Heterosexual couple files gay marriage lawsuit in Kansas

Wrong, he stated that when the STATE determines to provide protections to a group of people in marriage the STATE has the right to do so. But that means if the STATE does not CHOOSE to provide those protections to same-sex couples then the STATE does not have to do so and the US constitution provides NO protections for marriage.

And I was with you in this part until you made the last statement. The SCOTUS did not simply recognize Windsor's marriage as being a lawful marriage, the STATE declared it was a lawful marriage. If the STATE does not declare that it's a lawful marriage then it is not a lawful marriage even in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

Hence why he said, "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages." What unlawful marriages would he be referring to? He would be referring to the same-sex relationships that could NOT be considered marriages because they were not lawful in their STATE.

But don't worry, gay people can still get married after the Supreme Court decision. They'll just have to do so in a State whose populous has chosen to provide them protections by declaring their marriages as being lawful. Because they won't have any protections in a state like mine.

And you know what's going to be even worse for them? It's going to be almost impossible to remove the amendment placed in the NC State Constitution that defines marriage as being between one male and one female without intervention from the Supreme Court.

 

You want to explain to me why the (*)(*)(*)(*) I should pay you to have "satisfaction, contentment, love and emotional commitment" and not pay everybody else for the same thing? Why shouldn't we pay a boyfriend and girlfriend for the same thing? Why not pay family members for providing the same thing?

What the hell does society get for those things? Please quantify them. If the only reason we're giving out HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS every single year is so that you can have satisfaction, contentment, love and emotional commitment... I want my money back because it isn't economically justifiable.

 

Nuh-uhh

 

Sorry you feel that basic human rights are for sale, and some people aren't paying a high enough price for them. All I can say is, I'm profoundly thankful this is pure idiocy.

 

So being paid for "satisfaction, contentment, love and emotional commitment" is now a basic human right? Why aren't we paying everybody who has satisfaction, contentment, love and emotional commitment? Why only married couples? Why not every relationship that provides those things?

Of all the idiotic arguments for why we should pay homosexuals this has got to be top 3.

 

Half right, half wrong. The first part is right - when the state decides to marry people, they have the right to do so. The second part is wrong - he DID NOT RULE on whether the state is required to marry anyone, or has the option not to. That wasn't at issue in this case, so even if he DID make such a statement (and he did not), that would count only as dicta, since it wasn't part of the holding in any way.

Here's an analogy. Imagine a case where a state marries an inter-racial couple, and the IRS claims it's not a valid marriage. Now SCOTUS says no, if the state chooses to marry an interracial couple, they can. and it's a valid marriage. Does such a decision in any way rule that a state might choose NOT to marry an interracial couple? No, the decision is silent on this, because it wasn't an issue. Such a decision would need to await a case contesting a ban on inter-racial marriage.

Again, no, that was not at issue in that case. The issue was whether Windsor's marriage was lawful. Not whether a prohibition on such marriage is lawful.

That's correct. He ONLY said such marriages are lawful, and thus his decision is binding on lawful marriages. He did not say, and could not say, what marriages are UNlawful, because that wasn't being contested.

That issue wasn't before the court. For that to happen, NEW YORK would have had to declare Windsor's marriage unlawful. Windsor wasn't suing for the right to marry, only for her marriage to be recognized by the Federal government.

Currently, that's true, this is where it stands. We now have various shades competing - states where SSM is fully lawful, states whose bans were overruled by appellate (circuit) courts whose decisions were allowed to stand, states who are part of the same circuit (but not parties to the same suits) where bans still operate, and states in circuits which have yet to rule on the constitutionality of the bans.

The legal thinking, as I understand it, is that so long as all of the appellate district courts (all 11 of them) continue to agree, SCOTUS sees no reason to step in and rubber-stamp these decisions. But if any appellate court should disagree, then SCOTUS would need to make a unifying decision.

