Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

Did you really need three, excuse me now four, separate posts to reply just to one poster? Or were your intentions to spam my points into obscurity by turning over the page?

I am just fine with how I reply.

At least I use the reply function.

I've reported your spamming and asked the moderators to combine all your posts into one and to warn you in the future about using spam as a defensive argument to push your opponents' points back to stale pages instead of addressing them succinctly and directly.

Just in case the moderators allow you to continue to break the rules....I'll repost:

^^ States and society have always anticipated the arrival of children in marriage and that anticipation is precisely why the institution was invented and maintained from time immemorial to 2015. Society considered/considers the stable presence of both a male and female regular adult role model as vital to the anticipated boys and girls who will arrive in most marriage statistically. Otherwise the states have zero fiscal incentive to subsidize (entice) married people with benefits. States have read surveys and studies similar to this one, the most comprehensive of its kind. Pay attention particularly to page 6, left hand side: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

When people said they voted and still support gay marriage you dismissed their opinion or outright ignored it.

No, actually. I don't dismiss those comments. They're important. They show a fundamental lack in the person's ability to empathize with others, particularly children, which is disturbing. They're saying "having a mother and father both was important to me, but I could give a fuck about other kids lacking those two vital components in their childhood". Pretty creepy.

And yet you spend all this time worrying about gay households while ignoring the fact your own household doesn't have a father in it. Go figure.

Ad hominem won't get you off the hook. We're talking about radical changes in the INSTITUTION of marriage forced upon the states by five unelected lawyers who effectively overturned Windsor in two years time. And tried a power grab on areas outside their enforcement. They are not allowed to add language to the US Constitution that doesn't exist. They are not allowed to prefer one set of moral edicts (establishing a Gay DOMA) and denounce others (regular DOMA). Either forced-values about behaviors are legal to require states to follow or they aren't. The liberal activist judges on the USSC don't get to pick preferences in behavioral dogma and force the states to play along, OUTSIDE their power.

And yes, if any of the 85% who responded said they felt it was important to have a mother and father both in their lives, but could care less if other children don't (gay marriage) then that is creepy. Chilling actually. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[Silhouette]

'5 unelected lawyers'- also known as The Supreme Court. And they aren't elected- because we have a Constitution. Which both says that they are not elected- and that they enforce.

And Obergefell didn't overturn Windsor at all- which is why DOMA is still dead. Again- you are just lying.

To reply to just one of the SEVEN separate posts (spam much?) you made on the previous page all addressed just to me...

.... DOMA sought to impose a type of federal mandate on states regarding who may or may not marry there according to a fundamental idea of the behavior of man/woman coupling being the only legitimate type of marriage, regardless of how the states decided. Windsor struck that fundamental idea down based on the fact that it said 56 times that who may marry is up to the states and that New York decided ON ITS OWN, THE WAY IT DOES IN SUBSERVIENCE TO ITS GOVERNED, that "gay marriage" was allowed.

Obergefell then turned around and said "oh, wait, the fed CAN dictate to states who may marry if it involves people doing gay stuff", never mind how that given state has defined marriage between just a man and a woman. (de facto "Gay DOMA") In so doing it gave a philosophical preference to people doing gay stuff as opposed to people doing hetero stuff "as married", to legitimize the fed forcing states to do what they did not want to.

There is NOTHING mentioned in the US Constitution about the fed being able to regulate marriage, outside RACE, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, MALE OR FEMALE AND RELIGION. PERIOD. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution, not even vaguely insinuated, providing special protections for practitioners of majority-rejected deviant behaviors, gay sex included. All attempts to say otherwise is the Judicial Branch of government overstepping its powers (sustained = sedition) to "ratify" new language to the Constitution WHICH DOES NOT EXIST. ONLY the Legislature may make such FUNDAMENTAL changes to the Constitution. PERIOD.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.... DOMA sought to impose a type of federal mandate on states regarding who may or may not marry there according to a fundamental idea of the behavior of man/woman coupling being the only legitimate type of marriage, regardless of how the states decided.

That is a flat out lie.

DOMA did 2 things. It said that states didn't have to recognize same-sex civil marriages from other states and said the federal government would not recognize same sex civil marriages.

