Sotomayor Grants Emergency Stay to Kansas: Halts Gay Marriage.

[bodecea]

There is a reason Jake watches the Gay Marriage issue so closely.

Indeed.....as in your reason.....

 

[Skylar]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

Per Windsor, the states cannot prohibit 14th Amendment guaranteed liberties.

Funny, I didn't read that there. What I did read was one, just one passing mention of Loving v Virginia, with the Opinion in Windsor saying this instead: that as of its Writing, gay marriage was 'only allowed in some states'.

That one passing mention was an example of the marriage laws of the States being 'Subject to certain constitutional guarantees' protected by the Federal Judiciary. You're saying that the states can make any marriage laws they wish. The Windsor decision makes it explicit and clear that any such laws are subject to constitutional guarantees, offering in example the Loving decision. ...

....where the USSC overruled State laws on marriage because they violated the constitution. Demonstrating elegantly that your 'Windsor says that the States can do whatever they want' claim is blithering nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

Per Windsor states traditionally have the power to regulate marriages, except for items specifically protected.

And those 'items specifically protected' would be all constitutional guarentees. Like, say, the 14th amendment's mandate of equal protection.

Since homosexuality is nowhere protected it does not fall into that category.

You might want to read the Romer decision again before you claim that the court doesn't consider gays protected. And take a .long hard look at who wrote the Romer decision. And of course, the Windsor decision goes on and on about protecting the rights of gays, overturning parts of DOMA. See who wrote that one too.

Does the term 'swing voter' mean anything to you?[/QUOTE]

 

[The Rabbi]

Per Windsor states traditionally have the power to regulate marriages, except for items specifically protected.

And those 'items specifically protected' would be all constitutional guarentees. Like, say, the 14th amendment's mandate of equal protection.

Since homosexuality is nowhere protected it does not fall into that category.

You might want to read the Romer decision again before you claim that the court doesn't consider gays protected. And take a .long hard look at who wrote the Romer decision. And of course, the Windsor decision goes on and on about protecting the rights of gays, overturning parts of DOMA. See who wrote that one too.

Does the term 'swing voter' mean anything to you?

[/QUOTE]
Homosexuals enjoy all the right and protections afforded by the 14th. So a non issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is correct and support Marriage Equality if he supports the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Per Windsor states traditionally have the power to regulate marriages, except for items specifically protected.

And those 'items specifically protected' would be all constitutional guarentees. Like, say, the 14th amendment's mandate of equal protection.

Since homosexuality is nowhere protected it does not fall into that category.

You might want to read the Romer decision again before you claim that the court doesn't consider gays protected. And take a .long hard look at who wrote the Romer decision. And of course, the Windsor decision goes on and on about protecting the rights of gays, overturning parts of DOMA. See who wrote that one too.

Does the term 'swing voter' mean anything to you?

Homosexuals enjoy all the right and protections afforded by the 14th. So a non issue.[/QUOTE]

Same gender couples deserve the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment- which is why now 32 states have legal same gender marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Per Windsor states traditionally have the power to regulate marriages, except for items specifically protected.

And those 'items specifically protected' would be all constitutional guarentees. Like, say, the 14th amendment's mandate of equal protection.

Since homosexuality is nowhere protected it does not fall into that category.

You might want to read the Romer decision again before you claim that the court doesn't consider gays protected. And take a .long hard look at who wrote the Romer decision. And of course, the Windsor decision goes on and on about protecting the rights of gays, overturning parts of DOMA. See who wrote that one too.

Does the term 'swing voter' mean anything to you?

Homosexuals enjoy all the right and protections afforded by the 14th. So a non issue.

Same gender couples deserve the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment- which is why now 32 states have legal same gender marriage.[/QUOTE]
b;ahblahblah. Go suck it.

 

[Syriusly]

Per Windsor states traditionally have the power to regulate marriages, except for items specifically protected.

And those 'items specifically protected' would be all constitutional guarentees. Like, say, the 14th amendment's mandate of equal protection.

Since homosexuality is nowhere protected it does not fall into that category.

