Scaring SCOTUS. The LGBT Machine Burns the Midnight Oil, With Help From The GOP?

[Skylar]

What R. Maddow said on her June 2, 2015 show: Tuesday June 2 - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show - TODAY.com

"...tonight in the state of North Carolina, Republicans in the state
legislature there are about to pass an anti-gay marriage law that does not
just remind people of the Loving versus Virginia case, it doesn`t just
invoke Richard and Mildred Loving as an analogy, as a reminder of when
Southern states would not marry mixed race couples, either -- what North
Carolina is about to do would not just remind about banning interracial
marriage, it would actually allow for that again.
This North Carolina bill also passed the legislature, was actually
vetoed by the state`s governor, but the Republican-led legislature in North
Carolina is in the process of overriding that veto and putting this thing
into law anyway. The Senate has overridden the veto. The House looks like
it`s about to override the veto, and that will make it law.
This bill was written as an anti-gay bill. Federal courts have ruled
that same-sex marriage is legal in North Carolina. The state has to
recognize the marriages of same-sex couples."

**********

What better way to nudge the SCOTUS right exactly at this juncture? The only thing perhaps more rattling would be an orchestrated political hit on the head of the Family Research Council, complete with faux-outrage for pedophiles. This from the group that carries Harvey Milk stamps around in their wallets and purses. Maddow seems to be suggesting that if gay marriage isn't mandated across the 50 states, that next will be bans on interracial marriage.

North Carolina has some interesting politics. That's all I'll say about that. It's just so very convenient that on the eve of a pivotal decision that the GOP there would be so cooperative to spur outrage in a deliberating SCOTUS "bans on gay marriage = bans on the races marrying!" (see! Race and behaviors ARE the same thing!). Not.

Maddow is wrong about gay marriage being legal in N. Carolina. It isn't. Lower federal appeals judges are not allowed to overturn Windsor 2013's Findings. Windsor 2013 awarded money to E. Windsor based on its deterimination that states are dominant to the fed on the question of gay marriage.

So, it has always been illegal in N. Carolina.

This attempt to weave racial tensions into the gay agenda isn't the first time. We've seen a disturbing trend in MSNBC along these lines in the recent past. It's just odd that the GOP in N. Carolina seems willing to act their part in the faux-outrage campaign..

Wait....ANOTHER conspiracy?

Holy shit dude. I'm shocked you haven't folded in Area 51 and Roswell into this.

 

[Silhouette]

Wait....ANOTHER conspiracy?

Holy shit dude. I'm shocked you haven't folded in Area 51 and Roswell into this.

Nice diversion. We were talking about this, remember?

The moment you get your car to consent to a marriage, I'll happily send you a gift card to Auto Zone. Either way, gays will continue to legally marry in North Carolina despite the nonsense you've conjured up concerning Windsor's findings.

1. If the Supreme Court awarded E. Windsor in 2013 her money based on the hinge premise that the question of gay marriage being legal or not is/was/always has been up to the states, then that is the law until/unless the Supreme Court changes that.

2. North Carolina (a state, see #1) defined marriage to only one man and one woman.

3. So, gay marriage is not legal in North Carolina or any other state whose law says marriage is only between a man and a woman.

4. Lower courts do not enjoy the luxury of overturning from underneath, a specific Finding of law by SCOTUS; or as judge Sutton of the 6th circuit said: in anticipation that SCOTUS may at some point overturn itself on that quesiton.

And, it isn't like 2013 was 100 or even 50 years ago, making such an attempt to overrule from underneath a bit more...explainable. It was not even 2 years ago on the specific question of law.

The lower court Findings in direct contradiction of how E. Windsor was awarded her money (See #1) are in fact sedition and contempt of due process. Those decisions absolutely in no way bind any state in their jurisdiction.

 

[mdk]

Sil's can pretend all she wishes that gay marriage is not legal in North Carolina until the cows come home. Meanwhile gays are getting married in the Tar Heel State. Sil's interpretation of Windsor's findings derives almost entirely from her own imagination.

I can tell people I'm married to my car. That doesn't make it legal.

The moment you get your car to consent to a marriage, I'll happily send you a gift card to Auto Zone. Either way, gays will continue to legally marry in North Carolina despite the nonsense you've conjured up concerning Windsor's findings.

1. If the Supreme Court awarded E. Windsor in 2013 her money based on the hinge premise that the question of gay marriage being legal or not is/was/always has been up to the states, then that is the law until/unless the Supreme Court changes that.

2. North Carolina (a state, see #1) defined marriage to only one man and one woman.

3. So, gay marriage is not legal in North Carolina or any other state whose law says marriage is only between a man and a woman.

