Preferential Treatment? California vs Utah

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights....

...The high court order will remain in effect until the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to uphold Shelby's ruling.

In another filing on Monday, the state of Utah argued that Shelby's "unlawful injunction" interferes with the state's enforcement of its own laws...

...Utah changed its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in 2004.

Nearly two-thirds of Utah's 2.8 million residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Mormons dominate the state's legal and political circles. The Mormon church was one of the leading forces behind California's short-lived ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8....

... Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News

I guess this means, using California's Prop 8 case last year in SCOTUS that Utah will be forced to accept gay marriage and this stay is only a temporary hold until they can go through the motions of making gay marriage formally legal in Utah....

..against the vote of 2/3rds of Utah's citizens and the same percentage of that state who have been taught the lesson of Sodom and civilizations that support or enable sodomites. In case you were wondering what that lesson is, it's that God said that anyone who supports or enables a culture where sodomy is promoted as normal is condemned to the eternal fires of hell. That little snag.

It isn't a venial sin to acquiesce to or enable or have any part in normalizing a homosexual lifestyles in other words, it's a mortal sin.

So this should get interesting for the Supreme Court. On the one hand they just told California's 7 million majority that voted for their own initiative law, Prop 8, to stuff it. On the other hand, they cannot arbitrarily turn around and tell Utah, "in your case we'll make an exception".

Yet they also cannot violate the 1st Amendment and force people to abandon their faith in the interest of the government and its secular laws; particulary when the punishment for abandoning their faith in this specific instance means condemnation to hell for eternity.

And telling 2/3rds of a clear majority of a state that they have no rights to their religious beliefs? I don't envy the 9 Justices, that's for sure.

Let's take a look at the two sides of the argument and what they will boil down to.

1. Gays claim that they are "born that way". And relying on this premise they declare that they are a special class of people: particularly "LGBT" people. They revere Harvey Milk as their iconic leader. [More on him and how gays marrying and qualifying thereby for adoption later in this thread].

2. Devout christians, mormons and islamics believe at the core of their faith that homosexuality is a lifestyle and as such can catch on to dominate an entire culture through singsong, smooth speeches and coercive talk to bring a whole society to damnation:

ARGUMENT #1:
The premise is flawed. I personally know of a set of identical twin girls raised by a butch and femme lesbian couple. One twin grew up to become a lesbian. The other twin grew up to become straight, is married, in love with her husband and has a couple of kids. Case closed.

But if you want further verification, here is a study that shows in the animal kingdom, sexual orientation is learned from social cues and then imprinted to become a "choice" for that animal's life.

http://psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

The bibliography contains about 350 citations to peer-reviewed articles from behavioral specialists around the world. And remember, animals are the most slavish of creatures to their DNA. Humans by comparison are the most socially-malleable of the animal kingdom and as such would be the paramount examples of this study, rather than the exception to it.

This is very crucial and important when discussing argument #2.

In addition, the Mayo Clinic and clinical psychiatrists and the CDC provide disturbing links in the trend of normalizing gayness via the vehicle of marriage and a sudden spike in new HIV cases in our most impressionable citizens: boys ages 13-24:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007 http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

Nov. 27, 2012 -- Every month, 1,000 more young Americans ages 13 to 24 get an incurable infection that's deadly unless held at bay by daily doses of costly drugs -- and many of them don't even know it.

That infection is HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. And teens are at the heart of the ongoing U.S. HIV epidemic, says CDC Director Thomas Frieden, MD, MPH.

"We see HIV infections increasing in young people but decreasing in older people. So young people are driving the epidemic," Frieden said today at a news conference held to announce the new data. "Given everything we know after 30 years of this epidemic, it is just unacceptable that young people are becoming infected at such high rates."...

...Men who have sex with other men get nearly three-fourths of new infections among young people.

One reason young gay and bisexual males have such a high infection rate is that they are far more likely than other young men (or young women) to have multiple sex partners, to use alcohol or drugs when having sex, and to have sex with older partners. They're also less likely to use condoms....

..Frieden said the CDC is focusing on programs targeting high-risk young people. But he asked for help.

