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

[WorldWatcher]

Quick question for you legal experts out there on the federal appeals circuit.

Be happy to help, but I don't claim to be an expert.

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?

Actually, Windsor said that the Federal government was discriminating and violating the Equal Protection provisions of the 5th Amendment, the logical extension of that is that the States are violating the rights of same-sex couples are also discriminating under the provisions of th 14th Amendment being applicable to the States.

(Nice try to slip that in though. Give you props for that. )

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

First of all California is already settled law. The District Court Judges ruling was not vacated by the Court and so SSCM remains legal in California. Any ruling as to Civil Marriage in other states won't change that.

As to your question, No they are not "forced to abandon" their cases. The other Circuit Courts are independent. Now if the 10th issues a decision what another court is still in the review process, the other Circuit Court will read the other courts decision and it may (or it may not) influence them. It all depends.

However it is not uncommon for SCOTUS review to be needed specifically because different Circuit Courts have issued different decisions as to the functioning of law and one standard has to be set to clarify the issue. Because there are multiple Circuit Courts involved in the appellate process for different cases it is very likely that we will end up with different rulings.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

The irony here is thick

This being played out in Utah, the State that our Federal Government sent troops into, killing people, to insure that marriage remain between one man and one women.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Now this opens the door for polygamy.

Do you suppose, if Utah resists, the federal government will send troops to enforce a law making marriage not between one man and one women?

 

[Silhouette]

California is NOT "settled law". If it was, it wouldn't say this in the Constitution today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Gay marraige is not now nor has it ever been duly enacted law in California [Windsor 2013].

A child's testimony FOR cult of LGBT marriage backfires...

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.

First of all California is already settled law. The District Court Judges ruling was not vacated by the Court and so SSCM remains legal in California. Any ruling as to Civil Marriage in other states won't change that.

As to your question, No they are not "forced to abandon" their cases. The other Circuit Courts are independent. Now if the 10th issues a decision what another court is still in the review process, the other Circuit Court will read the other courts decision and it may (or it may not) influence them. It all depends.

Yes, it all depends....on the Windsor case which is the case Utah cited in its appeal for a stay on gay marriage [which it won] and its arguments for Utah's rights to set standards of behavior as to marriage within its boundaries.

 

[WorldWatcher]

California is NOT "settled law". If it was, it wouldn't say this in the Constitution today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Gay marraige is not now nor has it ever been duly enacted law in California [Windsor 2013].

The Loving decision that ruled anti-interracial laws unconstitutional was in 1967. Alabama's constitution retained it's language until 2000. That doesn't mean that interracial marriage ban's existed in Alabama for 33 years.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

California is NOT "settled law". If it was, it wouldn't say this in the Constitution today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Gay marraige is not now nor has it ever been duly enacted law in California [Windsor 2013].

The Loving decision that ruled anti-interracial laws unconstitutional was in 1967. Alabama's constitution retained it's language until 2000. That doesn't mean that interracial marriage ban's existed in Alabama for 33 years.


>>>>

A: Loving and racial issues have NADA to do with deviant sexual behaviors-turned-cult and

B: SCOTUS went to the great lengths I outlined about emphasizing a broad consensus in each state gets to weigh in on the question of gay marriage to make it legal. And then they said states have had the unquestioned authority to define marriage in this and other ways since the founding of the country.

Ergo, they said that all the rights declared and Upheld for each state's consensus on the topic of defining marriage are true retroactive to the founding of the country. That would be clear back to the late 1700s. So I'm pretty sure the two propositions in California and all the other laws in all the other states under the thumb of activist/fascist/seditious/contemptuous judges defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" are all and were always all valid and binding every minute since the 1700s..

 

[WorldWatcher]

California is NOT "settled law". If it was, it wouldn't say this in the Constitution today:


Gay marraige is not now nor has it ever been duly enacted law in California [Windsor 2013].

The Loving decision that ruled anti-interracial laws unconstitutional was in 1967. Alabama's constitution retained it's language until 2000. That doesn't mean that interracial marriage ban's existed in Alabama for 33 years.


