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

[Silhouette]

Ohhh so now "implied" is how laws are to be interpreted, let's ignore the actual text of laws and go with "implied". Activist judges would love you.


They also said that State Civil Marriage laws were subject to Constitutional guarantees.

You keep leaving that part out. Loving was cited as a case where the states had exceeded these Constitutional guarantees and therefore the States laws were invalid.

Attorneys argue implied law all the time. What's your point? You're saying only the cult of LGBT can argue implied law? That would be another set of "special priveleges" you're after?

Loving was indeed cited in Windsor. Just before the Court concluded that a state has a constitutionally-protected right to choose via broad consensus on gay marriage retroactive to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". And at the end the Court, in spite of citing Loving as a potential exception to that finding, said that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states".

You're pretending your very best game of pretend to not understand what that conclusion implies...speaking of implied law. Care to test it and ask the Court for clarity? That's exactly what Utah is going to do..

There is someone pretending about what Windsor says, here's a hint...

It's not me.

My interpretation of Windsor is in line with:

* The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

* The California Supreme Court

* The California Governor and Attorney General

* The author of the Windsor decision (Justice Kennedy) he refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California

* The Federal Judge in Utah

* The Federal Judge in Oklahoma

* The Federal Judge in Kentucky

* TWO different Federal Judge's in Virginia

* The Federal Judge in Texas

* The Federal Judge in Ohio

* The Federal Judge in Michigan​

I can't think of one judge that has agreed with your out of context snippets trying to make Windsor say what you want it to say.



>>>>

The difference between you and me is that I actually cite the text from the Windsor Opinion and give links [see back pages here] that directly support what I've said about Windsor. Your approach is "see all these activist judges in contempt of Windsor who agree with my stance!"...which is not the same as arguing law, is it?

When the chips are down, Windsor will be cited. You'd do well to read it. And that goes for everyone viewing here, before you conclude that it's actual words don't hold weight as they are written verbatum. Pay attention to pages 14-22 of the Opinion of the Court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/150138202/United-States-v-Windsor See which one of us has the weight of law on our side..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Attorneys argue implied law all the time. What's your point? You're saying only the cult of LGBT can argue implied law? That would be another set of "special priveleges" you're after?

Loving was indeed cited in Windsor. Just before the Court concluded that a state has a constitutionally-protected right to choose via broad consensus on gay marriage retroactive to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". And at the end the Court, in spite of citing Loving as a potential exception to that finding, said that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states".

You're pretending your very best game of pretend to not understand what that conclusion implies...speaking of implied law. Care to test it and ask the Court for clarity? That's exactly what Utah is going to do..

There is someone pretending about what Windsor says, here's a hint...

It's not me.

My interpretation of Windsor is in line with:

* The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

* The California Supreme Court

* The California Governor and Attorney General

* The author of the Windsor decision (Justice Kennedy) he refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California

* The Federal Judge in Utah

* The Federal Judge in Oklahoma

* The Federal Judge in Kentucky

* TWO different Federal Judge's in Virginia

* The Federal Judge in Texas

* The Federal Judge in Ohio

* The Federal Judge in Michigan​

I can't think of one judge that has agreed with your out of context snippets trying to make Windsor say what you want it to say.



>>>>

The difference between you and me is that I actually cite the text from the Windsor Opinion and give links [see back pages here] that directly support what I've said about Windsor. Your approach is "see all these activist judges in contempt of Windsor who agree with my stance!"...which is not the same as arguing law, is it?

When the chips are down, Windsor will be cited. You'd do well to read it. And that goes for everyone viewing here, before you conclude that it's actual words don't hold weight as they are written verbatum. Pay attention to pages 14-22 of the Opinion of the Court: United States v. Windsor See which one of us has the weight of law on our side..

I've read it. That's why I know you are wrong.

You've said that Windsor means that SSCM is legal in only three states, which shows you don't understand Windsor. The SCOTUS itself in Windsor recognized "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 and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons." Some of those states achieved Marriage Equality judicially, some through the legislature, and some through the ballot. However the SCOTUS recognized all three methods.

People should read the decision themselves. Reading for comprehension instead of an attempt to find out of context snippets, people will see that Windsor ruling as you say it's ruling as you try to convert dicta to stare decisis.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I've read it. That's why I know you are wrong.

You've said that Windsor means that SSCM is legal in only three states, which shows you don't understand Windsor. The SCOTUS itself in Windsor recognized "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 and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons." Some of those states achieved Marriage Equality judicially, some through the legislature, and some through the ballot. However the SCOTUS recognized all three methods.

People should read the decision themselves. Reading for comprehension instead of an attempt to find out of context snippets, people will see that Windsor ruling as you say it's ruling as you try to convert dicta to stare decisis.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

Yes, that 11 state comment truly is an anomoly. Let's talk about it.

