Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.

Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.

I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about

Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.

Oh, you're confused. I'm not debating the efficacy of same sex marriage with the posts you're responding to. I'm dismantling the ''activist judges' schtick. If it were merely 'activist judges', then we'd expect to see 1, maybe 2 such rulings.

Instead we see 44 of 46. With 95% of the rulings going in one direction. And one or two going the other. By any rational measure, the '1 or 2' would be judicial activists. The 44 of 46 would be judicial consensus.

Now if you'd like to discuss same sex marriage......different topic. And I'm totally down. Gay marriage bans lack a rational basis, they serve no legitimate state interest, and they serve no valid legislative end.

Failing the standards set in Romer v. Evans when assessing a given laws compatibility with the 14th amendment. Which might explain the 44 of 46 federal rulings finding the same thing.

Since when is a judges activism evaluated by how many other activist judges they are? Your reasoning, as usual, is myopic.

Its laughably implausible. As with each ruling contradicting you, your 'judicial activism' conspiracy must get more elaborate, more complex.

And of course, your conspiracy becomes more unlikely. 44 of 46 rulings, with a vast and heretofore secret legion of 'judicial activists' just happening to spontaneously crystallize around this one specific issue........with judicial consensus exceeding 95%? That's really your story?

Stop. Occam Time! Here's a much simple, much more plausible explanation; the anti gay marriage ground has a suck legal argument.

Your implausible conspiracy theory is simply unnecessary. As a poor legal argument would produce the same results and require no activism, nor a single 'spontaneous legion', none of the ludicrous degree of complexity....that is of course, utterly unsupported factually. You're leaning toward the stupidly complicated, comically elaborate conspiracy because despite it being one of the worst explanations imaginable.....because the alternative is recognizing that you're backing a poor legal argument.

Oh, and your stark refusal to discuss the efficacy of gay marriage did not go unnoticed.

 

[SwimExpert]

Since when is a judges activism evaluated by how many other activist judges they are? Your reasoning, as usual, is myopic.

Ah yes, the "everyone else is crazy and I'm the only sane person" defense.

 

[MaryL]

Ever read anything by Oliver Sacks? Author of Awakenings, Seeing voices, and my favorite, "The man that mistook his wife for a hat"? The mind is a powerful thing. And how it gets miss- wired , how diseases can effect mentality is telling. I believe homosexuality is a miss-wiring of the brain in the same way. It's not being judgmental, it's from a scientific standpoint.

 

[SwimExpert]

Windsor was a ruling where the courts place constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. I think June's ruling with affirm that constitutional guarantees still trump state marriage laws.

I think you're somewhat misrepresenting Windsor. The court did make a point to say that their decision should not be construed to impair states' power to legislate the matter. The issue before the court was whether the federal government could treat treat lawfully marries homosexual couples differently than similarly situated heterosexual couples. As Kennedy put it:

DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.

Kennedy's opinion, in many ways, is a deference to state rights.

 

[SwimExpert]

it's from a scientific standpoint.

And we await your scientific evidence with bated breath.

Just kidding, we know you're talking out of your ass.

 

[Skylar]

Windsor was a ruling where the courts place constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. I think June's ruling with affirm that constitutional guarantees still trump state marriage laws.

I think you're somewhat misrepresenting Windsor. The court did make a point to say that their decision should not be construed to impair states' power to legislate the matter. The issue before the court was whether the federal government could treat treat lawfully marries homosexual couples differently than similarly situated heterosexual couples. As Kennedy put it:

DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.

Kennedy's opinion, in many ways, is a deference to state rights.

Kennedy is certainly mindful of state rights in the Windsor decision. But he made himself remarkably clear that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States," Sosna v. Iowa,419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

Worse for your interpretation, every mention made by Kennedy about state power to define marriage......were in the affirmative of same sex marriage. Kennedy affirmed and reaffirmed the state's authority to authorize same sex marriage. Kennedy never once spoke of the state's authority to ban it.

And I really don't think I'm misreprenting the Windsor decision. 43 of 46 federal courts intepreted the Windsor decision the same way I did. With Scalia in his dissent stating that the court's position on state same sex marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking'. And that the application of the logic of the Windsor decision on state same sex marriage laws was 'inevitable'. And the application that Scalia described was in overturning such bans on the basis of individual rights.

When both those who agreed with Kennedy's ruling and those that opposed it come to the same conclusion on its meaning......its hard to argue that they're all wrong.

There's also Kennedy's actions *after* the Windsor ruling. With Kennedy's vote, the Court preserved every federal court ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans. Without exception. And the court refused stay by every state that tried to preserve those bans. Without exception.

 

[Syriusly]

Ever read anything by Oliver Sacks? Author of Awakenings, Seeing voices, and my favorite, "The man that mistook his wife for a hat"? The mind is a powerful thing. And how it gets miss- wired , how diseases can effect mentality is telling. I believe homosexuality is a miss-wiring of the brain in the same way. It's not being judgmental, it's from a scientific standpoint.