4. Lower courts do not enjoy the luxury of overturning from underneath, a specific Finding of law by SCOTUS; or as judge Sutton of the 6th circuit said: in anticipation that SCOTUS may at some point overturn itself on that quesiton.

As you've been told on numerous occasions Sil, your imagination has no effect on the actual rulings of the court. You free to indulge in any batshit legal nonsense you desire but the don't expect the courts and the rest of us to follow.

 

[Skylar]

Sil's can pretend all she wishes that gay marriage is not legal in North Carolina until the cows come home. Meanwhile gays are getting married in the Tar Heel State. Sil's interpretation of Windsor's findings derives almost entirely from her own imagination.

I can tell people I'm married to my car. That doesn't make it legal.

The moment you get your car to consent to a marriage, I'll happily send you a gift card to Auto Zone. Either way, gays will continue to legally marry in North Carolina despite the nonsense you've conjured up concerning Windsor's findings.

1. If the Supreme Court awarded E. Windsor in 2013 her money based on the hinge premise that the question of gay marriage being legal or not is/was/always has been up to the states, then that is the law until/unless the Supreme Court changes that.

Actually, Windsor never touched the question of if same sex marriage bans were constitutional. All Windsor did was affirm the States' authority to affirm same sex marriage. They never even address if the bans were permissible.

Worse for you, Scalia made it ridiculously clear that the court's position against state same sex marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking' in his dissent on Windsor. He also concluded that the court using the logic of Windsor against state same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'. '''

So you'd have to ignore both the Windsor ruling AND Scalia to believe as you do.

2. North Carolina (a state, see #1) defined marriage to only one man and one woman.


3. So, gay marriage is not legal in North Carolina or any other state whose law says marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Nope. As the Windsor decision placed constitutional guarantees as above marriage laws. The hierarchy established by the Windsor decision was as follows:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State marriage laws
3) Federal marriage laws.

And every single federal court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans did so on the basis that such rulings violated constitutional guarantees. Making those rulings perfectly consistent with the hierarchy of authority established by the Windsor decision.

You consistently ignore the constitutional guarantees as if by ignoring them the court will too. Um, yeah. Has that ever worked?

4. Lower courts do not enjoy the luxury of overturning from underneath, a specific Finding of law by SCOTUS; or as judge Sutton of the 6th circuit said: in anticipation that SCOTUS may at some point overturn itself on that quesiton.

Your argument is hamstrung by one inconvenient fact: you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. The Windsor court never found that same sex marriage bans were constitutional. So overturning such bans wouldn't be a violation of Windsor. Making your entire argument moot.

Further, the Supreme Court itself has preserved every single lower court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans. Without exception. At the same time the Supreme Court has denied stay for every single state that has tried to protect same sex marriage bans. Without exception.

This includes Alabama, whose request for stay came AFTER the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the Obergefell case. Which Scalia and Thomas took as such a blatant telegraph of the Court's intention to overturn state same sex marriage bans that they actually filed a dissent for a denial of stay. Which is ridiculously rare.

Worse, you know all this. When the SCOTUS denied Alabama its stay, you completely lost your shit and had an emotional breakdown. Insisting that the entire court should be impeached, that it was a 'shadow bias' that had already decided the case, that they were committing treason and their denial of stay was an act of tyranny.

Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Remember this? So pretending now that the courts actually SUPPORT your position is not only disingenuous. Its silly. As you still have the load of shit in your panties from the last time you lost it accusing the court that the OPPOSED your position

 

[Skylar]

Wait....ANOTHER conspiracy?

Holy shit dude. I'm shocked you haven't folded in Area 51 and Roswell into this.

Nice diversion. We were talking about this, remember?

Yeah, but that's all arguments you've made before ...and all have been thoroughly shredded. Even you don't buy your own bullshit on that front, as demonstrated by your 'shadow bias' thread where you had a complete meltdown and accused the Supreme Court of 'treason'. Its all old.

You inventing a brand new batshit conspiracy, that's new.

So lets review: you believe that Gallup and all other polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been inflitrated by homosexuals and is now falsifying its polling results as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 1960s.

AND.....

The GOP is now working with the democrats to 'scare' the Supreme Court into ruling against you.

