Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Skylar]

Dunno. It's pretty good at preserving states' rights to self-govern on this question of law. Would be better if the Justices followed their own verdict on whether or not to issue stays to preserve interim law while appeals are pending.

Their verdict put constituitional guarantees above state marriage laws. And every ruling overturning state marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Just because you ignore constitutional guarantees and any mention of them in the Windsor decision doesn't mean that the Justices have to ignore what you do.

All in all I'd say the burden to prove a boy shouldn't have a father and a girl shouldn't have a mother "as married" as a brand new concept (using kids as lab rats) is upon the challengers, not upon those protecting the thousands-years-old definition of marriage to provide both a mother and father to the childrein involved..

And how would denying marriage to lesbian parents mean that their son has opposite sex parents?

Alas, your remedy has nothing to do with the ill you claim to be trying to cure. Like amputating a foot to cure a head cold.

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage doesn't happen legally in California.

Sure it does. The federal judiciary overturned Prop 8.

Remember...and this point is fundamental: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You don't know how our legal system works. And you have arbitrarily and pointlessly ignored constitutional guarantees as part of this entire process.

Despite every ruling overturning same sex marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Ignore as you will. Your denial doesn't actually change the outcome of any case.

Shadow stay refusals do not law make.

The USSC preserved the federal court ruling that overturned Prop 8. That ruling stands.

That you believe otherwise is meaningless. Your denial has no relevance to any marriage, same sex or otherwise.

Windsor is the law and by it's 56-avered position, states choose, not the fed.

Ah, but you keep forgetting the hierarchy set in the Windsor decision:

1. Constitutional Guarantees

2. State marriage laws.

3. Federal Marriage laws.

And every federal court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans (including Prop 8) has been on the basis of the violation of those constitutional guarantees. That you ignore constitutional guarantees and try and pretend they don't exist doesn't mean they actually vanish.

It only means you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

WTF? Are you going to be done with non sequiturs or are you going to spam a few more pages with them?

Are you talking to yourself again?

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage doesn't happen legally in California. g.

You are just batguano crazy.

Federal judge overturned California state law- appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate court, appealed to Supreme Court which left that decision stand.

same gender couples are happily- and legally getting married in California.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage doesn't happen legally in California. g.

You are just batguano crazy.

Federal judge overturned California state law- appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate court, appealed to Supreme Court which left that decision stand.

same gender couples are happily- and legally getting married in California.

Lower federal courts aren't allowed to overturn a specific Finding of law that was just rendered less than two years prior. Windsor 2013 Found that states get to approve or disapprove of the neo-redaction to the word "marriage" and the subsequent experimentation with children as lab rats, depriving boys of a father and girls of a mother. It said the discreet communities affected need a consensus. That the fed had to listen to the states on this question of law.

Alabama remains unreprimanded. Therefore all states likewise have that same sovereignty. California is no exception.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay marriage doesn't happen legally in California. g.

You are just batguano crazy.

Federal judge overturned California state law- appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate court, appealed to Supreme Court which left that decision stand.

same gender couples are happily- and legally getting married in California.

Lower federal courts aren't allowed to overturn a specific Finding of law that was just rendered less than two years prior. Windsor 2013 Found that states get to approve or disapprove of the neo-redaction to the word "marriage" and the subsequent experimentation with children as lab rats, depriving boys of a father and girls of a mother. It said the discreet communities affected need a consensus. That the fed had to listen to the states on this question of law.

Alabama remains unreprimanded. Therefore all states likewise have that same sovereignty. California is no exception.

Wrong.

Four years after Brown states and local jurisdictions continued to fight to retain segregation in defiance of the Supreme Court. When the Arkansas legislature enacted a measure preventing the Little Rock school district from complying with the Supreme Court when it sought to desegregate its schools, the Court invalidated that measure in Cooper v. Aaron, and schools in Little Rock were at last desegregated.

The Alabama supreme court is just as wrong today as the state of Arkansas was in 1958.

 

[danielpalos]

Gay marriage doesn't happen legally in California. g.

You are just batguano crazy.

Federal judge overturned California state law- appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate court, appealed to Supreme Court which left that decision stand.

same gender couples are happily- and legally getting married in California.

Lower federal courts aren't allowed to overturn a specific Finding of law that was just rendered less than two years prior. Windsor 2013 Found that states get to approve or disapprove of the neo-redaction to the word "marriage" and the subsequent experimentation with children as lab rats, depriving boys of a father and girls of a mother. It said the discreet communities affected need a consensus. That the fed had to listen to the states on this question of law.

Alabama remains unreprimanded. Therefore all states likewise have that same sovereignty. California is no exception.

The People of the sovereign State of California, exceeded their scope of alleged retained Individual sovereignty, when they voted to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of some of the several and sovereign citizens in this several and sovereign State.

 

[Silhouette]

The People of the sovereign State of California, exceeded their scope of alleged retained Individual sovereignty, when they voted to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of some of the several and sovereign citizens in this several and sovereign State.

So your interpretation is that every single person in California should be allowed to marry whoever they want? No? Maybe an exception for minors? How old? People who are bother and sister? No? Why? People who want to marry the several others they love? Not OK with polyamorists marrying the ones they love? Why?

Why do homosexuals alone get to dissolve the meaning of the word marriage without the permission of the majority, to launch a brand new social experiment where states are forced to incentivize homes that by their structure lack a father for boys and a mother for girls?