I have read Oliver Sacks- he is a brilliant neuroscientist. And he never said that homosexuality is a mental problem.

And why would he? Since Oliver Sacks- the brilliant neurologist- is also gay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.

Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.

I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about

Sounds like you ran out of arguments and all you got is several activist judges. You're at an emotional pitch over this. When the Supreme Court reverses their ruling, I hope you don't slip into a depression and take a bath with a toaster.

Oh, you're confused. I'm not debating the efficacy of same sex marriage with the posts you're responding to. I'm dismantling the ''activist judges' schtick. If it were merely 'activist judges', then we'd expect to see 1, maybe 2 such rulings.

Instead we see 44 of 46. With 95% of the rulings going in one direction. And one or two going the other. By any rational measure, the '1 or 2' would be judicial activists. The 44 of 46 would be judicial consensus.

Now if you'd like to discuss same sex marriage......different topic. And I'm totally down. Gay marriage bans lack a rational basis, they serve no legitimate state interest, and they serve no valid legislative end.

Failing the standards set in Romer v. Evans when assessing a given laws compatibility with the 14th amendment. Which might explain the 44 of 46 federal rulings finding the same thing.

Since when is a judges activism evaluated by how many other activist judges they are? Your reasoning, as usual, is myopic.

Nonsense.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from seeking to deny American citizens residing within the states equal access to state law dates back to well over 100 years:

“The Fourteenth Amendment extends its protection to races and classes, and prohibits any State legislation which has the effect of denying to any race or class, or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.” Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Consequently, the many Federal judges and Federal appellate courts that have correctly and in concert with the Constitution invalidated state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law have in no way engaged in 'judicial activism,' instead their holdings are consistent with the 14th Amendment and the precedent that is the Amendment's case law.

 

[JoeB131]

It wasn't "truly bizarre" for Sutton to have ruled consistent with Windsor. See post #213 for details...

No, actually, it was, because every other court read Windsor and struck down gay marriage bans.

Sutton was the outlier.

 

[Silhouette]

Sutton is the only one who got it right..

 

[Silhouette]

It wasn't "truly bizarre" for Sutton to have ruled consistent with Windsor. See post #213 for details...

No, actually, it was, because every other court read Windsor and struck down gay marriage bans.
Sutton was the outlier.

Then explain this in the Windsor Opinion on page 14:

"New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry"... http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

"Every other court" should be worried about a forced early retirement for trying to overrule SCOTUS from underneath. Sutton's 6th Circuit is the only one who got it right.

And should there be any lingering doubt about how many times the Court iterated that states were/are the ultimate authority on this question, reference this link for the 56 times they affirmed that in Windsor: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (quotes of the 56 times linked and page-referenced for easy verification..)

 

[JoeB131]

Sutton is the only one who got it right..

Uh, no, he didn't.

Guy, you need to learn how to deal. We will have gay marriage and the only place you'll be able to express your homophobia is on boards like this one.

 

[JoeB131]

"Every other court" should be worried about a forced early retirement for trying to overrule SCOTUS from underneath. Sutton's 6th Circuit is the only one who got it right.

And should there be any lingering doubt about how many times the Court iterated that states were/are the ultimate authority on this question, reference this link for the 56 times they affirmed that in Windsor: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (quotes of the 56 times linked and page-referenced for easy verification..)

61% now support gay marriage and big businesses are telling the Republicans to knock it the fuck off.

Gay marriage is coming. Deal with it.

 

[Silhouette]

61% now support gay marriage and big businesses are telling the Republicans to knock it the fuck off.

Gay marriage is coming. Deal with it.

I have no problem with the state by state consensus on gay marriage. And with 61% professed support and adamant zeal for your cause, it seems strange you would want to take the vote away from such a clear majority and force it on people by a federal mandate instead. See, your M.O. doesn't quite add up..ie: there is a de facto lack of confidence among your ranks about the veracity of your "everyone loves gay marriage" crafted-polling "data"..

...something is fishy in Denmark..

Could it be that the sting stii smarts after the same truckload of BS that you told people about California's "overwhelming support for gay marriage" in 2008 didn't quite pan out the way you thought? In fact, wasn't it a clear majority that wanted to preserve the millenial-old definition of marriage who won Prop 8?

In fact, in the most fruit and nut bowl state in the Union, a state which for all intents and purposes is ground-zero for gays, for decades now, gay marriage lost twice. The second being Prop 8 so very recently. And wasn't there just a recent scrap between two gay Italian designers and Elton John about the rift among gays themselves on preserving fathers and mothers for children instead of institutionalizing the lack of one of those to the detriment of kids?

Joe, I'll bet you had a father and mother in your life.