Why? The "decision not to decide" let the decisions of five appellate courts stand. Within the jurisdictions of each of these courts are several states which had gone to the trouble of passing state constitutional amendments. In a couple of those five decisions, it was the state constitutional amendment itself that was tossed out as in violation of the US Constitution.

In fact, North Carolina is in the same district as Virginia, so the decision of that district court is regarded as binding on North Carolina as well. Which means, pending further decisions, that North Carolina's constitutional amendment is now as null and void as Virginia's.

 

Payment is irrelevant. You asked why any nation would actually permit its citizens to marry. I provided reasons why people wish to marry.

Ultimately, I suspect the answer is "sheer administrative convenience". But it's not a money issue at all.

Payment is irrelevant and idiotic. Try a new excuse, that one has failed utterly.

 

Sure seems like they can't get married. They're not getting any of the legal protections offered by a marriage license. They're not getting any of the legal obligations required by a marriage license. And yes, they're not getting any of the benefits that society provides to married couples. Without the marriage license and state recognition all you have are two unrelated people living together who are legal strangers to each other.

Marriage is not about capitalism. It's about making a hopefully lifelong commitment to another person. We've never tied marriage to providing a specific economic benefit to society as a whole, and we're not about to start doing so. So long as you keep insisting that participants in marriage have to provide some sort of economic benefit to society, your argument will keep getting rejected, especially by the courts.

 

You clearly haven't been keeping up with the news. The amendment has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal district court judge. North Carolina is in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. There is now binding precedent in the 4th Circuit that has declared same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional via a decision in Virginia. The Governor and AG of North Carolina have already conceded that North Carolina's ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional and will not continue to defend it or pursue any appeals. Same-sex marriage couples have been getting married in North Carolina for nearly 3 weeks now.

The likelihood of the SCOTUS suddenly reversing course and upholding that same-sex bans are constitutional is a pipe dream. It would throw the legal system into utter chaos. They had no less than 9 opportunities recently (2 cases from the 10th, 2 cases from the 7th, 1 case from the 4th, and 4 appeals coming out of the 9th) to take up the issue and they chose not to do so. In the case of the 4 appeals coming out of the 9th, they didn't even impose a stay, unlike what they did for the 4th, 7th and 10th cases. To turn around a while later and take up the issue and suddenly declare that the bans are constitutional would destroy any semblance of legitimacy in the Court. The SCOTUS doesn't have to wait for a Circuit Court split to decide the issue. They are free to take up whatever cases they want. They could've taken up any of those 9 cases and decided the issue, but they chose not to. That speaks volumes. They'd rather take an incremental approach and slowly get society used to the idea of same-sex marriage.

It's obvious you are not a lawyer, much less a constitutional one, since you seem to have little understanding on how the courts work, specifically the SCOTUS. It's a good thing that you aren't one of the lawyers arguing in court to uphold the bans, because it would make overturning those bans oh so much easier in the 18 states that still have bans that are in force. It's only a matter of time before they are all overturned.

 

The Supreme Court made this ruling:

What ruling have they made since then that overrides this ruling? What part of the U.S. Constitution are same sex bans violating? Same sex bans are not interracial bans because the two are not one and the same. If you believe so, then I challenge you to walk up to any interracial couple, a married man and woman, and call them a homosexual couple. Then come back here and tell us how they reacted to your accusation.

 

I'm well aware that it's dicta but that's irrelevant. I know that they didn't rule on the issue. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. However, his rationale THROUGHOUT the opinion is very clear. The STATE has the right to define marriage and if the STATE chooses to provide protections to homosexual marriage then they have every right to do so. But he's giving you a heads up on how he's going to rule in the future. He's telling you that if the STATE does not choose to provide protections to same sex marriage then the State is not going to be FORCED to do so through federal regulation.

That's not analogous. Because what happened in the Windsor case is you had a STATE which provided protections to a same-sex couple. Because the STATE provided those protections then the Federal government can't come in and override that and cause there to be unequal application of the law. Meaning that when NY declares the gay couple LAWFULLY married and equal DOMA can't come in and make them unequal and override state law.

