The Story You're Not Hearing in the MSM: July 2014 SCOTUS Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

[Derideo_Te]

Silhouette has the right to remain silent but lacks the intelligence to know when to do so!

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette has the right to remain silent but lacks the intelligence to know when to do so!

Then why did SCOTUS grant the stay halting gay marriage in Utah pending the decision on final appeal? Why did they overrule the 10th district's decision?

Because "I lack intelligence"? Care to address the topic?

 

[Peach]

Virgibia's ban overturned four days ago, its headed to the USSC, it appears.

 

[Silhouette]

Virgibia's ban overturned four days ago, its headed to the USSC, it appears.

yes but....

RICHMOND — While Monday’s landmark ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to render Virginia’s marriage amendment as unconstitutional may go into effect in three weeks, the ability of same-sex couples in the commonwealth to apply for marriage licenses will likely come down to a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

The defendants, Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer and Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michele McQuigg, have 21 days to seek a rehearing before the full court of appeals and to request a stay of the decision.

“If the appellate court denies a stay, it issues a mandate and people can marry — unless a stay is sought from, and granted by, the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor with the University of Richmond School of Law. Same-sex marriages in Virginia likely must await a Supreme Court ruling - Roanoke Times: News

Windsor demands and will give the Virginia appeal a stay on gay marriage.

I'm telling you, all 50 states could get an overturn on their marriage laws and just one SCOTUS ruling would render them all to dust.

So far the SCOTUS has been granting the stays pled on Windsor. That's not the greatest harbinger for a mandated federal gay marriage ruling. Likely the Court will say what it has already said in 2013: "It's up to the states"...

So far there are only 3 of them who legally enacted the ability for people of the same gender to play at "husband and wife" while obtaining legal access to involve children in that transparent ruse..

 

[Silhouette]

As to the title of this thread, just try to search the JULY 2014 stay granted to Utah by SCOTUS. All that seems to come up is the JANUARY 2014 stay they granted.

It's very odd how little coverage this story is getting. Everyone knows that Utah is a unique state in this battle and the one that stands poised to upset the LGBT apple cart. This stay being granted essentially is SCOTUS overturning the 10th's denial of a stay. So any of the other five states, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, could automatically begin denying gay marriage licenses if any ruling has been made upon them.

And since SCOTUS is the King Court of all the lower circuit courts, for that matter any of the 50 states must now be alerted to the fact that gay marriage if enacted as excluded by their voters, is no longer legal in their state.

And even further they need to be on notice that it never has been legal in their state. Windsor 2013 is the case consistently cited, and in fact was cited for Utah to obtain its stay last month. Windsor 2013 Found Constitutionally that its up to the states' discreet communities to decide, retroactive to the founding of the country. That means gay marriage in all those states but 3, has never been legal and the marriages "shoved through" are not valid.

The voters of each state where these marriages were shoved through without legal permission will have to decide what to do about them. They cannot be used as a justification to ramrod gay marriage through state by state judicially. This was tried before. If it is tried again it will have to be in defiance of a standing SCOTUS ruling. In fact if it is being tried now, it is in defiance of Windsor 2013.

All that's going to happen this time around, I predict with a substantial degree of certainty, is that SCOTUS is going to have to remind litigants from the LGBT side, and their lawyers, how to read english. They'll have to just paint a bigger Windsor sign for their selectively-poor eyesight.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All these words and you still don't understand that you can't vote away the rights of others. So far the SC has punted, letting gay marriage go forth before it rules it legal for the entire country, which is knows it will have to do at some point, or it will keep letting the lower court rulings stand as it did in CA. Either way, there is no going back, you just believe that there is and you're wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Silhouette has the right to remain silent but lacks the intelligence to know when to do so!

Then why did SCOTUS grant the stay halting gay marriage in Utah pending the decision on final appeal? Why did they overrule the 10th district's decision?

Because "I lack intelligence"? Care to address the topic?

Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark case[1][2][3] in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because doing so "disparage and ... injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

United States v. Windsor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Constitution does not allow the individual States to discriminate against anyone protected at the Federal level.

