State Nullification on Gay Marriage!

[Skylar]

Oh mean the one that was made not to long ago that you think is the blessing of the USSC? You mean like all the far left blog sites tells you it is?

Are you referring to the USSC denial of the appeals of 5 different states, ending any appeal for the 4th, 7th and 10th appeals circuit? That was the latest ruling the USSC has made preserving rulings that overturn gay marriage bans. With roughly 2 dozen lower court rulings affirming that such bans are unconstitutional.

And in contradiction of your latest 'far left drone' fantasy, it only takes 4 justices to grant cert to any of those appeals. Which meant that some if not all of the conservative justices sided with Kennedy and the left wing of the court in refusing the appeals from the 4th, 7th and 10th appeals circuit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope they have been made.

and "Marriage" is not a "right". because an individual can take away said "right" just by telling you they are done with you.

Your point is correct. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

what dont you understand about a privilege

if it was a right you would not need an ok from the state

to get hitched

No that's not what means. Not unless you think owning a gun is only a privilege because you can be required to get a license for it.

Is that it? Gun ownership is not a right?

 

[Skylar]

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Marriage is a constitutionally recognized right, as affirmed by the USSC about 14 times. And if the State places prohibitions on marriage that are unconstitutional, the federal judiciary has the authority to overrule the state definitions of legally recognized marriage.

As they did in 1967 with the Loving v. Virginia case.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Your point is correct. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

what dont you understand about a privilege

if it was a right you would not need an ok from the state

to get hitched

No that's not what means. Not unless you think owning a gun is only a privilege because you can be required to get a license for it.

Is that it? Gun ownership is not a right?

what the hell are you talking about

i am not required to get a license for a firearm

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope they have been made.

and "Marriage" is not a "right". because an individual can take away said "right" just by telling you they are done with you.

Your point is correct. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

Sufficiently similary... ?

What does that mean ? Oh wait, it wouldn't surprize me to find out you DON'T know the difference between a man and a woman.

Obviously it means that equal protection rights are not based on absolutely identical circumstances.

 

[Skylar]

That is simply stupid.

That's simply the recognition of a right that the USSC has explicitly affirmed numerous times. You can certainly disagree with the courts, as I have on numerous occasions. But the lower courts aren't going to ignore the USSC's recognition of marriage as a right just because you disagree.

Legally, the issue is settled. And has been for at least the last couple of generations.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Your point is correct. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

Sufficiently similary... ?

What does that mean ? Oh wait, it wouldn't surprize me to find out you DON'T know the difference between a man and a woman.

Obviously it means that equal protection rights are not based on absolutely identical circumstances.

that is exactly what it means

or it would be called unequal protections

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

what dont you understand about a privilege

if it was a right you would not need an ok from the state

to get hitched

No that's not what means. Not unless you think owning a gun is only a privilege because you can be required to get a license for it.

Is that it? Gun ownership is not a right?

what the hell are you talking about

i am not required to get a license for a firearm

I said you can be. I'm also guessing that you can't get a machinegun without licensing or permitting or something similar.

Want to try again?

 

[Skylar]

\
Sufficiently similary... ?

What does that mean ? Oh wait, it wouldn't surprize me to find out you DON'T know the difference between a man and a woman.

There needs to be a substantial state interest served in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. And there isn't. Nor is there any requirement of marriage that gays and lesbians cannot meet. Without the valid and compelling reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, the denial of rights is an abrogation of rights. And such bans are thus unconstitutional.

Which might explain the almost perfect record of failure for gay marriage opponents in federal court. As they have no valid reason to deny gay marriage. Let alone a compelling state interest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage becomes a rights issue when states recognize it under the law as a civil union. Once that happens, residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

Sufficiently similary... ?

What does that mean ? Oh wait, it wouldn't surprize me to find out you DON'T know the difference between a man and a woman.

Obviously it means that equal protection rights are not based on absolutely identical circumstances.

that is exactly what it means

or it would be called unequal protections

That's what you say, not what the Court says.

 

[Skylar]

That's what you say, not what the Court says.

And that is the rub. So many gay marriage opponents assume that the courts are bound to whatever the opponents of gay marriage believe. That if they believe that the circumstances must be absolutely identical, that the courts are bound to this axiom.

Alas, the courts have no such restrictions. And have found no substantive difference between gay and straight marriages. Nor any compelling state interest in denying recognition for gay marriages under the law. Without such a valid reason for denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, such denial of rights are invalid and unconstitutional.

Pretty much every federal court to hear such cases has overturned such gay bans. With the record of failure for gay marriage opponents standing at near perfection.

 

[jon_berzerk]

residents of that state are entitled to their constitutional right of equal protection under the law.

each person has a privilege to get married

as defined by the state

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

what dont you understand about a privilege

if it was a right you would not need an ok from the state

to get hitched

No that's not what means. Not unless you think owning a gun is only a privilege because you can be required to get a license for it.

