In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

Nov 28, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Comments
701 - 720 of 1,145 Comments Last updated Jul 31, 2013
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#760
Dec 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. If I were a man who was inclined to take on wives, what would stop me from marrying the one woman I truly love and also marrying other women who wished to immigrate?
why would investigating any individual sham marriage be any different from this?

it wouldn't.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#761
Dec 7, 2012
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the question you always dodge because it pops your Baker Balloon.
If Baker is the legal precedent you try to claim it is how did DOMA get passed?.
Why dont you simply read the DOMA cases?

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

while you are so busy being huffy and trying to insult me over yioru misunderstanding, the truth is you simply arent grasping it...
Baker is a FEDERAL case, a SCOTUS precedent, that applies when a STATE makes a law. In the DOMA case, its the FEDERAL govt making a law and it has been found unconstitutional FOR THAT REASON. The court APPLIED baker to deny any argument that DOMA was unconstitutional based on a gay right to marry...

So the first circuit in the DOMA case said:
"The Legal Group says that any equal protection challenge to DOMA is foreclosed at the outset by Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). There, a central claim made was that a state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage violated federal equal protection principles. Minnesota had, like DOMA, defined marriage as a union of persons of the opposite sex, and the state supreme court had upheld the statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed summarily for want of a substantial federal question. Id.
Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Its a fact dude...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#762
Dec 7, 2012
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet it seems to assume gender differences are greater than individual differences. Each individual is different, and those differences don't necessarily depend on gender. Still, it offers no excuse for denial of an individual right guaranteed to all persons.
it does in the abortion context...
and its based on reproductive abilities in that case as well...

and did you notice how many people took offense tot he fact that I am a man posting under a female name?

they obviously think there is a meaningful difference while they claim there is not one...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#763
Dec 7, 2012
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand what dismissed means?
The US Supreme Court DISMISSED the case. They did not hear oral arguments, they did not issue a ruling, they did not "weigh in", they dismissed the case for want of a substantial federal question.
why insist when you can google it an learn?

I know why....pete and repeat:

A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

I mean, do you really think being purposefully ignorant helps you?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#764
Dec 7, 2012
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you just love it when a "lawyer" insists a case SCOTUS says lacks a Federal Question somehow creates a Federal Precedent on a question that SCOTUS says isn't part of the case?
No matter how drunk I get that still makes no sense.
Funny, you could easily just read this and find out, but you would rather insist on your error and make fun of me for it..

and BTW, what was your job again?

Decision in the U.S. Supreme Court

Baker and McConnell appealed the Minnesota court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they claimed the Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[12] On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."[13]
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]

However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.
However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.
However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.
However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.

sorry about the many repeats but you have already ignored this about this many times...

when will you be admitting your mistake and apologize for making fun of ME for it?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#765
Dec 7, 2012
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I keep picturing Jane appearing on Judge Judy. In this vision Judge Judy listens to Jane for about two minutes before she instructs him to shut up.
She then tells Bert that if Jane speaks again take your billy club and whack him on the head.
3 Months later Jane is back on TV on the People's Court trying to convince Judge Milian that he deserves damages from Judge Judy over his extended hospital stay.
Judge Milian then dismisses the cas4 because Jane sued Judy and not Bert!
your motives here are clear , and they are clearly not to discuss the ISSUE...
and point of fact, there are no lawyers in small claims...
so, reality aside as usual eh DNF?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#766
Dec 7, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the 2nd circuit used intermediate scrutiny; even the 1st circuit used an "enhanced" rational basis test to overturn DOMA.
what does that say about your claim of a fundamental right or suspect classification?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#767
Dec 7, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As is an elderly marriage, 100% of the time.
Fertility and/or procreation have NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
Marriage has NEVER been a requirement of procreation.
read the news, 70 year olds have babies...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28112285/ns/healt...

REQUIREMENT is false logic...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#768
Dec 7, 2012
 
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>

because what I am saying is that your *attitude* comes off as antigay,
You are misinterpreting my fending off daily personal attacks with bias...

In short, if many of the posters here were not so aggressive and chuck attitude, I wouldn't have to..
I don't with those who don't, but if you want to pitch some obnoxious, clearly I can do that...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#769
Dec 7, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
why insist when you can google it an learn?
I know why....pete and repeat:
A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
I mean, do you really think being purposefully ignorant helps you?
Jane, even the google links you provide tell the cold hard truth.

Baker was dismissed by the US Supreme Court for want of a substantial federal question. The court neither heard oral arguments, nor did it write a decision. "Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent..." However, several federal and appellate courts have not cited Baker in gay marriage cases calling into question just how binding a precedent it is.