States do not have the right to discriminate against same sex couples getting married.

The States with laws that ban same sex couples from marrying have had lawsuits filed and the lower courts have overturned those unconstitutional laws.

Some of those States have appealed to higher courts to have those lower court rulings overturned. One such State is Utah. It made several appeals to have a stay placed on the overturning of their unconstitutional ban on gay marriage. All of these were rejected right up through the 10th Circuit Court.

That was when the State of Utah as a last desperate measure appealed to the SCOTUS. Since Justice Sottomayor is assigned to the 10th Circuit she individually chose to allow the stay. But she does not speak for the entire SCOTUS. She is only one of 9 Justices who will hear Utah's appeal.

The Windsor decision was based upon the Federal government not being allowed to discriminate. The State is appealing and asking that the SCOTUS grant UTAH an EXCEPTION to DISCRIMINATE in this specific instance.

There are 2 possible outcomes.

1. The SCOTUS can consider the appeal and reject it because it violates the US Constitution. This is the most likely scenario in spite of the tantrums that Fat Tony Scalia will be throwing.

2. If the SCOTUS grants this exception to Utah to discriminate it opens up a massive can of worms. It will essentially overturn the basic premise that the Federal Constitution is the Law of the Land. That is the very bedrock foundation of this nation. There is no way that the SCOTUS can construct a "narrow ruling" that would not do serious harm to the rights of every American citizen by granting Utah the right to discriminate.

This nation is not about to be split asunder because a small minority of regressives in Utah want to ban gay marriage. Furthermore the SCOTUS is not going to undermine their own power by rendering the US Constitution null and void just to satisfy the homophobic bigots of Utah.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The United States Constitution does not allow the individual States to discriminate against anyone protected at the Federal level.

Not technically true. States can discriminate against federally protected classes - the caveat is that such discrimination must be Constitutional, i.e. based on a compelling government interest. As an example, the ADA makes disabled people federally protected - however, States can deny Drivers Licenses to blind people or other unable to operate a motor vehicle safely. Safe operation of a vehicle on public roads is a compelling government interest.

There are 2 possible outcomes.

1. The SCOTUS can consider the appeal and reject it because it violates the US Constitution. This is the most likely scenario in spite of the tantrums that Fat Tony Scalia will be throwing.

2. If the SCOTUS grants this exception to Utah to discriminate it opens up a massive can of worms. It will essentially overturn the basic premise that the Federal Constitution is the Law of the Land. That is the very bedrock foundation of this nation. There is no way that the SCOTUS can construct a "narrow ruling" that would not do serious harm to the rights of every American citizen by granting Utah the right to discriminate.

There are 3 options:

1. Reject the appeal and allow the Circuit Court decision to stand. The effect would be to applicable as precedence in the jurisdiction of that Circuit Court, but likely to impact the outcomes of other Circuit Courts. However, in the near term, there would be a patchwork of rulings dependent on the individual Circuits.

2. The SCOTUS accepts Utah's reasoning and grants that State have to power to limit Marriage Equality based on gender. You are then left with a patchwork of laws across the country with some states having SSCM and others not.

3. The 3rd option is that SCOTUS accepts the case and rules that the reasons the states propose do not pass the scrutiny required to warrant discrimination based on the gender composition of the couple. That then becomes applicable to all states and territories.​

>>>>

 

[Derideo_Te]

The United States Constitution does not allow the individual States to discriminate against anyone protected at the Federal level.

Not technically true. States can discriminate against federally protected classes - the caveat is that such discrimination must be Constitutional, i.e. based on a compelling government interest. As an example, the ADA makes disabled people federally protected - however, States can deny Drivers Licenses to blind people or other unable to operate a motor vehicle safely. Safe operation of a vehicle on public roads is a compelling government interest.

Yes, that is a technicality that is true for the present. But given the advent of driverless vehicles, i.e. vehicles that can safely drive from A to B and park themselves, will that discrimination be able to withstand granting a license to a blind person in the future?

Thanks for bringing that up. Going to be interesting to see how driverless vehicles evolve and if that provides more freedom and mobility for the blind.