First of all, it means that after mentioning Loving, they didn't apply gay marriage across the 50 states. Not that that was a consideration for Windsor but certainly if they were leaning in that direction they would've used more vague language or said something like "may be legal across all 50 states". But since they specified it's only legal in 11 states, and of those states, activist judges denied a state's sovereignty as to gay marriage, how could New York's sovereignty stand?

Perhaps they said all those things about each state's right to choose via broad public weigh in on consensus just as a mere exercise in language? That it was supported constitutionally "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended", but not really? That a state's consensus' constitutional right was also being simultaneously revoked by their Upholding that in those states where voters' rights were revoked by an activist judge, had "legal gay marriage"? The Court was in error saying this one way or the other.

That will be a point they need to clarify in Utah.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, the American mind is reflected by the growing majority for marriage equality.

Sil, American Christians know that your interpretation of Jude 1 is heresy.

Very few people see LGBT a "cult" as you do, Sil.

The only giggles come from the dwindling minority that opposes marriage equality and empathy for their brothers and sisters.

 

[Pop23]

Sil, the American mind is reflected by the growing majority for marriage equality.

Sil, American Christians know that your interpretation of Jude 1 is heresy.

Very few people see LGBT a "cult" as you do, Sil.

The only giggles come from the dwindling minority that opposes marriage equality and empathy for their brothers and sisters.

Great marketing of a bad product does not make the product better.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've read it. That's why I know you are wrong.

You've said that Windsor means that SSCM is legal in only three states, which shows you don't understand Windsor. The SCOTUS itself in Windsor recognized "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 and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons." Some of those states achieved Marriage Equality judicially, some through the legislature, and some through the ballot. However the SCOTUS recognized all three methods.

People should read the decision themselves. Reading for comprehension instead of an attempt to find out of context snippets, people will see that Windsor ruling as you say it's ruling as you try to convert dicta to stare decisis.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

Yes, that 11 state comment truly is an anomoly. Let's talk about it.

First of all, it means that after mentioning Loving, they didn't apply gay marriage across the 50 states.

There's nothing much to talk about. The Windsor case was not a case concerning State laws that ban equal treatment for same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws. Windsors only question was (to paraphrase) "if a state says yes to Marriage Equality, can the Federal government ignore these legally valid Civil Marriages and discriminate against same-sex couples". The answer of the court was "No".

Whether states can ban same-sex couples from equal treatment under the law will take one of the cases currently working towards the SCOTUS. Oral arguments in Kitchen vs. Herbert were (IIRC) scheduled for today before the 10th Circuit Court.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oral arguments in Kitchen vs. Herbert were (IIRC) scheduled for today before the 10th Circuit Court.


>>>>

Yep they were.

Here is the link to the oral arguments -->> http://www.uscourts.gov/courts/ca10/13-4178.mp3


I'm about 20 minutes into it and getting ready to work out. The questions from the Judges seems like they are putting the State on the hot seat.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The Windsor case was not a case concerning State laws that ban equal treatment for same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws. Windsors only question was (to paraphrase) "if a state says yes to Marriage Equality, can the Federal government ignore these legally valid Civil Marriages and discriminate against same-sex couples". The answer of the court was "No".

Whether states can ban same-sex couples from equal treatment under the law will take one of the cases currently working towards the SCOTUS. Oral arguments in Kitchen vs. Herbert were (IIRC) scheduled for today before the 10th Circuit Court.


>>>>

The Windsor case specified that its core was the role of a state in defining marriage for itself within the "new and unusual" context of gay marriage. They defined that role specifically and painstakingly. They said it was right and proper for the widest swath of the public in each state faced with this new and weird type of marriage to weigh in after a wide discussion via a consensus on the matter.

The Windsor case was ALL ABOUT the state's role in defining marriage. That was the hinge of Windsor. The context was gay marriage. They cited Loving as a possible exception, not "the exception that applies here" and then they went on to affirm that only 11 states "as of this writing" had legal gay marriage.

That last part is confusing but the Court's intent on Upholding each state's separate soveriegn role via its internal citizen consensus on gay marriage is and was crystal clear. They said it was each state's "unquestioned authority" to decide in that matter, "in a way the Framers of the Constitution intended." The state's central role in defining marriage under the context of gay marriage being legal or not was THE REASON parts of DOMA were struck down. The Court said the fed had to abide by what the states said; and not the other way around. The fed or "federal government" also includes federal appeals judges...

 

[Silhouette]

*Crickets*...just as I thought...

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Windsor case specified that its core was the role of a state in defining marriage for itself within the "new and unusual" context of gay marriage. They defined that role specifically and painstakingly.

Nope, that's a lopsided reading of Windsor twist dicta into stare decisis.