You see, smoke and mirrors works only sometimes. But at the end of the day, the election results on Prop 8 really ripped the veil off y'all's whole bag of potato chips. They always look so big and puffy, until you tear them open and look inside to find quite a paltry little pile way at the bottom.

 

[Silhouette]

Sutton is the only one who got it right..

Uh, no, he didn't.

Guy, you need to learn how to deal. We will have gay marriage and the only place you'll be able to express your homophobia is on boards like this one.

The real question is where will children express their angst over the institutionalized absence of either a mother or a father in their "married home"? Should we start a website in anticipation of that certain need?

 

[JoeB131]

I have no problem with the state by state consensus on gay marriage. And with 61% professed support and adamant zeal for your cause, it seems strange you would want to take the vote away from such a clear majority and force it on people by a federal mandate instead. See, your M.O. doesn't quite add up..ie: there is a de facto lack of confidence among your ranks about the veracity of your "everyone loves gay marriage" crafted-polling "data"..

...something is fishy in Denmark..

No, nothing at all. I simply don't think people should be denied rights becuase they have the bad luck to live in a state populated by knuckle-dragging inbreds who believe in a cosmic Jewish Zombie. I'm for shoving htat federal mandate up their asses and then yanking their tax exempt status if they bitch about it and charge them with a hate crime.

This isn't about just winning, guy, It's about TOTALLY CRUSHING YOU.

Because, quite honestly, after you homophobes inflicted a second round of George W. Stupid on us, you totally need to be crushed.

 

[JoeB131]

The real question is where will children express their angst over the institutionalized absence of either a mother or a father in their "married home"? Should we start a website in anticipation of that certain need?

I think you should be more worried about the 35% of children born out of wedlock or 50% of marriages that end in divorce than the 3% of people who might engage in gay marriage, but will have children anyway.

 

[Silhouette]

No, nothing at all. I simply don't think people should be denied rights becuase they have the bad luck to live in a state populated by knuckle-dragging inbreds who believe in a cosmic Jewish Zombie. I'm for shoving htat federal mandate up their asses and then yanking their tax exempt status if they bitch about it and charge them with a hate crime.

This isn't about just winning, guy, It's about TOTALLY CRUSHING YOU.

Because, quite honestly, after you homophobes inflicted a second round of George W. Stupid on us, you totally need to be crushed.

That's a weird display Joe. Because nobody is about TOTALLY CRUSHING HOMOSEXUALS. They just want them to not make depriving kids of both a mother and a father a federally-mandated closed-discussion.

I didn't vote republican in 2008, nor in any of the presidential cycles before that, except once for Ronald Reagan's first term *sigh*. I think Dubya is an idiot, his (Cheney's) policies were war crimes and Dubya's little brother is already exhibiting that "devil-may-care" ignorance and historical revisionism his older brother and quite frankly, family tradition for many many decades has dished out.

I'm a bit confused. How is it that gays have children together? I was under the impression that both males and females (fathers and mothers) are necessary for reproduction.. You're after institutionalizing the lack of either one of those parents?

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't vote republican in 2008, nor in any of the presidential cycles before that, except once for Ronald Reagan's first term *sigh*. I think Dubya is an idiot, his (Cheney's) policies were war crimes and Dubya's little brother is already exhibiting that "devil-may-care" ignorance and historical revisionism his older brother and quite frankly, family tradition for many many decades has dished out.

I'm a bit confused. How is it that gays have children together? I was under the impression that both males and females (fathers and mothers) are necessary for reproduction.. You're after institutionalizing the lack of either one of those parents?

Well, you are a bit confused. You seem to be swallowing the homophobic bullshit hook line and sinker.

But to the point, a child is more likely to be deprived of a parent by divorce or single motherhood than a gay family being able to adopt, or use surrogacy or artificial insemination to get a child. so instead of ranting about those things, you worry about this one case that probably isn't going to effect that many people.

 

[Skylar]

Sutton is the only one who got it right..

Then why did the courts preserve every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. But only put themselves in a position to overrule the ONE case that affirmed gay marriage bans?

If all of the 44 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans were invalid......then why didn't the USSC take any one of those cases and overturn them? Instead, the USSC meticulously preserved every single ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. And denied stays for every single state trying to defend such bans.

So much so that you completely lost your shit, had a rhetorical melt down and called for the Supreme Court to be impeached because of their 'shadow bias' against state gay marriage bans. You went completely hysteric, calling it the greatest betrayal of public office, "treason plain and simple', and tyranny by definition'

Treason. That's an executable offense. Strongly insinuating that you wanted the Supreme Court justices killed for denying these stays. Demonstrating elegantly that even YOU recognized what the denials of stays meant.

Face it.....the Supreme court did the exact opposite of what they would do if overturning gay marriage bans were wrong and in violation of the constitution. But exactly what they'd do if overturning gay marriage bans were right, and in accordance with the constitution.