking. Virtually every court to rule on the matter affirms as much. And the Obergefell ruling is the cherry on the top of you not knowing what you're talking about.

Its not Scalia, almost all lower courts and the Supreme Court that was wrong on Windsor. Its just you.

 

[Skylar]

Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.

THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your proposal helps no child. And hurts 10s of thousands. Nixing your argument yet again.

 

[dcraelin]

Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.

THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Not sure what your getting at here, ? you link me to a whole discussion thread?

 

[Silhouette]

Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.

THIS is why > States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Not sure what your getting at here, ? you link me to a whole discussion thread?

No, to the OP. Read it. It answers your question perfectly and should clear up any confusion you had about why states give tax breaks to married men and women.