>>>>

A: Loving and racial issues have NADA to do with deviant sexual behaviors-turned-cult and

B: SCOTUS went to the great lengths I outlined about emphasizing a broad consensus in each state gets to weigh in on the question of gay marriage to make it legal. And then they said states have had the unquestioned authority to define marriage in this and other ways since the founding of the country.

Ergo, they said that all the rights declared and Upheld for each state's consensus on the topic of defining marriage are true retroactive to the founding of the country. That would be clear back to the late 1700s. So I'm pretty sure the two propositions in California and all the other laws in all the other states under the thumb of activist/fascist/seditious/contemptuous judges defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" are all and were always all valid and binding every minute since the 1700s..

With all that you still didn't respond to the point.

Loving was decided in 1967 but Alabama did not remove the language from their state constitution until 2000. During the period of 1967 to 2000 was interracial marriages banned in Alabama because the language had not been removed from their constitution OR the language remained by was void and therefore unenforceable?


Which is it SIL? Simple question. Where interracial marriages allowed in Alabama after the Loving decision?



>>>>

 

[Noomi]

I have a compromise. The Bible is not very forgiving on divorces, yet straight people get divorced every single day and Christians don't bat an eye.

So, I propose this: Either gay marriage is illegal and divorce is also illegal, unless you husband beats you, OR, allow gay people to get married and straight people to continue mocking marriage as they have done for hundreds of years.

 

[Noomi]

It is simply wrong that I could marry a guy I have known for a week, and the anti gay marriage rabble would be okay with that, but a gay couple who have been together since before a lot of you folk were even born, are not.

Its bullshit.

 

[Pop23]

It is simply wrong that I could marry a guy I have known for a week, and the anti gay marriage rabble would be okay with that, but a gay couple who have been together since before a lot of you folk were even born, are not.

Its bullshit.

Is it right that opposite gender couples supply offspring that will care for aging same sex couples when the opposite is not true?

That's bullshit.

 

[Seawytch]

It is simply wrong that I could marry a guy I have known for a week, and the anti gay marriage rabble would be okay with that, but a gay couple who have been together since before a lot of you folk were even born, are not.

Its bullshit.

Is it right that opposite gender couples supply offspring that will care for aging same sex couples when the opposite is not true?

That's bullshit.

What? OMFG you're shit just keeps getting weirder and further off the track. Gays will do what other childless couples do, get a long term care plan. The lesbians will get to stay in Veterans homes and the gay guys will pay hot cabana boys to care for them.

Besides, we can have kids, we do have kids. Many straight couples (According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the number of childless people age 40 to 44 is close to 20 percent ) don't have kids and don't want them. Nobody is granted or denied a civil marriage license as a result. And don't pull out the "straights have to pay money not to have kids". Guess what? Gays have to pay money TO have kids...lots of it so I'd say we're even.

 

[Pop23]

It is simply wrong that I could marry a guy I have known for a week, and the anti gay marriage rabble would be okay with that, but a gay couple who have been together since before a lot of you folk were even born, are not.

Its bullshit.

Is it right that opposite gender couples supply offspring that will care for aging same sex couples when the opposite is not true?

That's bullshit.

What? OMFG you're shit just keeps getting weirder and further off the track. Gays will do what other childless couples do, get a long term care plan. The lesbians will get to stay in Veterans homes and the gay guys will pay hot cabana boys to care for them.

Besides, we can have kids, we do have kids. Many straight couples (According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the number of childless people age 40 to 44 is close to 20 percent ) don't have kids and don't want them. Nobody is granted or denied a civil marriage license as a result. And don't pull out the "straights have to pay money not to have kids". Guess what? Gays have to pay money TO have kids...lots of it so I'd say we're even.

You married to the sperm donor? I doubt it. It was opposing genders that created the child. True always.

Long term care insurance? Who supplies the long term care? That's right, the offspring of opposite genders. True ALWAYS.

I've asked this before and I've never gotten an answer. Do you support Roe v Wade?

