LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[onefour1]

Destroying the morals of a country is one step toward tyranny.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So a privilege can't be taken away but a right can? You're making no sense.

{ahem}Still waiting for you to explain how a right like voting or bearing arms can be taken away by incarceration, but a "privilege" like marriage cannot? Care to give it a go?

I explained that already. The marriage license is a privilege and can be revoked. That does nto imply any right of marriage.
Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Neither one requires a permit from the government. Thus they require due process to deny that right.

And you were just as wrong the first time you ‘explained’ it.

Marriage is in fact a right per Turner v Safley (1987), as already correctly noted.

States and other jurisdictions are at liberty to establish prerequisites to the exercising of a right, including a fundamental right, provided that prerequisite doesn’t manifest an undue burden to the exercising one’s rights. Such example would be the state requiring citizens to register to vote before voting, or providing a state-issued picture ID before being allowed to vote, as advocated by you and others on the right.

Or where jurisdictions require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, such as North Carolina’s requirement that a permit from a sheriff be obtained before a citizen can exercise the right to own a handgun.

Likewise, requiring a license does not in any way interfere with the right to marry, provided the criteria applied to qualify for a license is applied consistently to all eligible to enter into a marriage contract, including same-sex couples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Destroying the morals of a country is one step toward tyranny.

Seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens in violation of the Constitution is the epitome of tyranny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to privacy was discovered during Griswold.
There is no right to own a TV. No right to eat Jap food. No right to wear a hat. Not everything you're allowed to do is subject to being a right.

That's correct but this about adults being equal to marry other adults. Here we support equality, even equality you don't like.

Do you support brother/sister adults marrying? Father/son? Mother/daughter? Polygamists?

No, you don't support "equality" in the purest sense, do you? You support "specialty treatment" for members of the church of LGBT...

Generally incest is considered dangerous.

Also, you're already directly related, marrying and making yourself directly related through marriage seems to make no sense.

It's about equality under human rights. All rights have limitations based on whether something does harm.

Why can't you commit treason under the right to freedom of speech?

 

[onefour1]

Destroying the morals of a country is one step toward tyranny.

Seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens in violation of the Constitution is the epitome of tyranny.

problem is that it is not in violation of the constitution. It used to be the will of the people but recently, the morals of the people are changing it with much help from the globalist government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS will conclude that Jake Starkey is unconstitutional.

You conservative progressives are going to lose this one big time and the issue will be over for good.

"conservative progressive", great oxymoron there fakey, when are you going to start referring to yourself in the third person like many other flipped out commies?

Progressivism, li'l buddy, is a movement that uses Big Government to make political, economic, cultural, and social change.

Thus, you as a conservative progressive want Big Government to say your collective ass on the far right on matters such as abortion and marriage equality and prayer in school and so forth.

You are not a small government conservative, not even close.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I explained that already. The marriage license is a privilege and can be revoked. That does nto imply any right of marriage.
Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Neither one requires a permit from the government. Thus they require due process to deny that right.

That's why in the DOMA/Prop 8 Hearing last year, one of the Justices asked the LGBT cult attorney "where in the Constitution is marriage guaranteed as a right"? Then they'll cite Loving v Virginia when they can't cite that from the Constitution. Then the next question is "how are you a race, gender, religion or country of origin"? None of those apply except a religion or cult. But LGBT has not applied for federal recognition or tax exempt status. They should really get on that if they want Loving to apply to them. Mere compulsive behaviors that organized don't cut the muster.

Try that nonsense on SCOTUS, sil, and you will be laughed out of chambers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"I just told you that if the cult of LGBT is tested against "Loving", it will fail because it doesn't live up to "race" "gender" "religion" or "country of origin"."

You are wrong inherently in that statement.

But even so, that is not what Utah will argue.

It is going to argue that the best interest of the children are served by two parents, man and woman, in the home.

They will not be able to coherently defend (anymore than you have on any of your premises) why same sex marriage is less than traditional marriage. The stats are not there, and you know it.

Sorry, sil, but you are a loser on all of these issues.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would you be willing to say what you just said in an amicus brief to the 10th circuit federal court of appeals?

Yes. 10-year-olds have a right to own a gun here. Adults, regardless of relations to each, should have the same rights to marry, and there's no rational reason to limit that to just two adults.

It doesn't have to be to my liking, it is what it is.

 

[The Rabbi]

{ahem}Still waiting for you to explain how a right like voting or bearing arms can be taken away by incarceration, but a "privilege" like marriage cannot? Care to give it a go?

I explained that already. The marriage license is a privilege and can be revoked. That does nto imply any right of marriage.
Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Neither one requires a permit from the government. Thus they require due process to deny that right.

Sorry, that dance doesn't explain Turner v Safley...

The court was wrong. A case about inmates is not applicable here. Unless you are in prison. Which you probably ought to be for defrauding taxpayers.

 

[The Rabbi]

{ahem}Still waiting for you to explain how a right like voting or bearing arms can be taken away by incarceration, but a "privilege" like marriage cannot? Care to give it a go?

I explained that already. The marriage license is a privilege and can be revoked. That does nto imply any right of marriage.
Voting is a right. Owning guns is a right. Neither one requires a permit from the government. Thus they require due process to deny that right.

And you were just as wrong the first time you ‘explained’ it.

Marriage is in fact a right per Turner v Safley (1987), as already correctly noted.

States and other jurisdictions are at liberty to establish prerequisites to the exercising of a right, including a fundamental right, provided that prerequisite doesn’t manifest an undue burden to the exercising one’s rights. Such example would be the state requiring citizens to register to vote before voting, or providing a state-issued picture ID before being allowed to vote, as advocated by you and others on the right.

Or where jurisdictions require a license or permit to purchase a firearm, such as North Carolina’s requirement that a permit from a sheriff be obtained before a citizen can exercise the right to own a handgun.

Likewise, requiring a license does not in any way interfere with the right to marry, provided the criteria applied to qualify for a license is applied consistently to all eligible to enter into a marriage contract, including same-sex couples.

There is a right to marry in the sense that two (or more) people can go marry each other. But a state sanctioned marriage is not a right but a privilege. Anything requiring a permit is no longer a right. North Carolina's law is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, much as DC's outright ban or Chicago's.
As mentioned, the case about prisoners is not applicable here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Destroying the morals of a country is one step toward tyranny.

Seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens in violation of the Constitution is the epitome of tyranny.

problem is that it is not in violation of the constitution. It used to be the will of the people but recently, the morals of the people are changing it with much help from the globalist government.

Incorrect.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the many measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

And the rule of law safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, where the ‘will of the people’ has never been paramount in determining one’s rights; the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

So as a fact of Constitutional law, seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens absent a proper legislative end is indeed a violation of the Founding Document.

 

[Silhouette]

Incorrect.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the many measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

And the rule of law safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, where the ‘will of the people’ has never been paramount in determining one’s rights; the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

So as a fact of Constitutional law, seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens absent a proper legislative end is indeed a violation of the Founding Document.

"equal protection" doesn't appy to marriage. If it did, nobody could be denied marriage. Not minors, not siblings, not polygamists...nobody.

What LGBT cultees want is special priveleges.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Incorrect.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the many measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

And the rule of law safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, where the ‘will of the people’ has never been paramount in determining one’s rights; the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

So as a fact of Constitutional law, seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens absent a proper legislative end is indeed a violation of the Founding Document.

"equal protection" doesn't appy to marriage. If it did, nobody could be denied marriage. Not minors, not siblings, not polygamists...nobody.

What LGBT cultees want is special priveleges.

That's just entirely silly, and utterly wrong. Your profound misunderstanding of American law cannot be fixed it seems, so I won't bother trying.

 

[Silhouette]

Incorrect.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the many measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

And the rule of law safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, where the ‘will of the people’ has never been paramount in determining one’s rights; the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

So as a fact of Constitutional law, seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens absent a proper legislative end is indeed a violation of the Founding Document.

"equal protection" doesn't appy to marriage. If it did, nobody could be denied marriage. Not minors, not siblings, not polygamists...nobody.

What LGBT cultees want is special priveleges.

That's just entirely silly, and utterly wrong. Your profound misunderstanding of American law cannot be fixed it seems, so I won't bother trying.

Translation: I nailed you and you have no response that makes sense.