It did not "impose" a federal mandate on the States. States could have same sex civil marriages if they wanted (and many states did have same sex civil marriages under DOMA. State could also choose to recognize same-sex civil marriages from other states if they so chose.


*************************************


Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.


Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

DOMA did 2 things. It said that states didn't have to recognize same-sex civil marriages from other states and said the federal government would not recognize same sex civil marriages.

It did not "impose" a federal mandate on the States.

DOMA effectively imposed a fiscal collar on the benefits the fed could give marrieds by dictating to that state who the fed considered legally married and who it didn't. The Windsor decision was the correct decision: leaving that determination of "married' to be set by the individual states.

Then came Obergefell which said "now we, the fed, are forcing the states to recognize marriages they don't want" outside any Constitutional justification for levying that type of power over the states. NONE. There is NO language in the Constitution that says "people doing deviant things the majority objects to are also protected under the 14th Amendment".

Gay-DOMA (Obergefell) is worse than the original DOMA in that it has no basis in law but instead was a conjured "legal mirage" done by the Judiciary outside its powers. Only the Legislative Branch may enact such an imposition on states where there is no language AT ALL to justify doing so. That new language MUST be ratified ONLY by the Legislative Branch.

The Judiciary has no business writing brand new impacting law. But that's exactly what happened. Which makes it illegal, for that and a dozen other reasons I've mentioned in other posts.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you really need three, excuse me now four, separate posts to reply just to one poster? Or were your intentions to spam my points into obscurity by turning over the page?

I am just fine with how I reply.

At least I use the reply function.

I've reported your spamming and asked the moderators to combine all your posts into one and to warn you in the future about using spam as a defensive argument to push your opponents' points back to stale pages instead of addressing them succinctly and directly.

Report away. I use the reply function and reply to specific segments of your posts.

You don't like that?

I am good with that.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you really need three, excuse me now four, separate posts to reply just to one poster? Or were your intentions to spam my points into obscurity by turning over the page?

I am just fine with how I reply.

At least I use the reply function.

^^ States and society have always anticipated the arrival of children in marriage and that anticipation is precisely why the institution was invented and maintained from time immemorial to 2015. Society considered/considers the stable presence of both a male and female regular adult role model as vital to the anticipated boys and girls who will arrive in most marriage statistically. Otherwise the states have zero fiscal incentive to subsidize (entice) married people with benefits. States have read surveys and studies similar to this one, the most comprehensive of its kind. Pay attention particularly to page 6, left hand side: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

Now you are spamming- you are copying and pasting the exact same thing you posted before- and I replied before- and that is a violation of the rules.

And I will point out again that:
a) All of that is your unsubstantiated opinion and
b) The Prince's survey doesn't mention homosexuals, gay marriage or anything you have posted.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Ad hominem won't get you off the hook. We're talking about radical changes in the INSTITUTION of marriage forced upon the states by five unelected lawyers who effectively overturned Windsor in two years time. And tried a power grab on areas outside their enforcement. They are not allowed to add language to the US Constitution that doesn't exist. They are not allowed to prefer one set of moral edicts (establishing a Gay DOMA) and denounce others (regular DOMA). Either forced-values about behaviors are legal to require states to follow or they aren't. The liberal activist judges on the USSC don't get to pick preferences in behavioral dogma and force the states to play along, OUTSIDE their power.

And yes, if any of the 85% who responded said they felt it was important to have a mother and father both in their lives, but could care less if other children don't (gay marriage) then that is creepy. Chilling actually. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

And again you are just spamming your previous posts. Which is actually against board rules.

Just as stupid and wrong as the previous times I rebutted them.

 

[Syriusly]

[
There is NOTHING mentioned in the US Constitution about the fed being able to regulate marriage, outside RACE, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, MALE OR FEMALE AND RELIGION. PERIOD. .

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about the 'fed' being able to regulate marriage based upon race, country of origin, gender or religion.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that marriage is a Constitutional right.

Obergefell is the fourth- and latest of the Supreme Court decisions that overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional.

Yes- the Supreme Court does have the authority to declare state laws unconstitutional- and have had it since the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

DOMA did 2 things. It said that states didn't have to recognize same-sex civil marriages from other states and said the federal government would not recognize same sex civil marriages.