You might want to read the Romer decision again before you claim that the court doesn't consider gays protected. And take a .long hard look at who wrote the Romer decision. And of course, the Windsor decision goes on and on about protecting the rights of gays, overturning parts of DOMA. See who wrote that one too.

Does the term 'swing voter' mean anything to you?

Homosexuals enjoy all the right and protections afforded by the 14th. So a non issue.

Same gender couples deserve the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment- which is why now 32 states have legal same gender marriage.

b;ahblahblah. Go suck it.[/QUOTE]

once again....I have reduced Rabbi to babble....

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, we have discussed parenting, adoption, genetics, fertility and infertility, and the case for marriage equality still stands strong.

 

[Silhouette]

OK, we have discussed parenting, adoption, genetics, fertility and infertility, and the case for marriage equality still stands strong.

In which universe do you believe that the Supreme Court will force states to incentivize homes where children will be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time?

And homes where the children there will be missing the vital modeling of the opposite gender 100% of the time? In what way would this promote the wellbeing of untold numbers of children over time?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a false statement, Sil. Go incentivize yourself to figure out why you fight a losing battle. And your logic leads to the unacceptable conclusion that children by law must have two parents, a man and a woman, in the home.

 

[SwimExpert]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

That's an odd thing to say. Your position assumes that there is no constitutional question. Or, at the very least, hopes for judicial activism to kick in and for the court to punt their duties away.

 

[The Rabbi]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

That's an odd thing to say. Your position assumes that there is no constitutional question. Or, at the very least, hopes for judicial activism to kick in and for the court to punt their duties away.

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.
The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage. Based on Windsor the answer is obviously Yes.

....the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888),

Next.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.
The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage. Based on Windsor the answer is obviously Yes.
Next.

And like I said, a state is involved in defining marriage for the simple fact of the children that will be in it. If the federal government forces states to incentivize households where children in them will be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time, then we really have lost control folks, and a cult will dictate from then on any which environments we must tolerate on behalf of children into future generations beyond sight.

 

[SwimExpert]

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.

I guess you could look at it that way, if you want to be a liar about it all. For the rest of us, what would be judicial activism would be to punt a constitutional question to a majority vote of the populace.

The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage.

Really? That's the only constitutional question? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain that there's actually a few other questions. For example, what are the limits, if any, to those rules? What is legal effect of the multiplicity of contrary rulings among lower courts?

 

[SwimExpert]

And like I said, a state is involved in defining marriage for the simple fact of the children that will be in it.

That's a lie, and you fully well know it.

 

[Silhouette]

Really? That's the only constitutional question? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain that there's actually a few other questions. For example, what are the limits, if any, to those rules? What is legal effect of the multiplicity of contrary rulings among lower courts?

Polygamy? Incest? Children sanctioned to be in homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time? Where the opposite gender as role model is missing 100% of the time? States should be forced to incentivize untold numbers of children yet to be born into these situations?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.

I guess you could look at it that way, if you want to be a liar about it all. For the rest of us, what would be judicial activism would be to punt a constitutional question to a majority vote of the populace.

The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage.

Really? That's the only constitutional question? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain that there's actually a few other questions. For example, what are the limits, if any, to those rules? What is legal effect of the multiplicity of contrary rulings among lower courts?

Idiot. The state derives its just power from the will of the people. Courts regularly defer to legislatures in matters precisely for that reason. The people are the legitimate arbiters of what is right and wrong. It is only on relatively rate occasions that the courts will over ride that, based on a fundamental principle in the Constitution.

Yes, that is the only constittuonal question. Recall that "gay marriage" is not about the rights of homosexuals. Once it passes any two people of the same gender can marry. So it is not "gay marriage" at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government encourages households where children "are missing one of their blood parents" to have willing adults to fill the gap.

Adoption? Blended marriages?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government encourages households where children "are missing one of their blood parents" to have willing adults to fill the gap.

Adoption? Blended marriages?

I feel as if when reading the anti marriage equality brigade that they are engaged in a dance of the surreal.