SC paves way for gay marriage in several states, leaves issue unresolved nationally

Two and a half hours to go before the Stay goes away unless SCOTUS intervenes... Tick tock tick tock...

 

And, boom. A mere 15 hours from accusing me of lying, turns out, I was right the whole time.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/court-allows-same-sex-marriages-in-alaska/

 

You understand that the 9th circuit is higher than any judge in Alaska and that no Alaskan judge can stay a higher courts ruling right? Please tell me you weren't absent that day in 6th grade civics class?

 

Well, to be fair, the SCOTUS itself has not specifically and explicitly ruled that SSm bans are unconstitutional. But they seemed to happy to let the various Circuit Court of Appeals (4 so far!) do the ruling for them, which, as you pointed out earlier, is the equivalent of ruling that the SSM bans are indeed unconstitutional. It's a passive version. But apparently for Paco, unless it's an explicit ruling from the SCOTUS itself, it doesn't count.

 

No, but a summary judgement refusing to take a case is the legal equivalent of taking the case and upholding it on the merits. They CAN, should they choose to, take up a future case, personally I think they're waiting to see if even a single Appeals Court makes an opposite ruling before doing anything.

 

And meanwhile gay marriage by attrition overwhelms states who voted to exclude it...all with the quiet insidious stamp of approval by the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court.

You cannot tell me they didn't know what it would mean for majorities to enforce their laws when they refused to take up the case. They knew.

Fun fact #1: Dick Cheney, the unofficial an constant silent head of the GOP has a lesbian daughter. Do the math.

Fun fact #2: Polygamy is now legal in any state rendered with a "dead law" courtesy of this calcluated move on behalf of the conservative Justices. On what grounds would anyone have a legal basis for excluding them when "marraige is only between a man and a woman" is rendered unenforceable? "Marriage equality" demands that all applicants be approved regardless of sexual orientation, including the orientation towards more than one person they "love"..

 

Good.

Damn right they knew. It was a very calculated move.

So what.

Wrong. Personally, I have no objection to polyamory (pure polygamy would fail on equal protection grounds) being legal, but I don't see an equal protection argument. NOBODY is currently allowed plural marriage, so nobody is being treated different from anyone else.

 

So by your logic, "Not ruling on something is the same as ruling on something." Got it. That falls in line with your other logic being "I'm not lying" even though you admitted that SCOTUS never ruled on the issue.

By the way, the deadline was supposed to be Friday, but state offices were closed this weekend due to Alaska Day, so the official start of "marriage equality but only for gay couples" in Alaska is supposed to officially start today. So that's two lies that I caught you in. Carry on.

 

Not MY logic. Established legal doctrine. By refusing to take the case, the legal ramifications are the same as if they took the case, and upheld the lower Court's decision. 100's of years of precedent support that. In fact, that's the very reason AK now HAS to allow SSM, despite the fact that no cases from AK were on the Appeal.

That doesn't change the fact that the Stay was dissolved at 11:00AM Alaska time, and SCOTUS denied their appeal at 11:01AM Alaska time. I don't know if they intentionally allowed it to expire before issuing their ruling or if that was a coincidence. Either way, the Stay was lifted as of that time. State offices being closed just means they were closed. I'm quite sure licenses have been issued as of today.

 

Seems I was right. http://www.adn.com/article/20141020...ex-marriage-legally-wed-after-week-legal-back

 

The Court chose not to hear any of the 5 cases, thus upholding the decisions of the lower Appellate Courts. It's effect is as if the Court had heard the cases and upheld the decisions, creating binding precedent in each of those 4 Appellate Court Circuits. Yes, it does seem a little weird that by not ruling they have ruled, but that's how the justice system works. Think of it as a passive versus active way of ruling.

Eventually the Court may have to step in and decide the issue once and for all, but that isn't going to happen until we see a circuit split on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. That could happen in the 5th, 6th or 9th Circuits anytime now, but the fact that the Court had 5 opportunities to weigh in (7 if you count Idaho & Alaska's recent request for a stay, and summarily denied) and chose not to is a pretty clear sign that there are not 5 votes to uphold the same-sex marriage bans. It only takes 4 justices to hear a case. That's some pretty telling math there...

 

Wrong. Until there is an actual case brought forward that uses your line of reasoning we don't actually know if the overturning of same-sex bans will result in polygamy being legalized. I suspect that the fall of the same-sex marriage bans won't be enough, but I'm not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer. I suspect that neither are you...

 

Courts in Europe who hastily approved national protection in their country for gay marriage are now as we speak hearing polygamy and incest marriage cases in front of their bench. They are wincing too. The public is in an uproar but nothing can be done. Why? Equality + precedent = legal polygamy and incest marriage. You cannot pick out your favorite deviant sex practices that are repugnant to the majority and lavish them with special protections....while you tell others equally as repugnant..."sorry, you're [arbitrarily] out of luck".

That's not how the legal system works. It's obvious you're not a lawyer. If you were, you'd know that not only is polygamy and incest marriage a guarantee in the future, they are as legal now, right now...today...as gay marriage in the states where the laws were rendered dead by attrition by the conservative Justices in the Supreme Court refusing to take up the urgent pleas of no less than 32 states to put the matter up for Hearing...BOTH sides of the arguments.

 

Certainly you have sources for this showing where incest is being legalized in Europe by using prescient from ssm rulings. Care to post them?

All I could find was this:

Several areas there allow incest but not ssm, some allow both, some allow neither.

 

There is nothing factual in the above. Polygamy is not legal in these states, because the laws that bar it were not rendered 'dead'.

For starters, the Supreme Court did not issue a ruling on the merits in any of these cases. Instead, it dismissed the appeals without comment, letting the rulings of the circuit courts stand. Those rulings don't have the effect you claim, either. Any ruling applies first and foremost to the parties to the suit - in these instances, several same-sex couples. The courts could even have limited their rulings to apply exclusively to the specific plaintiffs, though they didn't. That doesn't give the rulings the kind of sweeping effects you have falsely proclaimed, however. The courts only ruled on the claims of same-sex couples, and that is the only class of people affected. Not polygamists, and not incestuous couples. Both remain barred by other statutes. Those statutes were not in question in these cases.

 

It's obvious you aren't a lawyer, either. The legal system doesn't work the way you claim it does. You are purposely trying to mislead people and scare them.

 

Everything has to be assessed on its own individual merits, impacts and risks. The problem with people like you is that anything "different" belongs and is inherently tied up (in your minds) in the same class. That is offensive to even the most basic standard of logic.