But if NC decides NOT to declare the gay couple to be LAWFULLY married they have the sovereign authority to do that and because the constitution provides no protections for marriage, all that is constitutionally required is that the law be equally applied.

And again, that's irrelevant. Because while it may not have been at issue in the case Kennedy made his reasoning very clear and if you're expecting him to then come in and contradict himself and support the right of the Federal Government to define marriage... you're going to be highly disappointed.

But there would be no reason to explicitly state that unless there were gay marriages out there that the Supreme Court would recognize as NOT lawful.

Chief Justice Roberts made that clear in his dissent: The majority goes out of its way to make this explicit in the penultimate sentence of its opinion. It states that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages,” ante, at 26—referring to same-sex marriages that a State has already recognized as a result of the local “community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.” Ante, at 20. JUSTICE SCALIA believes this is a “‘bald, unreasoned disclaime[r].’” Post, at 22. In my view, though, the disclaimer is a logical and necessary consequence of the argument the majority has chosen to adopt. The dominant theme of the majority opinion is that the Federal Government’s intrusion into an area “central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens” is sufficiently “unusual” to set off alarm bells. Ante, at 17, 20. I think the majority goes off course, as I have said, but it is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.

He then goes on to point out EXACTLY what I've been trying to get across to you:

"Thus, while “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance” to the majority’s decision to strike down DOMA here, ibid., that power will come into play on the other side of the board in future cases about the constitutionality of state marriage definitions. So too will the concerns for state diversity and sovereignty that weigh against DOMA’s constitutionality in this case."

And while I'm aware that is the dissent, he's telling you how Kennedy is going to rule, unless he's willing to contradict himself, in the future.

First of all, the 6th District Appellate Court is about to rule in favor of the gay marriage ban. Even if it doesn't (which it will) it's inevitable that EVENTUALLY someone will get an appellate court to agree with them and force the issue to the supreme court.

And when that happens, speaking of North Carolina (and all the other states that didn't VOTE for gay marriage rights and had them stripped away by the courts) the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the State being able to define marriage and that will overturn the appellate rulings and reinstate the constitutional amendment that the people voted for.

 

Uh no I didn't. You need to go back and read. I asked you to justify the hundreds of millions of dollars that we pay into marriage benefits every single year if the reason is not procreation. What other tangible economic benefit does marriage provide to society that makes it worth paying them that amount of money that I could be using to help provide for my family and their "satisfaction, contentment, love and emotional commitment".

False, it's SOLELY a money issue as I've already had you acknowledge because if we were to provide homosexuals all the benefits AND declare them legally married but they weren't allowed to get the monetary benefits paid for by the taxpayer and the rest of the citizens because they're incapable of procreation within the paradigm of their relationship... would that be okay?

And you acknowledge that it absolutely would not. Therefore it is COMPLETELY about the money.

 

I completely disagree but rather go point by point I'll just ask you the same thing I asked the other guy.

Justify the hundreds of millions of dollars that we pay into marriage benefits every single year if the reason is not procreation. What other tangible economic benefit does marriage provide to society that makes it worth paying them that amount of money that I could be using to help provide for my family and their "satisfaction, contentment, love and emotional commitment".

 

And you must not understand how the Supreme Court works. If a lower court has ruled incorrectly and there is a disagreement in the appellate courts the Supreme Court is going to rule based upon constitutionality and the legality of the issue. It's not going to matter if a large group of people lose benefits that they're not entitled to in the first place.

And as I've pointed out to you, John Roberts has pointed out to you and Kennedy will point out to you again...

"Thus, while “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance” to the majority’s decision to strike down DOMA here, ibid., that power will come into play on the other side of the board in future cases about the constitutionality of state marriage definitions. So too will the concerns for state diversity and sovereignty that weigh against DOMA’s constitutionality in this case."

 

Ugh, this is why we need 'loser pay' laws ....

