Is MSNBC Ramping Up Racial Tensions To Tag LGBT Agenda Onto New "Civil Rights Fury"?

[Skylar]

1. Then like one of the Justices said this month, you should have no trouble at all with the people of each state weighing in on gay marriage and

Well, at least you're willing to admit the people support gay marriage.

2. California doesn't have to "petition" to enforce intiative law. If the Supremes say that states had the say all along, the California Constitution mandates that initiative law is the law.

Says you. Back in reality, the USSC case establishes binding precedent for all future cases. If the USSC ruled that the states can ban gay marriage, California would likely be able to petition the federal judiciary to have the federal ruling that found gay marriage unconstitutional overturned.

Without such a petition, past federal rulings are still in effect. And California is making no such petition.

Let me give you an example from history: Loving v. Virginia. In 1967, the SCOTUS found that interracial marriage bans in Virginia were unconstitutional. But, it wasn't until 1970 in United States v. Brittain that Alabama actually ended its enforcement of interracial marriage bans. The 1967 immediately resolved the issue for the parties in question (the State of Virginia and the Loving family). And it can be used as binding precedent in future cases by parties with standing.

But for the Loving ruling to be used in future cases as binding precedent there must be a future case. In the case of Alabama that case was US v. Brittian. With California....there is no such case. As the State of California is the only party with standing to bring such a case to the federal judiciary. And California refuses to pursue the matter legally.

Thus, regardless of the outcome of the USSC ruling this June, gay marriage will still be legal in California. And Prop 8 will still be unenforcible.