It did not "impose" a federal mandate on the States.

DOMA effectively imposed a fiscal collar on the benefits the fed could give marrieds by dictating to that state who the fed considered legally married and who it didn't. The Windsor decision was the correct decision: leaving that determination of "married' to be set by the individual states.

Then came Obergefell which said "now we, the fed, are forcing the states to recognize marriages they don't want" outside any Constitutional justification for levying that type of power over the states. NONE. .

Windsor said that Congress could not tell States how to regulate marriage.
Obergefell said that State's could not impose unconstitutional marriage laws.

Pretty straightforward really.

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor said that Congress could not tell States how to regulate marriage.
Obergefell said that State's could not impose unconstitutional marriage laws.

Pretty straightforward really.

Where in the US Constitution is their wording or even an implication that deviant sex practitioners are a "class protected"? Rhetorical question because the answer we all know is NOWHERE. That "constitutional protection" was an invented fabrication by the Judical Branch; which is disallowed via separation of powers.

 

[Syriusly]

Windsor said that Congress could not tell States how to regulate marriage.
Obergefell said that State's could not impose unconstitutional marriage laws.

Pretty straightforward really.

Where in the US Constitution is their wording or even an implication that deviant sex practitioners are a "class protected"? .

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Windsor said that Congress could not tell States how to regulate marriage.
Obergefell said that State's could not impose unconstitutional marriage laws.

Pretty straightforward really.

Where in the US Constitution is their wording or even an implication that deviant sex practitioners are a "class protected"? .

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

 

[Syriusly]

Windsor said that Congress could not tell States how to regulate marriage.
Obergefell said that State's could not impose unconstitutional marriage laws.

Pretty straightforward really.

Where in the US Constitution is their wording or even an implication that deviant sex practitioners are a "class protected"? .

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

Well that explains your bigotry towards homosexuals- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Windsor said that Congress could not tell States how to regulate marriage.
Obergefell said that State's could not impose unconstitutional marriage laws.

Pretty straightforward really.

Where in the US Constitution is their wording or even an implication that deviant sex practitioners are a "class protected"? .

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

Well that explains your bigotry towards homosexuals- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

No, by definition they are deviant sex practioners. Has nothing to do with bigotry. I think you have a problem with the English language, not me.

 

[Syriusly]

Windsor said that Congress could not tell States how to regulate marriage.
Obergefell said that State's could not impose unconstitutional marriage laws.

Pretty straightforward really.

Where in the US Constitution is their wording or even an implication that deviant sex practitioners are a "class protected"? .

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

Well that explains your bigotry towards homosexuals- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

No, by definition they are deviant sex practioners. Has nothing to do with bigotry. I think you have a problem with the English language, not me.

Nope by definition homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender.

And again- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

Neither ruling discussed sexual practices at all.

 

[jillian]

The lastest and Highest Opinion on the merits (the only one to date upon the merits) of the specific question of law of legitimacy of same-sex marriage by where its legitimacy is derived from is Windsor 2013. It found that that question was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

Below is a compilation directly quoted from Windsor 2013 of the type and number of references to the power of defining marriage as to this specific question falling under the separate states' control. That concept of this as a state's right is reaffirmed at my count 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion found here: United States v. Windsor

Given this is the case, vote on the poll above to weigh if you think the Court will overturn this essence of how it determined to find on behalf of E. Windsor in 2013.

Here are the references from Windsor:

**********
Page 1: "In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the concept of same-sex marriage." (1)

Page 2: "..before any State had acted to permit it"... "Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States"..."does not by its terms forbid States from enacting laws permitting same-sex marriages or civil unions"... (3)

Page 13: "When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right."..."Accordingly some States.." (2)

Page 14: "The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion." ...."New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples"..."so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage."..."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"..."After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted.."..."Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States.".."By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." (7)

Page 16: "persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.."..."In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition."...""regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States." (3)

Page 17: "The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.."..."Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders.."..."The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the "[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities."...""[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce.."..."the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce."..."The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States"..."the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.."..."under the Copyright Act "requires a reference to the law of the State which created those legal relationships" because "there is no federal law of domestic relations."...."In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction." (9)