 

[Seawytch]

Is it right that opposite gender couples supply offspring that will care for aging same sex couples when the opposite is not true?

That's bullshit.

What? OMFG you're shit just keeps getting weirder and further off the track. Gays will do what other childless couples do, get a long term care plan. The lesbians will get to stay in Veterans homes and the gay guys will pay hot cabana boys to care for them.

Besides, we can have kids, we do have kids. Many straight couples (According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the number of childless people age 40 to 44 is close to 20 percent ) don't have kids and don't want them. Nobody is granted or denied a civil marriage license as a result. And don't pull out the "straights have to pay money not to have kids". Guess what? Gays have to pay money TO have kids...lots of it so I'd say we're even.

You married to the sperm donor? I doubt it. It was opposing genders that created the child. True always.

Long term care insurance? Who supplies the long term care? That's right, the offspring of opposite genders. True ALWAYS.

I've asked this before and I've never gotten an answer. Do you support Roe v Wade?

Pop, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it never becomes true that procreation is required for civil marriage, period. It will never be a requirement. Whether procreation occurs, both same sex and opposite couples are legally marrying...again, period.

Who supplies the long term care? From what I saw in the long term care facility my grandmother was in, gay men and Mexican women.

Yes, I support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. And?

 

[Pop23]

What? OMFG you're shit just keeps getting weirder and further off the track. Gays will do what other childless couples do, get a long term care plan. The lesbians will get to stay in Veterans homes and the gay guys will pay hot cabana boys to care for them.

Besides, we can have kids, we do have kids. Many straight couples (According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the number of childless people age 40 to 44 is close to 20 percent ) don't have kids and don't want them. Nobody is granted or denied a civil marriage license as a result. And don't pull out the "straights have to pay money not to have kids". Guess what? Gays have to pay money TO have kids...lots of it so I'd say we're even.

You married to the sperm donor? I doubt it. It was opposing genders that created the child. True always.

Long term care insurance? Who supplies the long term care? That's right, the offspring of opposite genders. True ALWAYS.

I've asked this before and I've never gotten an answer. Do you support Roe v Wade?

Pop, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it never becomes true that procreation is required for civil marriage, period. It will never be a requirement. Whether procreation occurs, both same sex and opposite couples are legally marrying...again, period.

Who supplies the long term care? From what I saw in the long term care facility my grandmother was in, gay men and Mexican women.

Yes, I support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. And?

Then the government can't even ask the question as to whether a couple is reproductively disabled or beyond menopause.

That would not apply to same sex would it.

Your only argument seems to be that any unit of individuals, from a single to infinity, should be allowed to apply as married.

Surely a single can procreate in the same manner you did. Why discriminate. Heck polygamist can procreate in the same manner, so they are discriminated against also?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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’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?

From Windsor:

By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of equality "must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot" justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534-535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law. DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

Bloomberg Law - Document - United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808, 118 FEP Cases 1417, 57 EBC 1577 (2013), Court Opinion

The mistake you are making – and for quite some time now – is to incorrectly infer that if the states have the right to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage law, they also have the ‘right’ to disallow same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as you are confusing two separate legal doctrines.

Windsor concerned the constitutionality of a Federal statute, a law which sought to disadvantage same-sex couples in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, applicable only to the Federal government.* Windsor did not address the issue of the validity of state laws that prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage contracts, nor is Windsor a ‘states’ rights’ case – it addressed only the relationship between the Federal government and same-sex couples whose marriages are recognized in their respective states of residence, where the Federal government may not disadvantage same-sex couples by withholding from them the benefits of Federal recognition of marriage in general.

If the 10th Circuit invalidates the lower court’s ruling, upholding Amendment 3 as Constitutional, it will be because Utah successfully demonstrated that the Amendment did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, having nothing to do with the authority of the states to regulate marriage law.

Indeed, all the parties involved acknowledge the fact that the states have the authority to compose their marriage law as they see fit – but however those laws are composed, they must be made available to all who are eligible to participate in those laws, including same-sex couples.