There are 2 possible outcomes.

1. The SCOTUS can consider the appeal and reject it because it violates the US Constitution. This is the most likely scenario in spite of the tantrums that Fat Tony Scalia will be throwing.

2. If the SCOTUS grants this exception to Utah to discriminate it opens up a massive can of worms. It will essentially overturn the basic premise that the Federal Constitution is the Law of the Land. That is the very bedrock foundation of this nation. There is no way that the SCOTUS can construct a "narrow ruling" that would not do serious harm to the rights of every American citizen by granting Utah the right to discriminate.

There are 3 options:

1. Reject the appeal and allow the Circuit Court decision to stand. The effect would be to applicable as precedence in the jurisdiction of that Circuit Court, but likely to impact the outcomes of other Circuit Courts. However, in the near term, there would be a patchwork of rulings dependent on the individual Circuits.

2. The SCOTUS accepts Utah's reasoning and grants that State have to power to limit Marriage Equality based on gender. You are then left with a patchwork of laws across the country with some states having SSCM and others not.

You did not address the greater question which effectively sets the precedent for allowing states to nullify Federal laws.

3. The 3rd option is that SCOTUS accepts the case and rules that the reasons the states propose do not pass the scrutiny required to warrant discrimination based on the gender composition of the couple. That then becomes applicable to all states and territories.


>>>>

That is the most likely scenario in my opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You did not address the greater question which effectively sets the precedent for allowing states to nullify Federal laws.

Civil Marriage isn't entered into under Federal laws so there aren't any Federal statutes on the matter. Civil Marraige is recognized federally, based on actions performed under state law.

If the SCOTUS rejects an appeal or finds that States can discriminate based on gender, in terms of the couples being able to Civilly Marry, then that doesn't violate Federal law - it finds that such actions are Constitutional by the States.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You did not address the greater question which effectively sets the precedent for allowing states to nullify Federal laws.

Civil Marriage isn't entered into under Federal laws so there aren't any Federal statutes on the matter. Civil Marraige is recognized federally, based on actions performed under state law.

If the SCOTUS rejects an appeal or finds that States can discriminate based on gender, in terms of the couples being able to Civilly Marry, then that doesn't violate Federal law - it finds that such actions are Constitutional by the States.

In California, State law says that only marriage between a man and a woman is legal. It also says that in order to change that state law, another initiative approved by the voters must be enacted to revoke or alter it.

Since the highest and best and most recent constitutional finding on the question of whether or not states may say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage was Windsor 2013, now reaffirmed by SCOTUS in the stay granted to Utah's one man/one woman law identical to Prop 8, the weight of law is on Prop 8 being a valid, enforceable law in the interim at the very least.

I pit the weight of Windsor 2013 and Utah AG vs the 10th district court of appeals Decisions against your "old stale 9th circuit decision" any day of the week. And guess who and what would win? That's right. Proposition 8.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You did not address the greater question which effectively sets the precedent for allowing states to nullify Federal laws.

Civil Marriage isn't entered into under Federal laws so there aren't any Federal statutes on the matter. Civil Marraige is recognized federally, based on actions performed under state law.

If the SCOTUS rejects an appeal or finds that States can discriminate based on gender, in terms of the couples being able to Civilly Marry, then that doesn't violate Federal law - it finds that such actions are Constitutional by the States.



>>>>

The Federal government is recognizing civil marriages between gays and granting them equal rights under the law. Those rights extend to filing joint returns and inheritance.

If the SCOTUS decides that some States can nullify those rights then you have the situation where if a couple were married in one state and moved to another that did not support gay marriage they would be denied the right to file joint tax returns at the State level or inherit property in that State.

That kind of discrimination is an effective nullification of Federal law and the precedent opens the door for States to refuse to comply with other laws that they don't like. The State could decide not to comply with EEOC regulations using the pretext that the SCOTUS gave them the right to ignore the 14th Amendment for one class of citizens so they should be able to ignore it for all others too.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You did not address the greater question which effectively sets the precedent for allowing states to nullify Federal laws.