"Young people themselves need to get information about HIV and AIDS, to resist pressure to have sex and do drugs, and to get tested," he said. "Families can talk to their kids often and early about prevention. And all Americans can talk honestly and openly about HIV to combat the stigma and fear that keep people from getting tested and treated." HIV Hits 1,000 Young Americans Each Month

Now then, in a fixed population of people as gays must surely be if genetic, why the sudden rise in our youngest ranks coming down with HIV? Could it be that youngsters are highly susceptible to trends and new fads? Could it be that youngsters are naturally experimental when it comes to trying sex for the first few times? Could it be that animal handlers across the globe know that you can take any stud animal of any species and artificially orient them permanently sexually to anything you choose as long as you "get to them young enough"? And what's with all these TV shows on kids programming with all the gay themes, rainbows and such?

Did you know that one of the main founders of GLAAD, an outfit that has infiltrated every nook and cranny of Hollywood and everything it produces was founded by a guy with the same last name as Obama's education czar? They're not the same first name, but they are the same last name. Cousins? Brothers? Or just coinicidence? And both men have advocated funding from the government to promote gay in the arenas where children view and watch and learn the most: TV and schools...

The more you know...

ARGUMENT #2:

It's a very simple argument. It's called "Jude" from the New Testament of the christian Bible. A testament, by the way, is a factual account from history. The argument is simply the parts in bold and that are underlined, with a brief recap below:

Jude 1

3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities....

..12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit....

...22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, Jude 1 KJV - Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and - Bible Gateway

Jude 1:3, 1:5 & 1:7 basically say it all. They say quite simply that you must not sit on your hands. You must rise up and resist the homosexual culture. And if you don't, you will be counted as among them in the final reckoning, just like what happened with the city of Sodom. It orders that other cities like Sodom will suffer the same fate: that of eternal fire and damnation for the mortal sin of sodomy. Mortal sin, not venial or even cardinal. Mortal.

So dear US Supreme Court Justices; have fun juggling all that. And remember when you do that poor old California also decided to set requirements for marriage that you then stripped away from them by punting Prop 8's lower illegal decision which stood in complete juxtaposition to your wording in DOMA granting the right in consensus to determine marriage as belonging to each sovereign state. Upon appeal you said "no, we will not issue a stay".

The US Supreme Court actually said to California: "we will not clarify our standing on Prop 8. We will not allow you to appeal our muddy "decision" on your own laws and we will force you to accept that which we said was up to you, but that you do not want."
But for some odd reason they just issued a stay in Utah's case.

No wonder their statement was brief. They literally can't explain why they would deny gay marriages to continue in Utah while they allowed them to continue in California and denied that state's appeal that was made on the same grounds as Utah's: that California had duly enacted a law by a clear majority and the county clerks there did not want to disobey that law which was described as binding by the US Supreme Court Itself in DOMA.

 

[bendog]

And then it leads to beastiality. Let's not forget that. And then there were Lot's daughters too.

 

[Silhouette]

And then it leads to beastiality. Let's not forget that. And then there were Lot's daughters too.

Which cities were destroyed for those sins? The Koran specifies that the story of Sodom was one of men lying with each other as if their wives. Sorry. I didn't write the Rule Book, nor do I make The Laws. The Book just says "if you support homosexual cultures and lifestyles, you're going to hell with them, and for emphasis on that decree, God and the angels are going to wipe out your entire city." Not saying those examples aren't sins, just not the ones specified in the story of Sodom and therefore Jude. That's the crucial point when weighing specifically homosexual cultural values vs christian/muslim/mormon ones...

Do you have any thoughts on why, based on the same legal reasoning of following duly enacted consensus law, Utah was granted a stay while California's county clerks were not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you have it right.

You understand perfectly.

Your side is facing the desolation of defeat.

Fear not, be of good heart. If ever you need me to save you from being married to someone of your own sex, flash the Jake Signal in the heavens and I will fly to your rescue.

 

[bendog]

hey look, I apologize. It's just that of all the OT stories, the story of Lot and his family is one of the more hysterical. personally, I think the ironies more subtle than Jacob and Esau and even Sara and Hagar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or Hagar and Brunhilde.

 

[Silhouette]

hey look, I apologize. It's just that of all the OT stories, the story of Lot and his family is one of the more hysterical. personally, I think the ironies more subtle than Jacob and Esau and even Sara and Hagar.