Holy fuck, dude. You're breaking. You're literally deconstructing yourself before my eyes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What R. Maddow said on her June 2, 2015 show: Tuesday June 2 - msnbc - Rachel Maddow show - TODAY.com

"...tonight in the state of North Carolina, Republicans in the state
legislature there are about to pass an anti-gay marriage law that does not
just remind people of the Loving versus Virginia case, it doesn`t just
invoke Richard and Mildred Loving as an analogy, as a reminder of when
Southern states would not marry mixed race couples, either -- what North
Carolina is about to do would not just remind about banning interracial
marriage, it would actually allow for that again.
This North Carolina bill also passed the legislature, was actually
vetoed by the state`s governor, but the Republican-led legislature in North
Carolina is in the process of overriding that veto and putting this thing
into law anyway. The Senate has overridden the veto. The House looks like
it`s about to override the veto, and that will make it law.
This bill was written as an anti-gay bill. Federal courts have ruled
that same-sex marriage is legal in North Carolina. The state has to
recognize the marriages of same-sex couples."

**********

What better way to nudge the SCOTUS right exactly at this juncture? The only thing perhaps more rattling would be an orchestrated political hit on the head of the Family Research Council, complete with faux-outrage for pedophiles. This from the group that carries Harvey Milk stamps around in their wallets and purses. Maddow seems to be suggesting that if gay marriage isn't mandated across the 50 states, that next will be bans on interracial marriage.

North Carolina has some interesting politics. That's all I'll say about that. It's just so very convenient that on the eve of a pivotal decision that the GOP there would be so cooperative to spur outrage in a deliberating SCOTUS "bans on gay marriage = bans on the races marrying!" (see! Race and behaviors ARE the same thing!). Not.

Maddow is wrong about gay marriage being legal in N. Carolina. It isn't. Lower federal appeals judges are not allowed to overturn Windsor 2013's Findings. Windsor 2013 awarded money to E. Windsor based on its deterimination that states are dominant to the fed on the question of gay marriage.

So, it has always been illegal in N. Carolina.

This attempt to weave racial tensions into the gay agenda isn't the first time. We've seen a disturbing trend in MSNBC along these lines in the recent past. It's just odd that the GOP in N. Carolina seems willing to act their part in the faux-outrage campaign..

I am not a fan of the militant gay agenda but this is NOT what I voted for....This is not why I voted for my local state house rep and state senator....Gay marriage is a reality that even the bible thumping Presbyterians, Baptists and those fire and brimstone Evangelicals and Penticostals are just going to have to deal with.
This veto override is an example of pandering to a certain voting bloc. Unfortunately in as much as NC has seen a large influx of newcomers, mainly from the Northeast, GOP politicians STILL for whatever reason feel compelled to insure they keep the three times a week church crowd happy

 

[Silhouette]

I am not a fan of the militant gay agenda but this is NOT what I voted for....This is not why I voted for my local state house rep and state senator....Gay marriage is a reality that even the bible thumping Presbyterians, Baptists and those fire and brimstone Evangelicals and Penticostals are just going to have to deal with.
This veto override is an example of pandering to a certain voting bloc. Unfortunately in as much as NC has seen a large influx of newcomers, mainly from the Northeast, GOP politicians STILL for whatever reason feel compelled to insure they keep the three times a week church crowd happy

Yeah, either that or it's a complete bullshit parade tailored to milk sympathy and shock from a deliberating SCOTUS. I know where my vote is between the two. Hint: it's the timing...just like the Duggar "hit", complete with truckloads of internet viral faux-outrage from the Harvey Milk postage stamp crowd..

 

[Skylar]

I am not a fan of the militant gay agenda but this is NOT what I voted for....This is not why I voted for my local state house rep and state senator....Gay marriage is a reality that even the bible thumping Presbyterians, Baptists and those fire and brimstone Evangelicals and Penticostals are just going to have to deal with.
This veto override is an example of pandering to a certain voting bloc. Unfortunately in as much as NC has seen a large influx of newcomers, mainly from the Northeast, GOP politicians STILL for whatever reason feel compelled to insure they keep the three times a week church crowd happy

Yeah, either that or it's a complete bullshit parade tailored to milk sympathy and shock from a deliberating SCOTUS.

Yeah, but the only one saying that's what is happening is you. Citing yourself. Having imagined yet another batshit conspiracy theory that you can't possibly back up with evidence. You've even made up the effect on the Supreme Court. And the intentions of the republicans.

All pulled sideways out of your ass.

Even the premise of your conspiracy is batshit crazy. Why would hard right North Carolina Republicans be trying to help gay marriage by scaring the Supreme Court?

Um.....that's just silly.

I know where my vote is between the two. Hint: it's the timing...just like the Duggar "hit", complete with truckloads of internet viral faux-outrage from the Harvey Milk postage stamp crowd..

So the conspiracy gets even MORE elaborate. Involving Gallup, InTouch magazine, The Learning Channel, Harvey Milk, the US Post Offfice, and the South Carolina Legislature.

Yeah.....you're fucking nuts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It'll get thrown out after the first lawsuit. No big deal.

