Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

Furthermore:

1. The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[19]

2.The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[20]

3. Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[21]

4.Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

(all well documented and footnoted)

BAKER IN THE STATE COURTS

In state courts, the relevance of a precedent like Baker partly depends on what claims the litigants make. If the litigants claim protection of the U.S Constitution, a U.S. Supreme Court precedent may control the outcome of those claims. If the claims arise under state constitutional provisions, federal precedents need not control.[30] There are some state courts, however, that treat provisions of their constitution in the same way as the federal courts treat the analogous portion of the U.S. Constitution.[31] In these circumstances, precedents like Baker may control state constitutional analysis.[32]

In state courts, judges also come to somewhat differing conclusions as to Baker's reach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Baker? You must be kidding me.
1. Baker only upheld a 1972 Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling.
2. SCOTUS dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question," which is now at the center of the debate.
3. The court's refusal to hear the case does not constitute an endorsement of the ruling.
4. Baker has not been used to overturn states which now have SSM.

What does 'for want of a federal question' mean to you????

Tiella wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh my gosh, I am not against gay civil unions but this is such a bunch of convoluted nonsense! Your take on the establishment of religion clause in this context is, to put it nicely, a SSSTTRREETTCCHHH.
Blatherskite much?

He has over 12,000 posts from people telling him the exact same thing, yet he continues to post that same misconception post after post after post....it's sad really....

WasteWater wrote:

BAKER IN THE STATE COURTS
In state courts, the relevance of a precedent like Baker partly depends on what claims the litigants make. If the litigants claim protection of the U.S Constitution, a U.S. Supreme Court precedent may control the outcome of those claims. If the claims arise under state constitutional provisions, federal precedents need not control.[30] There are some state courts, however, that treat provisions of their constitution in the same way as the federal courts treat the analogous portion of the U.S. Constitution.[31] In these circumstances, precedents like Baker may control state constitutional analysis.[32]
In state courts, judges also come to somewhat differing conclusions as to Baker's reach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

You know, Baker does not 'prohibit' ssm in any state...it make's it legal to deny ssm should that state decide to....there's a difference...

Michael Allred wrote:

<quoted text>
Which bizarrely yet pathetically ignores *my* 1st Amendment rights...

Picking at nits again, Gloria's little boie? State exactly where your first amendment rights are ignored?

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
What does 'for want of a federal question' mean to you????

It means that DOMA now show want for a federal question

cpeter1313 wrote:

Dissent is different from deliberate obstruction. If obama found the cure for all disease, the GOP would have done everything they could to stop it from being used, because it would make obama look good. They don't care if the legislation is reasonable or if people want it; they have all but admitted out loud that their sole purpose has been to keep obama from being effective.
<quoted text>

Obama is a Socialist whose political agenda must be halted this November. The country cannot afford 4 more years of his nonsense.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You know, Baker does not 'prohibit' ssm in any state...it make's it legal to deny ssm should that state decide to....there's a difference...

Then Baker is not binding in and of itself and cannot be used to deny XIV sec 1 rights across the board. In fact, if you had read what I posted carefully, you would see that in order for Baker to be binding to a state's decision, the circumstances of the cases must coincide, which they do not with Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
What does 'for want of a federal question' mean to you????

That's easy. As Baker was presented at the time, SCOTUS saw no violation of federal law. There have been several landmark rulings since 1972 which bring the issue of federal law into question. The legal debate goes on. Baker is not a significant decision.

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Then Baker is not binding in and of itself and cannot be used to deny XIV sec 1 rights across the board. In fact, if you had read what I posted carefully, you would see that in order for Baker to be binding to a state's decision, the circumstances of the cases must coincide, which they do not with Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The litigants sued on behalf of the 14th amendment as well, and were overriden....It is binding precedent, and that is why no state is 'forced' to issue ssm licenses or accept them from other states....ssm is not the same thing as o/s marriage...

Marvin in Denver wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama is a Socialist whose political agenda must be halted this November. The country cannot afford 4 more years of his nonsense.

I will vote for President Obama. Romeny is a corporate raider who loves to outsource our jobs and kill our communities. We can not afford to turn this country over to Romeny's Wall Street planet rapers. Don't let Romeny purchase the presidency. Say NO to Madison
Avenue and the people who sent your jobs away.