The mandate of Jude is NEW TESTAMENT, as in, the one that all christians today must pay attention to. The NEW TESTAMENT in Jude cited Sodom and its destruction of all those ascribing to/enabling homosexual lifestyles as means for the destruction of the individual follower TODAY, not "way back then in those silly times".

There's the issue you want to confuse, I'm sure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, the church of Christ is not the Church of Christ. The latter is a mere sect confused as to doctrine and traditions.

 

[bendog]

Ok, while Lot has a lot of irony, the current infusion of Phil's theological backwood boogalo just adds to the irony. Phil actually correctly references the Lot tale. It wasn't homosexuality per se. Sodom turned its hearts from God, and wanted to rape God's messengers. Ignore for a moment that rapists are not necessarily straight or gay, nor are pedophiles btw. But instead, Lot suggests the rape his daughters to spare the messengers. Way to go Godly Lot. That blessedly was avoided. But God advises Lot to turn his back on those who turned from him. Yet, Lot's daughters then commit incest with daddy to preserve his seed. Of course, incest was not always a bad idea in the OT.

Phil's actually correctly noting the sins - be they homosexuality or rape - arise because people turned from God. And, he's got an inkling there about hate the sin not the sinner. You may perceive an ick factor, but God's always open for someone to come back to him.

But then the irony. I mean what's worse: two guys loving each other and getting married or screwing a minor child? I mean, I think the moral distinction is pretty clear here, and only the blind cannot see.

Moreover, Phil's suggesting adult men select minor women for marriage, and then worrying about turning from God can lead to beastiality. I dunno about you folks, but I can see the coveting of the hottie next door, I'm good for gluttony, Sloth is my friend ... greed, I'm guilty as sin .... but beastiality just never enters my mind. But then again, I DON'T LIVE IN A FRIGGING DUCK POND IN THE MIDDLE OF FKC NOWHERE WITH A BEARD TO MY ASS!

With nuts like this around, Elton John is the least of my worries.

 

[Silhouette]

Ok, while Lot has a lot of irony, the current infusion of Phil's theological backwood boogalo just adds to the irony. Phil actually correctly references the Lot tale. It wasn't homosexuality per se. Sodom turned its hearts from God, and wanted to rape God's messengers. Ignore for a moment that rapists are not necessarily straight or gay, nor are pedophiles btw. But instead, Lot suggests the rape his daughters to spare the messengers. Way to go Godly Lot. That blessedly was avoided. But God advises Lot to turn his back on those who turned from him. Yet, Lot's daughters then commit incest with daddy to preserve his seed. Of course, incest was not always a bad idea in the OT.

Phil's actually correctly noting the sins - be they homosexuality or rape - arise because people turned from God. And, he's got an inkling there about hate the sin not the sinner. You may perceive an ick factor, but God's always open for someone to come back to him.

But then the irony. I mean what's worse: two guys loving each other and getting married or screwing a minor child? I mean, I think the moral distinction is pretty clear here, and only the blind cannot see.

Moreover, Phil's suggesting adult men select minor women for marriage, and then worrying about turning from God can lead to beastiality. I dunno about you folks, but I can see the coveting of the hottie next door, I'm good for gluttony, Sloth is my friend ... greed, I'm guilty as sin .... but beastiality just never enters my mind. But then again, I DON'T LIVE IN A FRIGGING DUCK POND IN THE MIDDLE OF FKC NOWHERE WITH A BEARD TO MY ASS!

With nuts like this around, Elton John is the least of my worries.

The crime of Sodom cited in the New Testament was not rape, it was "going after strange flesh". The crime of Sodom is more particulary described in the Koran, Poets 26, as men lying with men as if their wives. That's homosexuality.

Anyone have thoughts as to California's appeal to stay from county clerks based on wanting to abide by state law being denied while the same logic was approved for a stay in Utah?

 

[JakeStarkey]

sil, we are governed by the Constitution, not an errant scripture.

 

[Silhouette]

sil, we are governed by the Constitution, not an errant scripture.