The core issue of the case was that when the state extends Civil Marriage to same sex couples that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to ignore those marriages and attempt to injure those couples through unequal treatment. As the Chief Justice noted the case did not address whether states were allowed to ban SSCM, the Windsor case only addressed the federal law and it's federal Constitutional questions"

In granting certiorari on the question of the constitutionality
of §3 of DOMA, the Court requested argument on two
additional questions: whether the United States’ agreement
with Windsor’s legal position precludes further review and
whether BLAG has standing to appeal the case.

<<SNIP>>

That result requires this Court now to address
whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation
of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth
Amendment. What the State of New York treats as alike
the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure
the same class the State seeks to protect

<<SNIP>>

The Act&#8217;s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any
State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those
unions will be treated as second-class marriages for
purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious question
under the Constitution&#8217;s Fifth Amendment.

<<SNIP>>

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains.
And though Congress has great authority to design laws to
fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot
deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment.

<<SNIP>>

While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from
Government the power to degrade or demean in the
way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of
the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment
right all the mores pecific and all the better understood
and preserved​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

*Crickets*...just as I thought...

Awwwww...


Isn't that precious.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The Windsor case specified that its core was the role of a state in defining marriage for itself within the "new and unusual" context of gay marriage. They defined that role specifically and painstakingly.

Nope, that's a lopsided reading of Windsor twist dicta into stare decisis.

The core issue of the case was that when the state extends Civil Marriage to same sex couples that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to ignore those marriages and attempt to injure those couples through unequal treatment. As the Chief Justice noted the case did not address whether states were allowed to ban SSCM, the Windsor case only addressed the federal law and it's federal Constitutional questions"

Underlined:

1. The Court DID define the "when" of a state's decision. They also addressed the "how" of that decision as constitutionally-protected. That "how" was via a broad consensus of the governed. When the activist-judges' fascism/dictatorship is challeged [for it will be in Utah], the weight will be given to any decision in each state on gay marriage that had the broadest consultation with the goverened as possible on the topic.

2. The Opinion DID talk about whether or not states were "allowed to ban" gay marriage. Again, you're dehydrating the language down in your favor. What the Court said was that gay marriage is akin to first cousins or 13 year olds marrying. Sure, if the state that has those marriages legitimately graces them with a marriage license with the blessing of the people who live in that state, then the fed must abide by that legal marriage because that state said so. But in all but 3 states, gay marriage isn't "banned". It simply doesn't qualify as "between one man and one woman." Others that don't qualify but aren't explicitly banned are minors, polylgamists, siblings, adult/adult child pairs etc.

The Court recognized that gay marriage is a new and weird idea that thwarts thousands of years of human civilization's definition of the word at its core. The reproductive-potential pair has been the core of that definition. Suddenly trying to redefine the base meaning of that word and institution with two people of the same gender play-acting as "husband/wife, father/mother" is a new and weird concept.

It's affect on child rearing is not fully studied and in fact as one poster noted there are significant issues surfacing [as one could easily expect and predict] of maladjustment in kids raised in a home where such a high level of obvious mental illness is present in both "parents". A woman pretending to be a man or a man pretending to be a woman indicates mental illness and maladjustment to reality. The "spouse" of that maladjusted person also has maladjustment and repression issues. If you're a woman attracted to a completely man-like other woman, complete with a strapon penis, aren't you really just attracted to males? Likewise if you're a man attracted to a lisping, falsetto, hip-wiggling "bottom" gay man, aren't you really attracted to females?

And so on.. Just not an enviornment where kids should be used as guinea pigs because the obvious signs of problems are already there..

Whatever the base cause, it is not an optimal environment to raise children in...but base causes have been studied and explained:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

[300 + studies, peer-reviewed conclusions-supporting bibliogaphy]
http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, the American mind is reflected by the growing majority for marriage equality.

Sil, American Christians know that your interpretation of Jude 1 is heresy.

Very few people see LGBT a "cult" as you do, Sil.

The only giggles come from the dwindling minority that opposes marriage equality and empathy for their brothers and sisters.

Great marketing of a bad product does not make the product better.

Nothing wrong with homosexuality and, yes, the marketing is good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it is Sil or WW for counsel, Sil loses in a heart beat: prejudice outweighs the evidence.

 

[Silhouette]

If it is Sil or WW for counsel, Sil loses in a heart beat: prejudice outweighs the evidence.

So you're saying the new religion "LGBT" will win out against democracy?

 

[Pop23]

Sil, the American mind is reflected by the growing majority for marriage equality.

Sil, American Christians know that your interpretation of Jude 1 is heresy.

Very few people see LGBT a "cult" as you do, Sil.

The only giggles come from the dwindling minority that opposes marriage equality and empathy for their brothers and sisters.

Great marketing of a bad product does not make the product better.

Nothing wrong with homosexuality and, yes, the marketing is good.

You represent the Yugo of the day!

