Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Appeals From 5 States

the other examples were too graphic

- - - Updated - - -

Inter-racial marriage bans were overturned because it discriminated against two people because of race.

same-gender marriage bans will be overturned because it discriminated against two people because of gender.

.

 

The former only remotely had anything to do with marriage. The latter can't be ruled unconstitutional without a clear definition of marriage at the federal level. They will continue to punt until they either define it or leave it up to the states.

 

Huh? This makes no sense. Federal judges ruled the states bans unconstitutional. The Supreme Court let those rulings stand.

 

how about the recent run of hard on commercials..... in your face enough?

 

Cialis and Viagra commercials make you believe the two in the Mardi Gras ad are gay or straight?

 

When is the last time you saw a gay couple in a Cialis to Viagra ad? Let me know. Meanwhile, seems like they're all heterosexual couples. Why do they feel the need to shove it in everyone's faces?

You'd have a heart attack if they put two guys in one of those ads. And the rest of the bigots in this forum would swear never to buy the products.

 

Quit projecting. I don't watch commercials. That's the beauty of having a DVR. How many gay men use Cialis or Viagra? I'll guarantee you neither drug is a heterosexual-only drug and have wide usage in both walks of life.

It wouldn't bother me one bit. Once again you are throwing your stereotypes around.

That would be their choice. Thank you for once again playing the bigot/homophobe card.

 

where did I say that, you asked me to show where heterosexuals get in your face about their sex lives.... I did and now your upset about it and trying to intentionally dismiss it

.

 

The Supreme Court left it up to the states to decide the validity of marriages in June 2013. Then they turn around and allow the federal courts at the district level to overturn the state bans. That is what makes no sense.

 

No, the real question will be: how do you justify lifting the ban on same-sex marriages while keeping bans on polygamous marriages, bestial marriages, human and inanimate object marriages, and child marriages?

Without a definition of marriage in place, allowing same-sex marriages to continue will inevitably open the door on all other deviant marriages. So that 50-year-old guy married to the 9-year-old girl in Yemen that wants to move to the United States and bring his child bride with him, his child marriage will have to be recognized as well according to the legal precedence that is being constructed here.

 

First, I don't get upset about your stupid posts.

Second, you really believe that an add for erection pills are limited to heterosexual couples just because they use the societal norm for their commercials?

Finally, are you really trying to compare a drug ad with a gay pride parade?

 

The 2013 Windsor decision didn't explicitly state that it was solely up to the states to decide the validity of marriage. What they said was that those state laws governing marriage are still subject to the US Constitution. They apparently felt that the reasoning used by the district courts, and upheld by the 3 Circuit Court of Appeals, to overturn the bans were correct and let those decisions stand. Which also created binding precedent in those 3 Circuit Courts of Appeals.

 

Can you really tell us with a straight face that the majority of PDAs out there aren't heterosexual in nature? That when we see married couples portrayed on television that the majority of them aren't heterosexual? That the majority of advertising doesn't feature heterosexual couples? You can't be that obtuse.

Every day is heterosexual pride day. Gays/Lesbians are constantly bombarded with images and actions that are heterosexual in nature. Hell, spring break every year is a great example of a bombardment of heterosexual imagery and behavior. Hundreds of thousands of straight college kids trying to get it on with the opposite sex.

 

Of course, the majority of PDAs are being used by heterosexuals. Derp. 97% of the human population is heterosexual. But suggesting that they are excluding homosexuals because they feature the predominant sexual unit in their ads is like suggesting that when Lego makes a toy ad during Christmas that somehow Jewish or Muslim kids are somehow being excluded too. It's a crap argument.

Would you feel like you were being unfairly targeted if you were lactose intolerant and a commercial for Ben & Jerry's came on the television? I'd hope not.

 

You know, there is a MUCH simpler way to avoid complicated legal wrangling and keeping yourself from having the your fears and complication attempting to suborn our free country with these attacks to making personal freedom illegal.

Just stop yourself from trying to have gay sex! Bingo! Your problem is solved!

 

They did no such thing. They ruled that marriages legal in any state, must be recognized by the Federal Government as a legal marriage. They said nothing whatsoever about whether individual states could or could not ban same-sex marriages. They only said such marriages must be recognized by the Federal Government.

There is a legal principle you seem to be misunderstanding here. The court can only decide the case at hand. Not some other case you WISH they were deciding. In the Windsor case, two people were legally married in New York, and one of them died. By law, the surviving spouse inherits (i.e. continues to own) what were joint property. And the Feds stepped in and demanded inheritance tax. The surviving spouse NEVER has to pay inheritance tax, so she sued.

At this point, the Court was faced with only one issue: should New York's legal marriage be recognized by the IRS as a legal marriage? The Court ruled that it must be. There was nothing in this case contesting New York's right to marry same-sex couples, so the Court couldn't decide that issue. The Court can only decide issues raised in the cases it considers.

Subsequent cases, of course, HAVE contested the issue of same-sex marriages in two different ways. (1) Whether prohibiting them violates the US Constitution; and (2) Whether one state's refusal to recognize another state's legal marriage violates the US Constitution. These are two separate, distinct issues.

As an aside (dicta), the Court decision noted that marriage laws can and do vary from state to state in many ways. HOWEVER, the states do not have the option to violate the US Constitution. They vary (to my knowledge) in cost of licence, waiting periods since a divorce, waiting periods after getting a license, whether blood tests are required, minimum age of either or both parties to the marriage, etc. But states can by law NOT prohibit mixed-race marriages, because that is a Constitutional violation. And by letting the appellate court decisions stand, the Court is implicitly agreeing that prohibiting same-sex marriage is also a Constitutional violation (because that's what all the appellate courts ruled, and the Supreme Court didn't see fit to change it).

Bottom line: AT NO TIME has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. But please understand that whether a law violates the US Constitution is never up to any of the states to determine. Such a determination can only happen at the federal level.