Civil Marriage isn't entered into under Federal laws so there aren't any Federal statutes on the matter. Civil Marraige is recognized federally, based on actions performed under state law.

If the SCOTUS rejects an appeal or finds that States can discriminate based on gender, in terms of the couples being able to Civilly Marry, then that doesn't violate Federal law - it finds that such actions are Constitutional by the States.

In California, State law says that only marriage between a man and a woman is legal. It also says that in order to change that state law, another initiative approved by the voters must be enacted to revoke or alter it.

Since the highest and best and most recent constitutional finding on the question of whether or not states may say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage was Windsor 2013, now reaffirmed by SCOTUS in the stay granted to Utah's one man/one woman law identical to Prop 8, the weight of law is on Prop 8 being a valid, enforceable law in the interim at the very least.

I pit the weight of Windsor 2013 and Utah AG vs the 10th district court of appeals Decisions against your "old stale 9th circuit decision" any day of the week. And guess who and what would win? That's right. Proposition 8.

BZZZT Wrong again!

Although upheld in State court, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.[18] Walker issued a stay (injunction) against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[19][20] The State of California did not appeal the ruling (with which it had agreed anyway) leaving the initiative proponents and one county to seek an appeal.

On appeal, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the county had no right of appeal, and asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal (known as "standing") if the State did not do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,[21] but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court,[22] which heard oral arguments in the appeal Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26, 2013.[23] On June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in allowing the previous appeal, since in line with Article III of the Constitution and many prior cases unanimous on the point, being an initiative proponents is not enough by itself to have federal court standing or appeal a ruling in federal court. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the final outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards.

 

[Peach]

You did not address the greater question which effectively sets the precedent for allowing states to nullify Federal laws.

Civil Marriage isn't entered into under Federal laws so there aren't any Federal statutes on the matter. Civil Marraige is recognized federally, based on actions performed under state law.

If the SCOTUS rejects an appeal or finds that States can discriminate based on gender, in terms of the couples being able to Civilly Marry, then that doesn't violate Federal law - it finds that such actions are Constitutional by the States.



>>>>

The Federal government is recognizing civil marriages between gays and granting them equal rights under the law. Those rights extend to filing joint returns and inheritance.

If the SCOTUS decides that some States can nullify those rights then you have the situation where if a couple were married in one state and moved to another that did not support gay marriage they would be denied the right to file joint tax returns at the State level or inherit property in that State.

That kind of discrimination is an effective nullification of Federal law and the precedent opens the door for States to refuse to comply with other laws that they don't like. The State could decide not to comply with EEOC regulations using the pretext that the SCOTUS gave them the right to ignore the 14th Amendment for one class of citizens so they should be able to ignore it for all others too.

Yes, unlikely.

 

[Qball]

Protecting the rights of minorities and passing/changing laws as a sop to them is not the same thing.

Because everyone has a right to marry doesn't mean they have an entitlement to call their particular union a marriage under the law. That's why polygamous marriages aren't recognized even if some religious traditions practice it. It's not an infringement of their rights because a word means one thing and not something else.

If people want to legalize it, fine. But contriving a constitutional issue out of being disgruntled over your relationship not being recognized is wrong.

We have laws and courts and civil procedures for a reason. It's wrong to try and game the system to achieve an end.

 

[Silhouette]

...Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Let's finish that sentence to reflect the truth in context of Windsor:

"Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation of people marrying if a state had said that they could."

The key point is whether or not a state said gay behaviors could marry.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

QUOTE]

Let's finish that sentence to reflect the truth in context of Windsor:

"Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation of people marrying if a state had said that they could."

The key point is whether or not a state said gay behaviors could marry.

Scalia provided the justification for overturning State bans on gay marriage in his dissent in Windsor and he has been quoted in most of these cases by the judges overturning them.

Windsor stipulates that the Federal government cannot deny married gay people equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

State bans on gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which is why they are being overturned.

The SCOTUS is not about to violate the 14th Amendment and allow States to discriminate on nothing but homophobia. Looks like you will need to pass a Constitutional Amendment if you want to get your way and that is never going to happen.

