Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..
In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.
They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.
An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.
In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.
The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:
A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.
Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?
In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.
They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.
An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.
In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.
The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:
A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.
Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?
Last edited:
