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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

See that is where you are wrong. Everyone doesn't understand the Windsor ruling except for Silhouette.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - who noted in court documents that - the Windsor decision DOES NOT address whether states can say "no" and only confirms that if States say "Yes" it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to say "No".

The California Supreme Court didn't understand the Windsor decision when they refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The California Governor and Attorney General allowed SSCM to resume in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The SCOTUS didn't understand it's own ruling in the Windsor decision when they refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California because Windsor really means that Prop 8 was invalid even though the SCOTUS allowed the District Court decision to remain in effect.

The Federal Judge in Utah didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Oklahoma didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Kentucky didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Virginia didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Texas didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Ohio didn't understand the Windsor decision.

The Federal Judge in Michigan didn't understand the Windsor decision.​

See, they are all wrong, from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to state officials and to District Court Judges. None have the legal acumen to match those of Sil. She's right, everyone else is wrong.



>>>

 

[Silhouette]

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.

It's the same as it always was. Two 13 year olds can marry in New Hampshire. But can they marry in California? No, of course not. The fed merely recognizes what each sovereign state has said for itself. Gays are the same too. Since they are not an innate state of being and instead, a behavior, a fad, a cult, they can't access the same priveleges across state boundaries. Any set of 13 year olds who want to marry are well advised to move to and establish residency in New Hampshire.

Nothing changes. DOMA says the fed merely recognizes each different state's consensus choice on who can be married there. The only conditions where people cannot be denied marriage are the 14th: race, gender, country of origin or religion, provided they also qualify on "one man, one woman"..age limits..blood relation etc. Gays qualify on none of those accounts.

Being gay is weird. It is a weird state of being. The tiny percentage of people with these behaviors cannot dictate to the rest of the state that their weirdness must now get the stamp of "normal" via marriage from the 98% of non-gay public by judicial sedition of the Will of consensus of each state. In short, if you want gay marriage in your state, convince your voters. Otherwise, like 13 year old weirdness wanting to marry, move to one of the only 3 states who have legal gay marriage via consensus and in line with the 2013 DOMA/Windsor Constitutional finding..

 

[WorldWatcher]

move to one of the only 3 states who have legal gay marriage via consensus and in line with the 2013 DOMA/Windsor Constitutional finding..

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.



>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's the same as it always was. Two 13 year olds can marry in New Hampshire. But can they marry in California? No, of course not. The fed merely recognizes what each sovereign state has said for itself. Gays are the same too. Since they are not an innate state of being and instead, a behavior, a fad, a cult, they can't access the same priveleges across state boundaries. Any set of 13 year olds who want to marry are well advised to move to and establish residency in New Hampshire.

Nothing changes. DOMA says the fed merely recognizes each different state's consensus choice on who can be married there. The only conditions where people cannot be denied marriage are the 14th: race, gender, country of origin or religion, provided they also qualify on "one man, one woman"..age limits..blood relation etc. Gays qualify on none of those accounts.

Being gay is weird. It is a weird state of being. The tiny percentage of people with these behaviors cannot dictate to the rest of the state that their weirdness must now get the stamp of "normal" via marriage from the 98% of non-gay public by judicial sedition of the Will of consensus of each state. In short, if you want gay marriage in your state, convince your voters. Otherwise, like 13 year old weirdness wanting to marry, move to one of the only 3 states who have legal gay marriage via consensus and in line with the 2013 DOMA/Windsor Constitutional finding..

The point being made is that if a person marries in one state, then their marriage is accepted in other states. Right or wrong?

As for it being weird, you can think of it like that. Lots of things in life are weird, it's not reason to A) insult those people to make yourself feel big and B) to deny them equal protection of the laws.

You say it's about convincing voters.

I ask the question again. What business is it of yours who someone can marry?

If the voters stopped you marrying the person of your choice, how would you feel?

 

[Silhouette]

It's the same as it always was. Two 13 year olds can marry in New Hampshire. But can they marry in California? No, of course not. The fed merely recognizes what each sovereign state has said for itself. Gays are the same too. Since they are not an innate state of being and instead, a behavior, a fad, a cult, they can't access the same priveleges across state boundaries. Any set of 13 year olds who want to marry are well advised to move to and establish residency in New Hampshire.

Nothing changes. DOMA says the fed merely recognizes each different state's consensus choice on who can be married there. The only conditions where people cannot be denied marriage are the 14th: race, gender, country of origin or religion, provided they also qualify on "one man, one woman"..age limits..blood relation etc. Gays qualify on none of those accounts.

Being gay is weird. It is a weird state of being. The tiny percentage of people with these behaviors cannot dictate to the rest of the state that their weirdness must now get the stamp of "normal" via marriage from the 98% of non-gay public by judicial sedition of the Will of consensus of each state. In short, if you want gay marriage in your state, convince your voters. Otherwise, like 13 year old weirdness wanting to marry, move to one of the only 3 states who have legal gay marriage via consensus and in line with the 2013 DOMA/Windsor Constitutional finding..

The point being made is that if a person marries in one state, then their marriage is accepted in other states. Right or wrong?

As for it being weird, you can think of it like that. Lots of things in life are weird, it's not reason to A) insult those people to make yourself feel big and B) to deny them equal protection of the laws.

You say it's about convincing voters.

I ask the question again. What business is it of yours who someone can marry?

If the voters stopped you marrying the person of your choice, how would you feel?

The fed has stated that if a 13 year old is married in New Hampshire according to New Hampshire's consensus [not a judicial fiat] then that marriage is recognized federally. That = to all other states have to recognize but in no way condone it within their own boundaries by being forced to allow the same situation to happen within their borders.

That's how marriage has always been treated in the US. You're thinking that just because gay marriage is legal in 3 states, by consensus [the way it is allowed in preference to other ways as interpreted constitutionally last Summer, retroactive to the founding of the country], that somehow that means that all 50 states must allow it now.

Because the Supreme Court identified gay marriage as a new and weird concept [they actually said this paraphrased] to discreet communities of each state, that a consensus on it was appropriate. Remember, they brought up Loving and then went on to say it' "only allowed" "in some states" as of the rendering of their decision. That's code for "we're telling you Loving doesn't apply".

And of course it doesn't because "gay" is a behavior, not a race, gender, religion or country of origin.

So if two gay people play act at "man and wife" in New York, legally, it doesn't mean Arizona or Texas or Idaho or Delaware or Illinois has to allow gay marriage there if their citizenry has set standards for marriage as "between one man and one woman" in law. Those states may have the opinion that two people of the same gender striving to fill roles of "mother and father" [for they always do this] is strange and not an ideal model of "intellectual soundness" to display to any adopted or in-vitro children that might occur under that roof. There really are questions of sanity when two people say they are attracted sexually to the same gender, but who want kids that they know come from heterosexuality, and where one partner is obviously attracted secretly to all the external trappings of the opposite gender anyway. Just because this glaring oddity isn't explored, doesn't mean it shouldn't be...

States' "unquestioned authority" will be the finding the US Supreme Court is going to get out of this Utah case. I can almost guarantee you. Otherwise, they'd have to redact huge portions of the Windsor case and gut it at its core actually. Because over and over and over in Windsor the Court avered that a state's right to set standards for marriage was indeed why parts of DOMA were overturned. You can't have your cake and eat it too.. You can't say a state's word is the law when it favors gay marriage but then turn around and say a state's word isn't the law when it doesn't favor gay marriage.

All lower court rulings that conflict with this finding are currently in contempt of the US Supreme Court's Ruling last Summer. Those marraiges in any state that occured via judicial overturning of the will of consensus for "one man and one woman" since the founding of the country are not worth the paper they are written on. Even with Eric Holder proclaiming they are, they are worthless. Because there's case law and assignment of powers that says that any lower court judge or even high ranking official that declares some parts or all of a SCOTUS Ruling "defunct" are not in superior power to the US Supreme Court's Decision on that particular matter. This is why the Court was named "SUPREME"... BECAUSE THERE IS NO AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN THEY TO RULE ON AND INTERPRET LAW.

 

[Silhouette]

move to one of the only 3 states who have legal gay marriage via consensus and in line with the 2013 DOMA/Windsor Constitutional finding..

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.



>>>>

No, they vacated that decision. The significant Ruling is that states get to decide, not activist judges. They specified consensus and went into great detail describing how a consensus decision on marriage in a given state has weight over other types of decisions. If a state had a consensus on marriage and defined it, when tested that consensus will outweigh any legislative or judicial fiat trying to nullify it. SCOTUS was very clear they wanted as wide a swath possible of the general public weighing in on the question of gay marriage in each state.

California CLEARLY defined in consensus TWICE that marriage is between a man and a woman only. That is still in the State constitution today. An activist judge at any time before or after DOMA last Summer cannot on a whim say that state is not under that Windsor Decision's Ruling. The Supreme Court had the last say and they said California got to choose by consensus. Since the founding of the country. And so, gay marriage has never been legal in California. Ever. Judges don't legislate. The People do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

California CLEARLY defined in consensus TWICE that marriage is between a man and a woman only. That is still in the State constitution today.

And?

There are scores of laws and measures still on the books and in constitutions that have been invalidated as un-Constitutional by the courts.

Should an officer of a given jurisdiction seek to enforce one of those un-Constitutional laws, the attempt to enforce that law will again be invalidated.

Moreover, it makes no difference how many times the residents of a given state seek to violate the civil liberties of fellow American citizens – twice or 100 times – a measure that is offensive to the Constitution will remain invalid and unenforceable, as the people lack the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, one’s civil liberties are not subject to ‘majority rule,’ and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence.

 

[Silhouette]

California CLEARLY defined in consensus TWICE that marriage is between a man and a woman only. That is still in the State constitution today.

And?

There are scores of laws and measures still on the books and in constitutions that have been invalidated as un-Constitutional by the courts.

Should an officer of a given jurisdiction seek to enforce one of those un-Constitutional laws, the attempt to enforce that law will again be invalidated.

Moreover, it makes no difference how many times the residents of a given state seek to violate the civil liberties of fellow American citizens – twice or 100 times – a measure that is offensive to the Constitution will remain invalid and unenforceable, as the people lack the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, one’s civil liberties are not subject to ‘majority rule,’ and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence.

But the Supreme Court Spoke on these issues you raise and said that the question of marriage under the context of "gay" marriage was the "unquestioned authority" of the broadest consensus of each state. They even brought up Loving v Virginia and still avered this authority of each state's consensus.

No civil liberties were violated because marriage is a privelege, not a "right". Gays aren't being singled out. Marriage is also denied to close blood relatives such as siblings, minors and polygamists. The 14th only applies to race, gender, religion and country of origin. Who someone is having sex with doesn't fall into any of those categories.

sorry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

move to one of the only 3 states who have legal gay marriage via consensus and in line with the 2013 DOMA/Windsor Constitutional finding..

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.



>>>>

No, they vacated that decision.

Wrong again. The ruled that the 9th Circuit Court erred in allowing non-government intervenors to defend the case and vacated the 9th Circuit Court Decision. As such they vacated the decision which allowed the intervenors to appeal, since they didn't have standing to appeal then the District Court Judges ruling remained in effect because the governmental entities were the only one with standing to file an appeal. Something the State entities chose not to do.

Therefore, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that decision stands.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the Dis-
trict Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Therefore, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that decision stands.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the Dis-
trict Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf


>>>>

Here's the rub. California county clerks DID attempt to appeal and force the Court to clarify how they were supposed to ignore the mandate of the people. The case didn't lack standing originally itself, only the people bringing it according to the US Supreme Court. The clerks DID have standing but the Court refused to address that...I believe for political reasons.

Meanwhile an official's plea in Utah and now other states where judicial fiat/sedition/contempt is attempting to overwrite legitimate state legislation concerning marriage and the Court granted them stays. County clerks in California swear an Oath to abide by state law in issuing licenses etc. They are independent of overlording by other authorities in their state. Yet their good and legitimate standing as custodians of law in California was denied without explanation; while other oath-taking custodians of law were allowed to appeal and received a stay pending appeal.

The Court has some "splainin" to do with this and other matters. Though anyone who reads DOMA cannot come away thinking the Court did not make a state's power to say "yes" or "no' to gay marriage via consensus a central theme to granting Windsor her pleas.

You cannot use that premise to grant Windsor a win and then take it away when it suits the gay agenda in oppressing a state's right to consensus on the question of "gay" marriage...

 

[Seawytch]

It's the same as it always was. Two 13 year olds can marry in New Hampshire. But can they marry in California? No, of course not. The fed merely recognizes what each sovereign state has said for itself. Gays are the same too. Since they are not an innate state of being and instead, a behavior, a fad, a cult, they can't access the same priveleges across state boundaries. Any set of 13 year olds who want to marry are well advised to move to and establish residency in New Hampshire.

Nothing changes. DOMA says the fed merely recognizes each different state's consensus choice on who can be married there. The only conditions where people cannot be denied marriage are the 14th: race, gender, country of origin or religion, provided they also qualify on "one man, one woman"..age limits..blood relation etc. Gays qualify on none of those accounts.

Being gay is weird. It is a weird state of being. The tiny percentage of people with these behaviors cannot dictate to the rest of the state that their weirdness must now get the stamp of "normal" via marriage from the 98% of non-gay public by judicial sedition of the Will of consensus of each state. In short, if you want gay marriage in your state, convince your voters. Otherwise, like 13 year old weirdness wanting to marry, move to one of the only 3 states who have legal gay marriage via consensus and in line with the 2013 DOMA/Windsor Constitutional finding..

The point being made is that if a person marries in one state, then their marriage is accepted in other states. Right or wrong?

As for it being weird, you can think of it like that. Lots of things in life are weird, it's not reason to A) insult those people to make yourself feel big and B) to deny them equal protection of the laws.

You say it's about convincing voters.

I ask the question again. What business is it of yours who someone can marry?

If the voters stopped you marrying the person of your choice, how would you feel?

If 14 year old 1st cousins marry in Alabama, their marriage MUST be recognized in California. This is the law...except for the gays. The rest of DOMA must go.

 

[Silhouette]

If 14 year old 1st cousins marry in Alabama, their marriage MUST be recognized in California. This is the law...except for the gays. The rest of DOMA must go.

But because 14 year old cousins can get married in Alabama, doesn't mean that therefore "all 14 year old cousins can get married in all 50 states".

Each state sets its own rules for who can marry. Currently only 3 states have legal gay marriage according to the objective rendering of the Windsor Ruling.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If 14 year old 1st cousins marry in Alabama, their marriage MUST be recognized in California. This is the law...except for the gays. The rest of DOMA must go.

But because 14 year old cousins can get married in Alabama, doesn't mean that therefore "all 14 year old cousins can get married in all 50 states".

Each state sets its own rules for who can marry. Currently only 3 states have legal gay marriage according to the objective rendering of the Windsor Ruling.

Let's get hypothetical.

Imagine that one state decided that you can't get married until 45, how do you think that would go down constitutionally?
My bet would be they'd use the constitution and specifically the 14th amendment to say that because the state has made marriage exist for a certain age, that this is therefore unconstitutional to deny someone over a certain age to marry.

Age is one of those things. What age does someone become a full adult? In the US it appears that 21 is that age. At 21 there is nothing that can really be denied you, in terms of rights, that isn't denied to others.

So, one state having marriage at 14, and another at 18, the issue is, can one state tell another state's citizens that they haven't reached the age of full rights?

Now, when it comes to gay people, once they have reached that age, then there should be nothing standing in their way.

 

[Traditionalist]

It's a travesty that the autonomy of state governments and the will of the people in many states is being subverted by the court system. This is why we need a strong, tradition-oriented, conservative President to be elected in 2016.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the Supreme Court Spoke on these issues you raise and said that the question of marriage under the context of "gay" marriage was the "unquestioned authority" of the broadest consensus of each state. They even brought up Loving v Virginia and still avered this authority of each state's consensus.

No civil liberties were violated because marriage is a privelege, not a "right". Gays aren't being singled out. Marriage is also denied to close blood relatives such as siblings, minors and polygamists. The 14th only applies to race, gender, religion and country of origin. Who someone is having sex with doesn't fall into any of those categories.

sorry.

However, you have to realise that what is considered a right changes over time. It's not simply a case of 1792 and that's your lot. Rights are what people consider to be fundamental. The Constitution not only protects certain rights the founders decided and others have added, but all rights that are considered rights by the people.

Marriage is denied to close blood relatives because any right is limited, basically if a part of any right conflicts with the theory of rights and therefore harms others, it is simply not part of the right.

Polygamy is a different issue, because it is govt interference, however everyone is equally limited. Gay people can't marry two people at the same time, white people can't marry two people at the same time, no one can.

Also, the right to keep arms doesn't specify how many arms a person may keep. It would still be constitutional if the govt said you can only have one firearm.

Just like the freedom of religion is repressed for certain things that are deemed wrong by "society".

Minors have limited rights and limited responsibilities.



So, basically pointing out where people are not allowed to marry, you're basically conforming to the theory of rights. No one is banned from marrying unless they can have their right to marry infringed upon, oh, except Gay people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a travesty that the autonomy of state governments and the will of the people in many states is being subverted by the court system. This is why we need a strong, tradition-oriented, conservative President to be elected in 2016.

Isn't it a travesty that in 1776 they said "all men are created equal" and in 2014 this isn't the case in some parts of the US?

The US needs a change in the way it elects people so democracy actually exists, but also needs to stop mob rule by making sure people understand rights.

 

[Seawytch]

If 14 year old 1st cousins marry in Alabama, their marriage MUST be recognized in California. This is the law...except for the gays. The rest of DOMA must go.

But because 14 year old cousins can get married in Alabama, doesn't mean that therefore "all 14 year old cousins can get married in all 50 states".

Each state sets its own rules for who can marry. Currently only 3 states have legal gay marriage according to the objective rendering of the Windsor Ruling.

That's not what I said. 14 year old 1st cousins that marry in Alabama where it is legal are still married in California where it is not legally to marry your 14 year old 1st cousin.

I'd be fine if SSM were exactly like 1st cousin and 14 year old marriages...the state can choose whether or not to perform such marriages, but not whether or not to recognize them.

 

[Silhouette]

If 14 year old 1st cousins marry in Alabama, their marriage MUST be recognized in California. This is the law...except for the gays. The rest of DOMA must go.

But because 14 year old cousins can get married in Alabama, doesn't mean that therefore "all 14 year old cousins can get married in all 50 states".

Each state sets its own rules for who can marry. Currently only 3 states have legal gay marriage according to the objective rendering of the Windsor Ruling.

That's not what I said. 14 year old 1st cousins that marry in Alabama where it is legal are still married in California where it is not legally to marry your 14 year old 1st cousin.

I'd be fine if SSM were exactly like 1st cousin and 14 year old marriages...the state can choose whether or not to perform such marriages, but not whether or not to recognize them.

Well that's a good thing because that's how it is and how it will be. You understand of course that you just said "I'd be happy knowing I wasn't legally married in California" where I assume you were since you live there. By the state-consensus definition, gay marriage has never been legal in California. And there are going to be a lot of folks very disappointed that judicial sedition was not a successful legislative attempt. There are ways that laws are made and there are ways that they are not. Successfully haven stolen something when a judge said "free theft is legal now despite the laws" doesn't mean you don't have to give the merchandise back when the sedition is overruled.

So those married in the 3 states where gay marriage is legal can be recognized. Those poor 3 states might though quite quickly repeal their laws if they recognize the red carpet they just rolled out for the LGBT cult. I hope they have excellent healthcare programs there. The "G" component of LGBT gets very pricey on healthcare at a very young age usually. And then statistically they become indigent...so there's that too. And of course the "B" component of LGBT will make sure that the disease quickly spreads into the hetero population there. So a drastic increase in disease and preventable death, expensive medicines and a lingering pricey illness rate will all be part of the "economic boon" to these states supposedly going to be "made rich" by gay marriage revenues..

In fact a friend of mine worked with a gay guy, flamer, liked to dress up in women's clothes on his off hours at the bars. He was constantly calling in sick. Kept having to see his "special doctor", kept getting thinner and thinner, not throwing off colds and flus like everyone else. He finally had to quit just recently and told people he was going in the peace corp. Calls from a friend of his show that he didn't do that and that instead he's likely becoming homeless where they tracked him down. The truth is he was too weak to work anymore. Too sick. He's in his mid-20s. He will linger on for several more years, maybe. Probably been on the expensive medicines for 10 years now if he got HIV like the upswing trend is now in boys ages 13-24 when he was very young. This is what normalizing gay will bring to the state who legalizes "gay marriage". Buyer beware..

 

[WorldWatcher]

So those married in the 3 states where gay marriage is legal can be recognized.

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 "the 3 states where gay marriage is legal ..." 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.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

So those married in the 3 states where gay marriage is legal can be recognized.

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 "the 3 states where gay marriage is legal ..." 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.



>>>>

It's possible that the only part of Windsor they will redact is that one statement. And that is because if they aver that states have always had the right to define marriage and they reiterate their preference for that being done via the broadest consensus, then there are only 3 states where gay marriage is legal.

They vacated the Perry issue because of the people's standing, not the merits of the case itself.

Why, for instance, did they issue the stay on gay marriage for Utah? The answer is because the AG there requested that stay. And apparently SCOTUS found grounds to grant it to them...legal grounds...from their own decision....Windsor...from that Decision's conclusion that states get "unquestioned authority" to define marriage...which bodes very poorly for hopeful gays in California who are praying that the judicial sedition, rogue officials and lawlessness in their state is "somehow legally binding" in preference to a duly enacted Constitutional statute via the voters' initiative system. You've read California's constitution I assume? You then know that initiative law is paramount, correct?.

That hard lesson is going to hit home very soon methinks.. You don't wilfully usurp democracy and stand in full contempt of the US Supreme Court like Gov Brown and AG Harris and rogue judicial activists in the federal appeals system have and get rewarded for it.