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
That's easy. As Baker was presented at the time, SCOTUS saw no violation of federal law. There have been several landmark rulings since 1972 which bring the issue of federal law into question. The legal debate goes on. Baker is not a significant decision.

Let's take 'your' belief as to what a federal question means...

Even if you are correct, ssm is still not a 14th amendment issue and here's why....the litigant sued under violation of the 14th amendment, but the justices so no violation to answer to, because there is no right to ssm under the 14th amendment....

sorry, should say the justices 'saw no' violation....

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
I will vote for President Obama. Romeny is a corporate raider who loves to outsource our jobs and kill our communities. We can not afford to turn this country over to Romeny's Wall Street planet rapers. Don't let Romeny purchase the presidency. Say NO to Madison
Avenue and the people who sent your jobs away.

Where are Obama's jobs that he was creating???? Those 'green' jobs he promised have failed to take root and he only really grew the federal government as far as employment goes...not sure how that helps us....

Peaches wrote:

<quoted text>What are you going to do if he is voted in for 4 more years. Will you eat your own words. Just asking.I didn't vote for him.

the beauty o fit is that if he somehow, by some miracle, manages to lose the election to mittens doma will fall by the end of november and by the time he leaves the whitehouse in january same sex marriage will be written into the u.s. constitution in big, bold, black letters and will be legal everywhere in the u.s... and there won't be a winnet ridden thing that mittens can do about it other than bend over and grab his ankles.

Marvin in Denver wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama is a Socialist whose political agenda must be halted this November. The country cannot afford 4 more years of his nonsense.

we can only wish that mr. obama was a socialist. our country cannot afford to NOT socialise medicine and education.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Where are Obama's jobs that he was creating???? Those 'green' jobs he promised have failed to take root and he only really grew the federal government as far as employment goes...not sure how that helps us....

while presidents don't and can't create jobs (they haven't been allowed to do so since fdr ended the great depression in the u.s.) over 600,000 jobs have been created in the u.s. under his watch. romney, and any other conservative only wishes to destroy that progress.

Ken wrote:

Amazing...someone so full of hate can also be even fuller of yourself...
Pompous windbag comes to mind.
Tapping away and pontificating endlessly droning on posts that will soon be forgotten.
What a dope!

Thank you, that was short, off topic, and pointless.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow! Who should read the constitution??? Not only did you post it....you posted 'EXACTLY' what I said....
Voting my conscience is a direct fulfillment(sic) of my 'free exercise thereof.....
My conscience has absolutely nothing to do with congress establishing religion....can you understand these two very different concepts???
It's 'you' that needs to take a class (for you own benefit, don't pick a liberal 'lying' college).....

It’s funny that you elongate, only what you wish to see. OK, Fool. Your argument advocates allowing you to vote your religious values into law… Do you know what that means? It means violating the religious freedoms of others, including those who wish to be unassociated with any religion.

You keep arguing about protections of the law, which is inherently what state marriage is; and you express an urge to hold homosexuals as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws (as they are unable to marry the consenting adult of their choosing).

You are incapable of articulating even so much as a rational basis to deny them such equal protection of the law. If same sex marriage offends your religious sensibilities, then you have a direct remedy. Do you know what that is? You have the freedom NOT TO EXERCISE your right to marry someone of the same sex. You don’t have the right to use the law as an instrument to abide by your religious morals (in fact doing so violates their free exercise of religion).

You owe a debt to those liberal ‘lying’ colleges, they produced the founders that felt government should not be invasive in people’s lives, and that everyone deserved equal freedom and protection of the law.

Tiella wrote:

Oh my gosh, I am not against gay civil unions but this is such a bunch of convoluted nonsense! Your take on the establishment of religion clause in this context is, to put it nicely, a SSSTTRREETTCCHHH.
Blatherskite much?

In my view, the establishment clause is not in play, this is a simple matter of equal protection. That being said, there is already a basis that separate is inherently unequal, which is why I disagree with civil unions.

Fool believes that they should be able to force their religious moral views onto others, which would be a significant establishment clause issue. Apparently, fool is incapable of seeing that just as they have the freedom to worship the religion of their choice, they also have the freedom not to enter into a marriage they find objectionable on moral, religious, or any other grounds.