I am not sure if a lawsuit will apply here.
There has to be a compelling public interest for a duly passed law to be overturned by the courts. Such a decision would only rule that the legislature return to debate and cobble together a new law that would rescind the original law.
NC law is pretty specific about this.
I think this is very bad law.

 

[Silhouette]

I am not sure if a lawsuit will apply here.
There has to be a compelling public interest for a duly passed law to be overturned by the courts. Such a decision would only rule that the legislature return to debate and cobble together a new law that would rescind the original law.
NC law is pretty specific about this.
I think this is very bad law.

Oh, the horror! This is all real...fer shure! Purty soon them black and white folks won't be able to marry if them gays can't!

 

[mdk]

Sil is too dim to realize that The Supreme Court has likely already reached a verdict and all that they are doing now is polishing the language in their opinions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I really don't give a shit if pillow biters get "married".

What does piss me off is how the PC Thugs have destroyed businesses and beaten back any opposition through fear of economic retaliation and undeserved character assasination. They couldn't justify gay marriage on an intellectual level.

It's because of this that I hope the SCOTUS rules against them. Had it no been for their thuggish behavior I wouldn't concern myself at all.

On that level I cannot agree more...
The PC war being waged against "thought" and "speech" has got to turn sometime...This may that time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am not sure if a lawsuit will apply here.
There has to be a compelling public interest for a duly passed law to be overturned by the courts. Such a decision would only rule that the legislature return to debate and cobble together a new law that would rescind the original law.
NC law is pretty specific about this.
I think this is very bad law.

Oh, the horror! This is all real...fer shure! Purty soon them black and white folks won't be able to marry if them gays can't!

Not sure if I understand your post.....Lets try it without the sarcasm....Thanks

 

[Silhouette]

I am not sure if a lawsuit will apply here.
There has to be a compelling public interest for a duly passed law to be overturned by the courts. Such a decision would only rule that the legislature return to debate and cobble together a new law that would rescind the original law.
NC law is pretty specific about this.
I think this is very bad law.

Oh, the horror! This is all real...fer shure! Purty soon them black and white folks won't be able to marry if them gays can't!

Not sure if I understand your post.....Lets try it without the sarcasm....Thanks

Read the OP. The "terror" of this "no racial marriage" proposal is manufactured, and timed precisely for this month of this year.

 

[g5000]

What does piss me off is how the PC Thugs have destroyed businesses and beaten back any opposition through fear of economic retaliation and undeserved character assasination.

These exact words could have been spoken by someone butt hurt over blacks and WHITE ONLY lunch counters.

Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[g5000]

I am not sure if a lawsuit will apply here.
There has to be a compelling public interest for a duly passed law to be overturned by the courts. Such a decision would only rule that the legislature return to debate and cobble together a new law that would rescind the original law.
NC law is pretty specific about this.
I think this is very bad law.

Oh, the horror! This is all real...fer shure! Purty soon them black and white folks won't be able to marry if them gays can't!

If the "logic" being used by North Carolina to make gay marriage illegal despite a Supreme Court ruling is sound, please explain why they couldn't pass a law making interracial marriage illegal.

 

[Silhouette]

If the "logic" being used by North Carolina to make gay marriage illegal despite a Supreme Court ruling is sound, please explain why they couldn't pass a law making interracial marriage illegal.

Are all your questions this easy to answer? Race and behavior are not the same legal animal.

 

[Skylar]

If the "logic" being used by North Carolina to make gay marriage illegal despite a Supreme Court ruling is sound, please explain why they couldn't pass a law making interracial marriage illegal.

Are all your questions this easy to answer? Race and behavior are not the same legal animal.

And yet the Supreme Court cited 4 different race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is invalid. You can ignore the courts. But its unlikely they're going to ignore themselves.

 

[g5000]

If the "logic" being used by North Carolina to make gay marriage illegal despite a Supreme Court ruling is sound, please explain why they couldn't pass a law making interracial marriage illegal.

Are all your questions this easy to answer? Race and behavior are not the same legal animal.

That is not the "logic" being used by NC. Try again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the "logic" being used by North Carolina to make gay marriage illegal despite a Supreme Court ruling is sound, please explain why they couldn't pass a law making interracial marriage illegal.

Are all your questions this easy to answer? Race and behavior are not the same legal animal.

Wrong.

Gay Americans are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as other persons as a consequence of race, religion, or national origin. (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas)

The right of choice is protected by the Constitution from attack by the states; whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence birth or choice in no way mitigates the right of same-sex couples to due process and equal protection of the law.

This fundamental fact of Constitutional law has been documented for you several times before in many different threads, and you'll ignore this fact again now as those many times before.