Windsor is relevant in the 14th Amendment challenges to states’ laws that seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights because it is the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of long-standing case law that gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections per Romer and Lawrence.

Last, this issue has nothing to do with ‘polygamists’ or under-aged children ‘marrying’ because, unlike same-sex couples, marriage laws are not written to accommodate such persons.




*The Federal Constitution is applied to the states via the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, where the former has the effect of applying the 5th Amendment to the states and the latter’s intent is to ensure the states don’t seek to exclude American citizens from their laws for reasons absent a rational basis and proper legislative end, such as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then the government can't even ask the question as to whether a couple is reproductively disabled or beyond menopause.

Actually they can at this point, I know of no SCOTUS decision that would invalidate such a law **IF** the ability to procreate with the co-applying spouse were made a requirement of Civil Marriage. If a State were to pass such a law, it would probably be challenged and struck, but they could try.


As a matter of fact I can show you a law on the books right now that makes the INABILITY to procreate a requirement for Civil Marriage.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Then the government can't even ask the question as to whether a couple is reproductively disabled or beyond menopause.

Actually they can at this point, I know of no SCOTUS decision that would invalidate such a law **IF** the ability to procreate with the co-applying spouse were made a requirement of Civil Marriage. If a State were to pass such a law, it would probably be challenged and struck, but they could try.


As a matter of fact I can show you a law on the books right now that makes the INABILITY to procreate a requirement for Civil Marriage.



>>>>

Lol, because no such law exists, not arguing the point.

Then you state that fertility is an issue.

 

[Pop23]

Then the government can't even ask the question as to whether a couple is reproductively disabled or beyond menopause.

Actually they can at this point, I know of no SCOTUS decision that would invalidate such a law **IF** the ability to procreate with the co-applying spouse were made a requirement of Civil Marriage. If a State were to pass such a law, it would probably be challenged and struck, but they could try.


As a matter of fact I can show you a law on the books right now that makes the INABILITY to procreate a requirement for Civil Marriage.



>>>>

And I can show you approximately 400,000,000 Americans born from male/female couplings. You can't show me a single child born anywhere in the world born from same sex couplings.

You want to take a square peg and fit in a round hole. Good luck.

A automobile licensed driver loses no civil rights simply because that license does not allow him to legally pilot a plane.

Your argument seems to be that any individual should be allowed married status, even without a partner. That any number of individuals should be able to marry.

Sorry, I disagree on it's base.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your argument seems to be that any individual should be allowed married status, even without a partner. That any number of individuals should be able to marry.

Sorry, I disagree on it's base.

Very good you've combined the non sequitur (""it does not follow") fallacy and the strawman fallacy ("ignore an actual statement, construct something different, then argue against that") into one post.


#1 Yes I believe any legally competent individual should be allowed to enter into Civil Marriage unless their is a compelling government interest to deny them that equal treatment under the law. So far non has been presented in the 15 (or so) years that I've watched the issue.

#2 It is logically impossible for for someone to enter into Civil Marriage without someone else to agree, so the "even without a partner" statement isn't very logical.

#3 There are compelling reasons why polygamy won't work as a function of government for secular reasons, however it will be up to polygamists to argue their case and for the government to make it's case. The two issues (SSCM and Poloygamy) have nothing to do with each other.

#4 You've continue to make the "procreation" argument even though there are couples that have to prove they can't procreate before being allowed to Civilly Marry.



>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

And I can show you approximately 400,000,000 Americans born from male/female couplings. You can't show me a single child born anywhere in the world born from same sex couplings.

7 billion people on this planet, i'm happy there are couples who won't have kids. That's in the interests of the world.

 

[Pop23]

And I can show you approximately 400,000,000 Americans born from male/female couplings. You can't show me a single child born anywhere in the world born from same sex couplings.

7 billion people on this planet, i'm happy there are couples who won't have kids. That's in the interests of the world.

How much does it cost a male/female couple to not procreate?

How much for a same sex couple?

Seems to me the burden remains on the hetro couple ALWAYS

And, again remind me how the two are remotely the same?