Very good. And the Constitution guarantees freedom to practice one's religious beliefs. Of course those are weighed against secular laws. The Supreme Court will have to weigh what's more vital: a christian or muslim or mormon's right to avoid eternal damnation by enabling or abetting the homosexual lifestyle/religion, or the homosexual lifestyle/religion's "right" to infringe upon their religious convictions.

What are your thoughts for California's county clerks being denied a stay while they tried to appeal their mandate to follow the law, Prop 8, and Utah's argument on the same grounds winning the stay from the same Court?

 

[Silhouette]

To refresh people's memory. Just upon the announcement last Summer 2013 of DOMA/Prop 8, county clerks in Cali were stunned to find they had to disobey their constitution and issue "gay marriage" licenses. They were ordered under duress by activist/dictator Jerry Brown and his henchwoman AG Harris to perform the illegal acts. Their appeal to SCOTUS was identical to Utah's for a stay. Yet they were denied and Utah's was approved.

So I got to wondering, is it that the US Supreme Court requires a 2/3rds consensus on the matter of gay marriage as opposed to just a clear majority saying "no"? They did make it very clear in DOMA that the issue of who gets married with respect to the question of "gay marriage" is the state's unquestioned authority to decide. Since both Utah and California decided and said "no gay marriage here thanks", why does Utah get a stay and California doesn't?

 

[Silhouette]

Gay couples in Utah were thrown into legal limbo Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court put a halt to same-sex marriages in the state, turning jubilation to doubt just weeks after a judge's ruling sent more than a thousand couples rushing to get married.

The justices did not rule on the merits of the case or on same-sex marriage bans in general, leaving both sides confident they'll ultimately win. The decision stays in effect while the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers the long-term question of whether gay couples have a right to wed in Utah.

For those couples who just got married — or were planning their nuptials — the latest twist in the legal battle clouds what was seen as a cause for celebration...

...The ruling Monday doesn't necessarily give any indication of how the justices would rule on the issue, said Douglas NeJaime, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine. He believes justices want the issue to work its way through normal legal channels before they weigh in.

Meanwhile, the state is trying to determine whether the marriages that have already taken place are still valid

Marriage licenses issued in 2008 in California prior to the passage of the state's same-sex marriage ban were eventually upheld by the state supreme court. But marriages licenses issued in San Francisco in 2004 after mayor Gavin Newsom told city officials to grant them were later invalidated by the state supreme court.

That leads NeJaime to believe a court will need to rule on Utah's marriages. If the Utah attorney general challenges the validity of the licenses as expected, that might lead to several months of limbo for the couples, he said.

Jon Davidson, director of Lambda Legal, which pursues litigation on LGBT issues nationwide, said Utah may choose not to recognize the marriages in the interim, but predicted the federal government and other states will honor them since they were granted in accordance with the law at the time. Supreme Court puts Utah same-sex marriage on hold

Gay couples who think they're "married" in Utah are in limbo now. And since Utah's pleas and legal situation is identical to California's, where a clear majority via consensus said "no" to gay marriage, that means California's "gay marriages" are also in limbo too.

You can't discriminate one state from another.

So, from what exact date are they in limbo? Well, in DOMA, the US Supreme Court not only affirmed that the choice on gays marrying or not is up to each state, they also said that right was retroactive to the founding of the country. They didn't stop there. They described that a broad swath of each state's citizens weigh in on the consensus. This leaves little doubt to how the High Court feels about judicial activists outweighing consensus law. Judicial activists and the sham-laws they thought they were creating will be found to be the inferior of the two.

This means that "gay marriages" in both Utah and California will be invalid. As they should be. Like I gave the example of before, if I decide I want to club baby seals in spite of the clear and concise laws against that and I go out anyway and club a bunch of them before authoirities can catch up to me and handcuff me, do I still get to keep the furs? Let's say I was under the impression it was legal only to find out after that it isn't.

No, of course I don't get to keep the furs. No one who breaks the law, knowingly or unknowingly gets to keep the spoils of that lawbreaking. Because thereby they set the precedent for others to follow. People will get it in their heads that states really don't have sovereign rights and that breaking the law is only wrong if you get caught or can't manage to guilt authorities into letting you have the spoils of your attempts to thwart due process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sil, we are governed by the Constitution, not an errant scripture.