Because you know if you said "well so and so can't marry because..." I would get you there. Making an argument for others to not be allowed to marry is as dicey a subject for LGBT cultees as explaining why lipstick lesbians are attracted to mannish looking/acting/talking/dressing "women" with strapon penises.

Not everyone is in agreement however to "not go there". Yours truly as an example...

 

[Seawytch]

Incorrect.



The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the many measures seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.



And the rule of law safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, where the ‘will of the people’ has never been paramount in determining one’s rights; the people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.



So as a fact of Constitutional law, seeking to codify subjective ‘morals’ that disadvantage citizens absent a proper legislative end is indeed a violation of the Founding Document.

"equal protection" doesn't appy to marriage. If it did, nobody could be denied marriage. Not minors, not siblings, not polygamists...nobody.



What LGBT cultees want is special priveleges.

More like it is you that wants to keep the "special privilege" of marriage exclusively for straights. It's not anymore, get over it.

 

[Silhouette]

More like it is you that wants to keep the "special privilege" of marriage exclusively for straights. It's not anymore, get over it.

Only in three states legally according to the US Supreme Court.

And polyamorists? Where's your outrage at their also being disincluded in the legal qualifiers for marriage as just one man and one woman still on the books in 47 states?

 

[Silhouette]

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see , e.g., Loving v.Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “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...

...The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v.North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the en-forcement of marital responsibilities.”Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”...

...The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”
Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State....

...it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

...In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond
v.United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other....

...For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State [New York] acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State [New York] worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality....

..The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of [all of] its people...

..The arguments put forward by BLAG are just as candid about the congressional purpose to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married. As the title and dynamics of the bill indicate, its purpose is to discourage enactment of state same-sex marriage laws and to restrict the freedom and choice of couples married under those laws if they are enacted. The congressional goal was “to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws.”... United States v. Windsor

SCOTUS declared that Congress' DOMA act was not good because it sought to have the fed interfere with a state's rightful consensus on who may marry within its borders. In Windsor's case, because New York chose via consensus to allow gay marriage, the fed could not tell that state its choice wasn't valid.

Now then, when federal judges tell states their marriage laws aren't valid, suddenly Windsor becomes defunct. It cannot be both ways. SCOTUS has spoken and Said that each state gets to evolve on the idea of gay marriage according to its citizens weighing in and defining for themselves whether or not to allow it.

In short, legally speaking, if federal judges in the various states that are currently in contempt of the DOMA ruling as to state sovereignty are to be taken as valid and serious, then Windsor is being overturned by lower court judges in these rogue states..or rather fascist states...where activist federal judges are guilty of sedition of the Will of the People there.

Fun fact, if you note the dicta above, SCOTUS brought up Loving v Virginia and said at the end of their narrative that gay marriage is still conditional state to state. There's your sign. Perhaps they'll overturn that determination in less than a year or a year's time. But don't count on it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fun fact, if you note the dicta above, SCOTUS brought up Loving v Virginia and said at the end of their narrative that gay marriage is still conditional state to state. There's your sign. Perhaps they'll overturn that determination in less than a year or a year's time. But don't count on it.

Marriage on a state to state level is a strange one, if you get married in one state, you're married in other states. If you are gay in one state, what does that mean in other states?

If two people can simply go to another state and get married and come home and are married, what does that mean at home/

It's more than just a state issues, it has to be more than this.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Only in three states legally according to the US Supreme Court.

And you are still wrong. Even in Windsor the Supreme Court notes that there were 11 States (and DC) at the time of it's writing were SSCM was legal. And it became 13 jurisdictions that same day as they issued the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision that allowed the District Court Judges ruling reinstating SSCM in California to stand.

Of the eleven states and DC (at the time of their writing of the decision) where SSCM was legal you have:

Massachusetts – Judicially
Connecticut – Judicially
Iowa – Judicially
Vermont – Legislatively
New Hampshire – Legislatively
New York – Legislatively
Washington – Ballot
Maine – Ballot
Maryland – Ballot
Rhode Island - Legislatively
Deleware - Legislatively
District of Columbia – Legislatively​

You implication by saying "Only in three states legally..." is wrong as the SCOTUS acknowledged that there were 12 jurisdictions where it was legal at the time and those legal Civil Marriages were achieved judicially, legislatively, and at the ballot box.



>>>>