Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Skylar]

Then why did they reiterate 56 times in Windsor 2013 that gay marriage is up to the states?

You already know the answer to that question.

The specific legal question being asked the court in the Windsor ruling was if Federal marriage laws could refuse to recognize a marriage that State marriage laws did recognize. The Windsor court found that no, Federal marriage law couldn't, as State marriage law trumps Federal Marriage law.

Which you've bizarrely interpreted as State marriage laws being immune to judicial review, and gay marriage bans being constitutional. Neither of which the Windsor court ever ruled. The Windsor court contradicted the first part of your assumption directly:

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

Windsor V. US

Affirming that all marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Yet you pretend that there are no such constitutional guarantees and omit this passage from your every citation of Windsor. Despite the fact that EVERY challenge to gay marriage bans being heard by the SCOTUS this year are on the basis of these very constitutional guarantees.

All of which you already know. But really hope we don't.

Worse, Justice Roberts explicitly contradicts your latter assumption that gay marriage bans were found constitutional by the Windsor ruling:

"The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion doesnot decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

Chief Justice Roberts
Dissent on Windsor V. US

Explicitly contradicting your assumptions. Windsor never even mentions gay marriage bans. Let alone finds them constitutional or authorizes them in any way. All of which you already know.

Even Justice Scalia, an adamant opponent of same sex marriage, has recognized that the Windsor ruling indicates the court's support for gay marriage 'beyond mistaking. And concludes that the court's overturning of state gay marriage bans as 'inevitable'

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
Dissent on Windsor v. US

With Justice Scalia insisting that the SCOTUS will use the very reasoning of the Windsor ruling to overturn state gay marriage bans.

But you know better, huh? Sorry Silo.....but your utterly clueless. And don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

With Justice Scalia insisting that the SCOTUS will use the very reasoning of the Windsor ruling to overturn state gay marriage bans.

But you know better, huh? Sorry Silo.....but your utterly clueless. And don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Until they read the Prince's Trust study and how the cult that formerly was the American Psychological Association arrives at its "conclusions for public consumption (including amicus briefs)" nowadays...

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The UK periodical's summation of that study: Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

Courtesy of the APA.."the new way of doing science"...small, polluted studies that discard data in preference to what the Elders approve of..

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena " http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4313031.aspx

 

[Skylar]

With Justice Scalia insisting that the SCOTUS will use the very reasoning of the Windsor ruling to overturn state gay marriage bans.

But you know better, huh? Sorry Silo.....but your utterly clueless. And don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Until they read the Prince's Trust study and how the cult that formerly was the American Psychological Association arrives at its "conclusions for public consumption (including amicus briefs)" nowadays...

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The UK periodical's summation of that study: Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

Courtesy of the APA.."the new way of doing science"...small, polluted studies that discards data in preference to what the Elders approve of..

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena " http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4313031.aspx

There's not a single mention of same sex parenting anywhere. Nor any measure of same sex parenting or its effects on children in anything you quoted.

Perhaps you were thinking of another 'Prince Trust Study'. Because this one doesn't measure anything you claimed it did.

 

[Skylar]

And you want to know the stupidest part of this entire thread? When and if the Court rules against gay marriage bans, Silo is going to lament about how they overruled Windsor, how they've committed Treason, how they ignored the Prince Trust study, and a litany of other batshit babble.

Its never going to occur to him that he never had the slightest idea what he was talking about. Or that he couldn't predict a sunrise with a rooster and a Farmer's Almanac. Let alone accurately predict a USSC ruling.

 

[Seawytch]

People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

As a general rule, when most conservatives talk of 'freedom', it involves treating someone else like a piece of shit.

 

[Kosh]

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

As a general rule, when most conservatives talk of 'freedom', it involves treating someone else like a piece of shit.

Says the far left drones that supports the far left without question or hesitation..

 

[danielpalos]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States; no appeal to ignorance of the law can change that legal fact, in federal venues.

 

[Skylar]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States; no appeal to ignorance of the law can change that legal fact, in federal venues.

Daneil....we've been through this: Article 4, Section 2 is ambiguous. And there have been many, many different interepretations of it. You insist that there is no such interpretation and that your version of it is the only one possible.

Obviously, you're wrong.

You can't even answer even basis questions about your personal interpretation of Article 4, Section 2. Demonstrating yet again the ambiguity of the passage.

 

[Syriusly]

With Justice Scalia insisting that the SCOTUS will use the very reasoning of the Windsor ruling to overturn state gay marriage bans.

But you know better, huh? Sorry Silo.....but your utterly clueless. And don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Until they read the Prince's Trust study ]

You are delusional.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

Argument #1 and #2!

 

[Seawytch]

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

Argument #1 and #2!

^^^Rabbi's secret rules of deflection!^^^

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.

First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.

No homosexuals do not have the same rights. They are entitled to the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

No, they're not. That would be an extra right. Currently no one can marry someone of the same sex.
Youre really ill equipped to argue here.

A long time ago, the King was considered to have absolute power by divine right.

How did we manage to decide that wasn't the case?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution rules,

no matter what the States might claim to the contrary.

 

[SwimExpert]

Justice Roy Moore

Somehow, I find it hard to take seriously a man who has been kicked off the bench more times than a bum taking a nap.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

Argument #1 and #2!

^^^Rabbi's secret rules of deflection!^^^

Nothing secret about them. Unless you're stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.

First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.

No homosexuals do not have the same rights. They are entitled to the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

No, they're not. That would be an extra right. Currently no one can marry someone of the same sex.
Youre really ill equipped to argue here.

A long time ago, the King was considered to have absolute power by divine right.

How did we manage to decide that wasn't the case?

We voted on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution rules,

no matter what the States might claim to the contrary.

Tell that to Colorado and Washington State.

 

[Skylar]

Argument #1 and #2!

Both of which stump you cold as you have no counter argument. So you number them and run.

Keep running. As your desperate rout does nothing to prevent the SCOTUS ruling in June. I

 

[Skylar]

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Ah...so now we know where you get your fucked up ideas from...the 1950s!

We do have the same protections in MOST states, but we're going after the small handful left.

Argument #1 and #2!

^^^Rabbi's secret rules of deflection!^^^

Nothing secret about them. Unless you're stupid.

Then by all means, articulate your counter arguments.

Laughing.....unless you're 'too busy' again.