Page 18: "exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations."..."The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States."..."Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State.."..."these rules are in every event consistent within each State."..."it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance."..."The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism."..."When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition.."...." (7)

Page 19: "this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.."...."The Federal Government uses this state-defined class.."..."In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding "to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times."..."These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."..."The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other."..."The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation.." (6)

Page 20: "For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status."...."a relationship deemed by the State.."...."It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality."...."The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people."..."DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here.." (5)

Page 21: "same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.."...."same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.."...."the congressional purpose to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married. As the title and dynamics of the bill indicate, its purpose isto discourage enactment of state same-sex marriage laws and to restrict the freedom and choice of couples married under those laws if they are enacted." (3)

Page 22: "The congressional goal was "to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws."..."New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage.."...."DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law."..."DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages.."...."DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State."...."diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect."..."public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages.." (7)

Page 23: "whose relationship the State has sought to dignify." (1)

Page 25: "those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State."...."persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition.."...."a status the State finds to be dignified and proper"..." (3)

Page 26: "those whom the State, by its marriage laws.." (1)

this has already been decided....

the state can pass laws regarding status.... but those laws cannot violate equal protection laws.

see how easy that is

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Where in the US Constitution is their wording or even an implication that deviant sex practitioners are a "class protected"? .

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

Well that explains your bigotry towards homosexuals- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

No, by definition they are deviant sex practioners. Has nothing to do with bigotry. I think you have a problem with the English language, not me.

Nope by definition homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender.

And again- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

Neither ruling discussed sexual practices at all.

It deviates from the norm, they are deviant sex practioners regardless how you try to spin it.

 

[Silhouette]

the state can pass laws regarding status.... but those laws cannot violate equal protection laws.

And what Constitutional protections do deviant sex addicts have? Zero, that's right. So if there's ever a question about the "rights" of deviant sex addicts vs other people (like sovereign states objecting to being forced to have motherless/fatherless marriages), the default decider is the US Constitution and Windsor that said marriage definition unquestionably rests with the individual states. Loving was a correct decision as well, in that it involved race, not deviant sex behaviors. Race, country of origin, men or women and religion are the only enumerated protected classes in the Constitution.

If the majority objects to deviant behavioral addicts doing this or that thing, they have no recourse. And this is because the number of majority-rejected deviant behaviors is a large number. You give one majority-rejected behavior special legal dominance that doesn't exist in the Constitution, you have to give all of them that same umbrella. That's how equality works. The penal codes in any given state will never look the same if that happens.

 

[Silhouette]

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

When framing any legal argument for a change proposed as monumental as stripping children legally of the right to either a mother or father for life as their implicit share in the marriage contract since time immemorial, one should pay attention to such a fundamental premise.

Yes, homosexuals are nothing but the practitioners of deviant sex acts, giving themselves "an identity". That last part is what they tried to fool the courts with. Too bad the courts didn't notice that the identity is based in behaviors that are loosely defined and shifting. That's the part they're going to have to revisit. One set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors cannot be superior in law "as identity" to others that adopt the same ruse "as identity". Therefore we will have to extend the non-existant Constitutional revision (by the Judiciary??) to cover any and all other majority-rejected-deviant-behaviors-as-identity or we'll be guilty of discrimination dontcha know..

That's how the 14th Amendment works. Equality for all classes defined. (or added outside powers by the Judiciary in violation of separation of powers)

 

[Syriusly]

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

Well that explains your bigotry towards homosexuals- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

No, by definition they are deviant sex practioners. Has nothing to do with bigotry. I think you have a problem with the English language, not me.

Nope by definition homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender.

And again- neither Windsor or Obergefell has anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners'.

Neither ruling discussed sexual practices at all.

It deviates from the norm, they are deviant sex practioners regardless how you try to spin it.

And again- by definition homosexuals are people attracted to people of the same gender- regardless of whether they have sex or are celibate.

Now certainly many homosexuals- and heterosexuals- enjoy 'deviant' sex practices.

But that of course has nothing to do with Windsor or Obergefell.