 

[Silhouette]

...Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

QUOTE]

Let's finish that sentence to reflect the truth in context of Windsor:

"Windsor determined that the Federal Government could not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation of people marrying if a state had said that they could."

The key point is whether or not a state said gay behaviors could marry.

Scalia provided the justification for overturning State bans on gay marriage in his dissent in Windsor and he has been quoted in most of these cases by the judges overturning them.

Windsor stipulates that the Federal government cannot deny married gay people equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

State bans on gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which is why they are being overturned.

The SCOTUS is not about to violate the 14th Amendment and allow States to discriminate on nothing but homophobia. Looks like you will need to pass a Constitutional Amendment if you want to get your way and that is never going to happen.

So in order to gain a legal foothold, these activist judges quote the dissent in order to justify ruling against what the majority SCOTUS intent clearly was?

That's contempt of court in a nicer package. That's like the baliff at a trial saying "well, I see what the majority of the jury found in the murder trial, but the dissenting view was that the criminal should go free so we're turning him back out on the streets....sorry Judge!..."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Scalia provided the justification for overturning State bans on gay marriage in his dissent in Windsor and he has been quoted in most of these cases by the judges overturning them.

Windsor stipulates that the Federal government cannot deny married gay people equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

State bans on gay marriage violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which is why they are being overturned.

The SCOTUS is not about to violate the 14th Amendment and allow States to discriminate on nothing but homophobia. Looks like you will need to pass a Constitutional Amendment if you want to get your way and that is never going to happen.

So in order to gain a legal foothold, these activist judges quote the dissent in order to justify ruling against what the majority SCOTUS intent clearly was?

That's contempt of court in a nicer package. That's like the baliff at a trial saying "well, I see what the majority of the jury found in the murder trial, but the dissenting view was that the criminal should go free so we're turning him back out on the streets....sorry Judge!..."

Have you ever read the Windsor decision or Scalia's dissenting opinion? Even if you have you obviously don't understand any of it.

Scalia provided the wording that could be used to overturn the unconstitutional state bans on gay marriage in his dissenting opinion.

It is commonplace to quote SCOTUS Justices when rendering reasons for declaring a law to be unconstitutional.

The only difference here is that Scalia tried to be sarcastic and it has backfired on him. The basis for the state laws being unconstitutional in the 14th Amendment.

No amount of pretzel posts by you can refute the right of gay Americans to equality under the law.

 

[Silhouette]

So in order to gain a legal foothold, these activist judges quote the dissent in order to justify ruling against what the majority SCOTUS intent clearly was?

That's contempt of court in a nicer package. That's like the baliff at a trial saying "well, I see what the majority of the jury found in the murder trial, but the dissenting view was that the criminal should go free so we're turning him back out on the streets....sorry Judge!..."

Have you ever read the Windsor decision or Scalia's dissenting opinion? Even if you have you obviously don't understand any of it.

Scalia provided the wording that could be used to overturn the unconstitutional state bans on gay marriage in his dissenting opinion.

It is commonplace to quote SCOTUS Justices when rendering reasons for declaring a law to be unconstitutional.

The only difference here is that Scalia tried to be sarcastic and it has backfired on him. The basis for the state laws being unconstitutional in the 14th Amendment.

No amount of pretzel posts by you can refute the right of gay Americans to equality under the law.

The dissenting opinion was kabuki theater staged for the eyes of the liberal Justices. That's why Scalia's dissent seemed sarcastic. Because it was.

You will soon find out. It will become apparent. Scalia, weighing in for gay marriage? That should've been your first hint....your first red flag.. Oh how blind one can become when obsessed with a fever of "winning"..

Though it was very foolish of the conservative Justices to delay clarification for the Public. Now look at the mess they've caused. But then again, it will rake in a republican victory this Fall and next as the LGBT cult fascism becomes drunk with "winning". I think it was calculated by the conservative Justices precisely for that reason...the delay of the inevitable that is... Quite the vote-getter for the GOP you'll have to admit...