Very good. And the Constitution guarantees freedom to practice one's religious beliefs. Of course those are weighed against secular laws. The Supreme Court will have to weigh what's more vital: a christian or muslim or mormon's right to avoid eternal damnation by enabling or abetting the homosexual lifestyle/religion, or the homosexual lifestyle/religion's "right" to infringe upon their religious convictions.

What are your thoughts for California's county clerks being denied a stay while they tried to appeal their mandate to follow the law, Prop 8, and Utah's argument on the same grounds winning the stay from the same Court?

(1) Your belief does not permit you to interfere with another's practice.

(2) SCOTUS will not weigh Christian or Jewish or Mormon Christian or Islamic beliefs at all.

(3) Why CA did not get a stay while UT did is problematic.

I think SCOTUS may have a secret quorum majority that is making sure every I is dotted and T is crossed when it incorporates same sex marriage and rules in its favor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A "state's unquestioned authority" many not violate the Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

(1) Your belief does not permit you to interfere with another's practice.

(2) SCOTUS will not weigh Christian or Jewish or Mormon Christian or Islamic beliefs at all.

(3) Why CA did not get a stay while UT did is problematic.

I think SCOTUS may have a secret quorum majority that is making sure every I is dotted and T is crossed when it incorporates same sex marriage and rules in its favor.

Yes, even you admit that California being told via the decision on county clerks' appeal for a stay "no" and Utah being told "yes" on the same legal grounds is highly problematic for the US Supreme Court to explain.

I would not want to be in their shoes right now. Particularly in Sotomayors shoes since she was kicking it up can can style on New Year's eve with hedonist Miley Cyrus, young girl perverter/idol, as her opening act. Golly, I wonder how the world will predict she will vote on the matter?

It's all going to weigh on Kennedy. Poor chum. Though the New York Times did have this to say about the sticky situation:

In urging the Supreme Court to stay Judge Shelby’s decision, state officials relied on a same-sex marriage decision issued by the Supreme Court in June, United States v. Windsor, though the officials conceded that the ruling offered support to both sides in their case.

The Windsor decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples in states that allowed such unions. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, grounded his decision partly in federalism principles, saying the regulation of marriage was primarily a matter for the states.

Utah’s brief relied on that part of the Windsor ruling, saying it supported the right of voters in Utah to define who was entitled to marry in the state. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/u...-utah-pending-appeal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, they granted the stay based on the appeal's argument that the states get to choose on gay marriage. That is the IDENTICAL argument made by California's county clerks last Summer just after the DOMA/Prop 8 Opinions were issued. That plea for a stay from people who had ample standing and grounds for appeal, was flatly denied.

I'd LOVE to see their explanation for the different treatment of states on the identical legal logic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, I get you don't like the culture that in your mind surrounds the issue.

But that does not mean anything at all.

SCOTUS does not have to explain anything at all to your satisfaction.

 

[Silhouette]

A "state's unquestioned authority" many not violate the Constitution.

It doesn't in Utah's and California's case. They both said "no" to the incomplete behavioral/cultural grouping called LGBT as qualifiers for marriage. Of course the state anticipated polygamy and all manner of "other thans" would parade in next under the precedent. That's why those states passed the laws they did: to keep the circus from coming to town.

The Harvey Milk issue will come up. You and others cite the embarassment to children of not having the two gay people play acting "mom" and "dad" to them "married". However, should people who avidly defend and uphold a pedophile and make kids emulate him as a matter of law actually be taken seriously about how the kids feel?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, I get you don't like the culture that in your mind surrounds the issue.

But that does not mean anything at all.

SCOTUS does not have to explain anything at all to your satisfaction.

No, but they DO have to explain things to the 50 states' satisfaction.

Which returns me to the issue of their granting a stay in Utah's case on Utah's AG's argument that his state must abide by its lawfully enacted description of marriage. California's county clerks wanted the same stay while they appealed their own governor and AG's defiance of duly enacted law and they were denied both the appeal and the stay.

The explanation needs to be given to the people of California that their state does not get a stay while the question moves to SCOTUS, while Utah gets the stay.

The 7 million people in California who lawfully voted for Prop 8 are the ones SCOTUS needs to explain stuff to...