So, which is it Jane, are you a liar, or are you too stupid to comprehend English? There was no US Supreme Court decision in Baker, there is only the ruling of the Minnesota State Supreme Court. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#770
Dec 7, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
You are misinterpreting my fending off daily personal attacks with bias...
In short, if many of the posters here were not so aggressive and chuck attitude, I wouldn't have to..
I don't with those who don't, but if you want to pitch some obnoxious, clearly I can do that...
And, if you would admit that you have advanced blatant falsehoods, perhaps the attitude in addressing your posts would not be present.

However, you seem to be completely out of touch with reality, and utterly unwilling to acknowledge any fact that does not support your opinion.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#771
Dec 7, 2012
 
Is Jane actually blaming us for his attitude???????
Tsk, tsk, tsk.......
I bet he learned that in law school.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#772
Dec 7, 2012
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
"Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits.

There was no US Supreme Court decision in Baker, there is only the ruling of the Minnesota State Supreme Court.
You disproved yourself!
google what a "decision on the merits" means!
Now tell your opposition that they are not capable!

So all this means is that you are either purposefully delusional or truly very stupid.

I mean I showed you an article discussing baker which called it the 72 scotus decision...

you are insisting the sky is green and calling me a liar that i say its blue!
Pete and repeat again!
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#773
Dec 7, 2012
 
Mona Lott wrote:
Is Jane actually blaming us for his attitude???????
Tsk, tsk, tsk.......
I bet he learned that in law school.
And Mona, after insisting for a year I am not a lawyer, changes tack 180 degrees....

Yes Mona will SAY ANYTHING to be a hateful bully...
And he will not even say it directly to me in the hopes of hiding..
but I am watching you dude!
Yes, reactions to vile people like you make me give attitude!
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#774
Dec 7, 2012
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
unwilling to acknowledge any fact that does not support your opinion.
yawn...
pot meet kettle.

Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#775
Dec 7, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
You disproved yourself!
google what a "decision on the merits" means!
Now tell your opposition that they are not capable!
So all this means is that you are either purposefully delusional or truly very stupid.
I mean I showed you an article discussing baker which called it the 72 scotus decision...
you are insisting the sky is green and calling me a liar that i say its blue!
Pete and repeat again!
Jane Dough wrote:
yawn...
pot meet kettle.
Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent...
My, but you are dim witted.

Jane, have several federal, and appellate, courts ignored Baker when ruling on same sex marriage?

Perhaps, the precedent is not so binding as you would like it to be?

Can, even US Supreme Court, decisions be overturned by future decisions?

When a precedent is called into question, those who wish it to remain precedent need to rationally defend the decision. The fact that it become precedent by being dismissed for want of a substantial federal question establishes only one thing, and that is that it is anything but a strong precedent.

I love it when you keep citing Baker as though it were the US Constitution, but when it comes time to defend Baker, you merely refer to the decision again. Can you offer a rational defense of Baker, because it appears that you absolutely cannot? Just as you cannot provide a single legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#776
Dec 7, 2012
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Can, even US Supreme Court, decisions be overturned by future decisions?
is this you admitting it IS a SCOTUS decision?
you haven't done so yet and so you are, at this point, still insisting on an obvious factual error.

BTW, shorten your posts since I am not going to give you much time and as soon as I see pete and repeat, I skip...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#777
Dec 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
is this you admitting it IS a SCOTUS decision?
you haven't done so yet and so you are, at this point, still insisting on an obvious factual error.
BTW, shorten your posts since I am not going to give you much time and as soon as I see pete and repeat, I skip...
No, this is me illustrating that you cannot find a single US Supreme Court ruling on the issue. This is what it is, which is a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question.

This dismissal became "precedent" through procedural means, and you seem to lack the intelligence to offer a valid defense of the Minnesota Court's ruling, which is truly the ruling in question. What is more, several federal and appellate courts have already dismissed this "binding precedent", proving that it is anything but binding, and begging the question can precedents be overturned upon future review?

Can you, or can you not, offer a single legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#778
Dec 7, 2012
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

This dismissal became "precedent" through procedural means,
so are you admitting it a scotus precedent?

You cant just do that without addressing that you denied it for MONTHS and even insulted me for suggesting it was...

A LONG LONG LONG time ago, I said you can credibly argue that its binding value is subject to debate (which you now are) but your insistence that is was merely a state case NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, troll.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#780
Dec 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jane Dough wrote:
so are you admitting it a scotus precedent?
Sure.

Can you admit that several federal and appellate courts have already ignored this precedent? Better yet, can you offer a valid argument defending the precedent?

You see, when a precedent is challenged, it needs to be rationally defended. Merely arguing that it is precedent is bound to fail.

now that you are, presumably done with your infantile semantics on the topic, can you offer any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would help defend the precedent set when Baker was DISMISSED by the US Supreme Court?

It's funny the great lengths to which you will go to avoid directly addressing the topic at hand.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••