 

[Silhouette]

The eyes of same-sex couples around the nation were focused on Denver today as the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Kitchen v. Herbert, a case where a federal judge struck down the Utah state ban on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Marriage equality advocates were both upbeat and cautious when the oral arguments concluded, nervous about an apparently divided court. Also of interest is the question of whether the court will give any credence to a discredited study about children raised by same-sex parents.

Next Thursday, on April 17, a same three-judge panel will hear an Oklahoma case, Bishop v. Smith, in which a federal judge also struck down the state&#8217;s marriage ban. In the latter case, the judge immediately issued a stay in anticipation of an appeal by the state FrontiersLA.com | Utah Gay Marriage Case Heard by 10th Circuit

Quick question for you legal experts out there on the federal appeals circuit. What happens if the 10th finds that Utah was abiding by Windsor in setting the standards of marriage in their state via consensus to only include "one man and one woman" to the bane of polylgamists, gays & minors?

Do Virginia, California and all the other states forced to abandon their constitutional right to consensus have their laws revitalized?

 

[Silhouette]

The LDS Church is joining others in filing the brief despite an earlier media report from local Salt Lake City affiliate FOX 13 saying the church wouldn’t issue a filing in the case. The church didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on why it was participating in filing despite this report....

...The brief is along the lines of similar filings that the Mormon Church and other religious groups submitted before the U.S. Supreme Court last year when California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act were before the court.

But there’s a key difference: even though the earlier filing included other groups, the only law firm in that document was the Salt Lake City-based Kirton & McConkie, which handles legal matters for the LDS church. Now, Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has joined that firm in signing the document before the Tenth Circuit.

Furthermore, the brief disputes the assertion often made by LGBT advocates (and courts) that bans on same-sex marriage were motivated out of animus toward LGBT people — a key consideration in determining the measures are unconstitutional.

“The accusation is false and offensive,” the brief states. “It is intended to suppress rational dialogue and democratic conversation, to win by insult and intimidation rather than by reason, experience, and fact. In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because we believe it is right and good for children, families, and society.” Mormons make case for Utah, Oklahoma marriage bans

I knew that sooner or later the catholic church would clear its throat and begin to speak up. The cult of LGBT also knew this. I'm thinking this "knowing" years ago was behind why Pope Benedict was forced to step down in a gay-related scandal that smelled to high heaven [pardon the pun] of a setup by the lavender mafia..

 

[Silhouette]

One Colorado child isn't shy about weighing in on the gay parenting debate. Morgan Martin, 13, a seventh-grader at Platt Middle School in Boulder, aspires to become Colorado's spelling-bee champion. She also has two moms, Jenny and Jodi.

"I want my parents to get married," Morgan said during a recent interview at her Louisville home. She envisions a big wedding with an even bigger party afterward.

Morgan explains that she doesn't know her "donor," or father, after Jenny gave birth to her through a donor program. Jenny Evans met Jodi Martin at an Oklahoma City law firm where they worked. Jenny and Jodi fell in love about the time Morgan was in first grade.



Read more: Opponents in gay marriage lawsuits clash over impact on kids - The Denver Post Opponents in gay marriage lawsuits clash over impact on kids - The Denver Post

Utah's stance is that over time, encouraging these fatherless or motherless unions will warp their society's values to such an extent that reproductive rates will fall.

As yet unaddressed an perhaps the most important component of all is encouraging a situation where a child never will know their "donor" parent. That the child is already trained up to refer to a male parent of her own biology as "donor" is the institutionalizing proof of how these arrangements hurt a society. Men, once viable patriarchs and leaders of their family are now demoted to "donor" in a lesbian world. Gay men will teach their children that females are "just breeders/wombs" for their existence. Not just these famillies, but society at large will be blended until "male" and "female" have no meaning or import.

I see a world changing very very rapidly into a matrix that none of us would welcome, want or look back on our acquiesence to as "a good decision we made in the past". Of course, once the laws are in place and the USA becomes a warring place where the natural roles of mother and father conflict and combat with those who want to dub them instead "sperm and egg donor", we will only have ourselves and the federal court of appeals to blame.

The states arguing to define marriage for themselves need to do a LOT more talking about change over time and less talking about how gay marriage affects them today. As long as the LGBT cult can keep the arguments in the present tense and not "go there" with where this is all heading, the win will go to the cult of LGBT. If the states challenging this cult pitch a better case where the future of society and people's roles in it will be harmed, using little Miss Morgan Martin's comments above that she is trained to think of her father as merely "sperm donor"; then they'll get places.

This could be a court case won simply by where a temporal emphasis is placed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If it is Sil or WW for counsel, Sil loses in a heart beat: prejudice outweighs the evidence.

I, for one, would very much like SIL to be counsel presenting Oral Arguments before the various Circuit Court of Appeals and even the SCOTUS once it gets there for the anti-Marriage Equality argument.



>>>>