I mean let's just sit back and say for a second he wins, can you imagine the precedence that would set?

How many freaking lawsuits there would be!!!!

 

I don't need to justify it. And the courts aren't requiring justification either. It's a red herring.

 

I understand very well how the SCOTUS works, how case law works, and how precedent works. I also know the difference between the holding of a decision and the dicta of that decision. I also know the majority opinion is only one that carries any weight and that the minority opinion has no precedential value. But apparently you don't.

 

And I notice you didn't answer. Just alot of rehashed fluff. A Man could have always Married a Woman..no matter what 'orientation" they claimed to be. this is called equal rights. There is nothing offered to one group over another. Just because you are offered something that you wish was something else...does not mean you were not offered that same something, and is not a case of unequal rights.

Marriage, under the exact same, equal rulesets.. was offered to all on the one platform that rights should be coming from, the human platform. Just because it doesnt fit your wishlist, does not make it unequal rights.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL....destroyed.

Good day Poly.

 

Pffft delusions of grandeur

 

Same-sex couples cannot procreate? And that was supposed to be a valid, compelling reason for not allowing SSM? Very weak-and it ignores both the ability for lesbian couples to have children via sperm donation and homosexual couples to adopt; which many do. Furthermore what about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, or those who cannot because of fertility or other reasons?

 

Yes, well when you can demonstrate that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage you might have a point. But as it is not, I really don't see the reasoning here.

 

Let me make sure I understand this moronic argument...

You don't believe that we need to justify paying out a billion dollars in subsidies every single year? Are you out of your mind?

- - - Updated - - -

So let me get this straight. You acknowledge the reasoning he provides but you're asserting that FOR SOME REASON he's not going to use that same reasoning and logic going into the future?

Snotloller good luck with that. Don't cry too much when they rule against you... because I told you so.

 

That was established WELL before homosexuality was ever an issue:

“the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation” California Supreme Court Bake v Baker 1859

- - - Updated - - -

No... THEY can't procreate. ONE of them and a third party can procreate. But THEY can't procreate.

The average, healthy heterosexual couple is able to procreate in and of themselves without a third party and they can do so over and over and over again. The average, healthy homosexual couple is INCAPABLE of doing so without a third party.

 

As the recent non-decision showed, he said no such thing. You are reading into it what you WISH he had said.

Are you serious? Of course federal law can override state law, and it happens all the time. That's what a national constitution is for, among other things.

Unless SCOTUS decides NC can't do that under the US Constitution. Which is basically what they did, by leaving standing a federal decision that NC can't do that.

Actually, the decision not to overrule the five district appellate courts IS a way of saying exactly what you say they aren't saying. Your argument is not only false, but it's too late - you already lost that case.

Roberts' prediction turns out to have been quite correct. The future came, and SCOTUS was faced with a series of appellate court decisions addressing exactly "the constitutionality of state marriage definitions." And the decision was made to overrule those decisions by every appellate court, but were stayed pending SCOTUS action. That action was taken - SCOTUS let those decisions stand and lifted the stays.

No, he was predicting that the issue of the constitutionality of banning same sex marriage was going to come up directly. Which it did. He was predicting that the DOMA decision was planting the seeds indirectly, of granting constitutional blessing on such marriages, which was going to make it very difficult to rectify with banning them. His prediction came true.

I agree, this is highly likely.

I think you will be disappointed. At worst, SCOTUS might determine that the legality of such marriages is up to the individual states, but even so, they must then face the "full faith and credit" problem, that is, when a married couple moves to a banning state, are they still married? Does it pass legal muster to be married in the eyes of the nation but unmarried in the eyes of NC?

And of course, there is also the little matter of whether popular votes can strip people of constitutional rights.

 

It's also the lamest excuse for bigotry yet presented. It's like saying private property can't be owned by poor people, because defending it is just too expensive and the poor don't deserve to have any because they aren't carrying their part of the cost of defending it. Incredibly dumb.