 

[danielpalos]

The People of the sovereign State of California, exceeded their scope of alleged retained Individual sovereignty, when they voted to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of some of the several and sovereign citizens in this several and sovereign State.

So your interpretation is that every single person in California should be allowed to marry whoever they want? No? Maybe an exception for minors? How old? People who are bother and sister? No? Why? People who want to marry the several others they love? Not OK with polyamorists marrying the ones they love? Why?

Why do homosexuals alone get to dissolve the meaning of the word marriage without the permission of the majority, to launch a brand new social experiment where states are forced to incentivize homes that by their structure lack a father for boys and a mother for girls?

It is the right that claims contractual consent is a requirement for full recourse to Individual Liberty.

 

[Silhouette]

For everyone?

 

[Silhouette]

The People of the sovereign State of California, exceeded their scope of alleged retained Individual sovereignty, when they voted to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of some of the several and sovereign citizens in this several and sovereign State.

So your interpretation is that every single person in California should be allowed to marry whoever they want? No? Maybe an exception for minors? How old? People who are bother and sister? No? Why? People who want to marry the several others they love? Not OK with polyamorists marrying the ones they love? Why?

Why do homosexuals alone get to dissolve the meaning of the word marriage without the permission of the majority, to launch a brand new social experiment where states are forced to incentivize homes that by their structure lack a father for boys and a mother for girls?

It is the right that claims contractual consent is a requirement for full recourse to Individual Liberty.

For everyone? So you are a marriage equality purist right? You wouldn't disparage say, polygamists, incest or single parents from all the benefits of marriage..correct? Equality for all, not just some, yes?

 

[danielpalos]

For everyone?

Does the right now claim, not every Person needs to be a signatory of a Contract for full recourse to Individual Liberty?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Don't think government should be involved with marriage at all. Leave it up to whatever religious institutions do them. Eliminate the 1400 or so incentives and revert it back to a strictly religious rite.

Very term 'marriage license' makes my skin crawl.

 

[danielpalos]

Not me; I saw StarShip Troopers.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Don't think government should be involved with marriage at all. Leave it up to whatever religious institutions do them. Eliminate the 1400 or so incentives and revert it back to a strictly religious rite.

Very term 'marriage license' makes my skin crawl.

Ya, let's eliminate...

1. Military recognition of a legal spouse resulting medical covrin increased allowance for quarters and relocation of the spouse when executing permanent change of station orders.

2. Military health care for the spouse.

3. Eligibility for the spouse under Military Survivor Benefits Program if the retired members dies.

4. For honorably discharged veterans and retirees, burial of the spouse next to the service member in National Veteran's Cemeteries.

5. Tax free transfer of real property to a spouse.

6. The exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold.

7. Spousal privilege against testifying in a criminal court case against a spouse.

8. Establishment of a family relationship for the spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act so that one spouse can care for an injured or sick spouse in a job protected status.

9. The ability to file join income tax statements.

10. Survivor benefits for Social Security whereby a spouse can receive benefits at the deceased spouses rate if they were married for a certain period and the deceased spouses benefit as/is higher then the surviving spouses benefit.

11. Sponsorship of a spouse for immigration purposes and preferential resident alien status.

12. Federal exemption from Federal Unemployment Tax when one spouse works for another as part of a small business.

13. Filing joint bankruptcy.

14. Legal next-of-kin status recognized by all 50-states and the federal government for emergency medical decisions when no medical power of attorney has been initiated.

15. Ability to file wrongful death claims against an individual or organization responsibile for the death of a spouse.

16. Preferential hiring of spouses of a veteran for federal jobs.

17. Right of property inheritance upon the death of a spouse under tax free status.

18. Consideration of spousal income under certain federal insured home loan programs.

19. Access to Hope and Lifetime learning credit programs for taxes for the education of a spouse.

20. The additional cost of health care insurance provided by employer to cover a spouse is not treated as taxable income for a legally married spouse. Such coverage for a non-spouse is treated as income for the individual and is therefore taxed.​

Ya, get government out of marriage and eliminate the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage under the law.


>>>>

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Government shouldn't be incentivising a religious rite.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Government shouldn't be incentivising a religious rite.

Civil Marriage isn't a religious rite.


>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

A obligation of contracts is an Obligation of Contracts.

 

[bodecea]

The People of the sovereign State of California, exceeded their scope of alleged retained Individual sovereignty, when they voted to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of some of the several and sovereign citizens in this several and sovereign State.

So your interpretation is that every single person in California should be allowed to marry whoever they want? No? Maybe an exception for minors? How old? People who are bother and sister? No? Why? People who want to marry the several others they love? Not OK with polyamorists marrying the ones they love? Why?

Why do homosexuals alone get to dissolve the meaning of the word marriage without the permission of the majority, to launch a brand new social experiment where states are forced to incentivize homes that by their structure lack a father for boys and a mother for girls?

Why do you put so much imaginary power onto gay citizens. We dissolve nothing. We are included. Sorry that you no longer get to exclude law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens. Bummer for you.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Government shouldn't be incentivising a religious rite.

Civil Marriage isn't a religious rite.


>>>>

Very few marriages are strictly a legal union absent all religious tie-ins. When they are they're more a legal contract though. If it's a "marriage" the implication is there's a religious component to it.