Is that it? Gun ownership is not a right?

what the hell are you talking about

i am not required to get a license for a firearm

I said you can be. I'm also guessing that you can't get a machinegun without licensing or permitting or something similar.

Want to try again?

no i cant be required to be licensed to own a firearm

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Same sex unions have been a part human civilization for ages. Defacto marriages of some sex couples have always been around, of the same nature as opposite sex marriages, whether they were legally recognized or not.

Same sex marriage is not some recent invention created out of thin air a few years ago. It has a history as long a humans have had a history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can't constitutionally recognize opposite sex marriage and not same sex marriage - that is unconstitutional - because the two are sufficiently similar to fall under the right of equal protection.

what dont you understand about a privilege

if it was a right you would not need an ok from the state

to get hitched

No that's not what means. Not unless you think owning a gun is only a privilege because you can be required to get a license for it.

Is that it? Gun ownership is not a right?

what the hell are you talking about

i am not required to get a license for a firearm

I said you can be. I'm also guessing that you can't get a machinegun without licensing or permitting or something similar.

Want to try again?

no i cant be required to be licensed to own a firearm

You can go to prison in NYS for owning a handgun without a permit. What do you think that is?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Many states passed referenda and constitutional amendments declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. In some cases those votes passed with over 80% approval.
It's time states, which are sovereign, nullified meddling by Federal courts against the will of the people and simply declared that any official granting a license to anything other than two non-consanguineous single adults of the opposite sex will lose their salaries and benefits in perpetuity.

The states have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights.

No one is being denied anything, bozo. States have the power to set rules for marriage. The government cannot deny the will of the citizens.

AGAIN, why were anti-miscegenation laws overturned? Judicial overreach?

Because races are equal, SSM and OSM are not.

Same sex unions have been a part human civilization for ages. Defacto marriages of some sex couples have always been around, of the same nature as opposite sex marriages, whether they were legally recognized or not.

Same sex marriage is not some recent invention created out of thin air a few years ago. It has a history as long a humans have had a history.

then what is the big deal

 

[Skylar]

then what is the big deal

The religious right is in a touch spot. As their actual motivations for opposing gay marriage are inadmissible in court. As a witty journalist pointed out, Yahweh V. Sodom isn't recognized as creating binding precident by the courts.

So gay marriage opponents are left with a series of half-assed second string arguments that are easily refuted and don't hold up to scrutiny.

Which might explain their near perfect record of failure.

 

[Kosh]

Oh mean the one that was made not to long ago that you think is the blessing of the USSC? You mean like all the far left blog sites tells you it is?

Are you referring to the USSC denial of the appeals of 5 different states, ending any appeal for the 4th, 7th and 10th appeals circuit? That was the latest ruling the USSC has made preserving rulings that overturn gay marriage bans. With roughly 2 dozen lower court rulings affirming that such bans are unconstitutional.

And in contradiction of your latest 'far left drone' fantasy, it only takes 4 justices to grant cert to any of those appeals. Which meant that some if not all of the conservative justices sided with Kennedy and the left wing of the court in refusing the appeals from the 4th, 7th and 10th appeals circuit.

Once again the far left drones that try not to be, but when they get caught they deny it even more.

There was no ruling made the USSC another far left drone exposed.

 

[Kosh]

That's what you say, not what the Court says.

And that is the rub. So many gay marriage opponents assume that the courts are bound to whatever the opponents of gay marriage believe. That if they believe that the circumstances must be absolutely identical, that the courts are bound to this axiom.

Alas, the courts have no such restrictions. And have found no substantive difference between gay and straight marriages. Nor any compelling state interest in denying recognition for gay marriages under the law. Without such a valid reason for denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, such denial of rights are invalid and unconstitutional.

Pretty much every federal court to hear such cases has overturned such gay bans. With the record of failure for gay marriage opponents standing at near perfection.

And so many far left drone believe if the USSC doe snot decide to hear cases on a particular subject for the opinion of the court then it is suddenly a ruling and it is "blessing".

 

[Kosh]

what dont you understand about a privilege

if it was a right you would not need an ok from the state

to get hitched

No that's not what means. Not unless you think owning a gun is only a privilege because you can be required to get a license for it.

Is that it? Gun ownership is not a right?

what the hell are you talking about

i am not required to get a license for a firearm

I said you can be. I'm also guessing that you can't get a machinegun without licensing or permitting or something similar.

Want to try again?

no i cant be required to be licensed to own a firearm

You can go to prison in NYS for owning a handgun without a permit. What do you think that is?

Show where one gay pers9n (in the US) has gone to prison for being "illegally" "Married".

 

[Kosh]

then what is the big deal

The religious right is in a touch spot. As their actual motivations for opposing gay marriage are inadmissible in court. As a witty journalist pointed out, Yahweh V. Sodom isn't recognized as creating binding precident by the courts.

So gay marriage opponents are left with a series of half-assed second string arguments that are easily refuted and don't hold up to scrutiny.

Which might explain their near perfect record of failure.

Says the far left drone that believes a non-hearing by the USSC for an opinion is a ruling and a "blessing".