The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Silhouette]

congratulations, you found some obscure references.

the recent Utah decision does show that maybe the slippery slope argument is valid. Tho I would say its use in interracial marriage was not valid as the only restriction u are lifting is the factor of race.

Your statement was "The slippery slope argument was not used to deny interracial marriages".

You were wrong. You should man up. BTW - Citing law journals which reference cases where arguments presented to the courts is not normally considered an "obscure reference".


Whether polygamy ever becomes legal or not is open to discussion. Probably at some point it will - might be 5 years, 50 years or 500 years. It's legalization though will be based on the merits for that decision. "Slippery Slope" though is not a valid legal basis for discrimination though because of what "might" happen in a different situation.


>>>>

Homosexuality is a deviant sexual BEHAVIOR. I have to constantly spell that in all caps because of the tenacious ferocity to divert the subject to something else once that fatal flaw is exposed in the gay argument.

Behaviors are not subject to special class status unless they are part of a federally-recognized religion. Homosexual behaviors were denied special protection as a class in DOMA because in DOMA, the Supreme Court discussed Loving v Virgina, and...pay attention class...went on to say that gay marriage is "only allowed" "in some states". And it gets worse for the gay hopes to be equivalent to "race". DOMA said that not only is gay marriage not a right in each state, but that to be a right in each state requires a broad consensus of the goverened. [And therefore since the Supreme Court is dominant in authority to any lower court, any findings in direct conflict with that are null and void. Or more succinctly: Prop 8 is binding law.]

States aren't allowed to vote whether or not this or that innate race of people can marry. They ARE however not just allowed to vote whether this or that sexual BEHAVIOR can marry, but also that vote is constitutionally-protected as an inaliable right.

Should any sweeping rights to gay marriage somehow be achieved by setting an unbelievable precedent that behaviors are equivalent to race, Brown v Utah will have polygamy legal in less than five years since it already is moving towards the appelate stage in the courts.

 

[dcraelin]

congratulations, you found some obscure references.
the recent Utah decision does show that maybe the slippery slope argument is valid. Tho I would say its use in interracial marriage was not valid as the only restriction u are lifting is the factor of race.

Your statement was "The slippery slope argument was not used to deny interracial marriages".
You were wrong. You should man up. BTW - Citing law journals which reference cases where arguments presented to the courts is not normally considered an "obscure reference".
Whether polygamy ever becomes legal or not is open to discussion. Probably at some point it will - might be 5 years, 50 years or 500 years. It's legalization though will be based on the merits for that decision. "Slippery Slope" though is not a valid legal basis for discrimination though because of what "might" happen in a different situation.
>>>>

It was apparently used as an argument, one that failed, so was not used to deny interracial marriages. "man up" is kind of a sexist statement isnt it?

law journals include some of the most obscure of references.

there you go again with the empty legalese "valid legal basis", says who? I think it very well could be a valid legal basis. It perhaps shows the flaw in your open ended view of the 14th amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

congratulations, you found some obscure references.

the recent Utah decision does show that maybe the slippery slope argument is valid. Tho I would say its use in interracial marriage was not valid as the only restriction u are lifting is the factor of race.

Your statement was "The slippery slope argument was not used to deny interracial marriages".

You were wrong. You should man up. BTW - Citing law journals which reference cases where arguments presented to the courts is not normally considered an "obscure reference".


Whether polygamy ever becomes legal or not is open to discussion. Probably at some point it will - might be 5 years, 50 years or 500 years. It's legalization though will be based on the merits for that decision. "Slippery Slope" though is not a valid legal basis for discrimination though because of what "might" happen in a different situation.


>>>>

Homosexuality is a deviant sexual BEHAVIOR. I have to constantly spell that in all caps because of the tenacious ferocity to divert the subject to something else once that fatal flaw is exposed in the gay argument.

Homosexuality is not a sexual BEHAVIOR, it is a sexual ORIENTATION. I knew I was heterosexual for many years before ever having sex with a woman.

A person is born colored or born white - their interracial marriage is a BEHAVIOR. Restricting their BEHAVIOR was unconstitutional.

(See how that ALL IN CAPS SHOUTING THING WORKS.)

Behaviors are not subject to special class status unless they are part of a federally-recognized religion. Homosexual behaviors were denied special protection as a class in DOMA...

And DOMA (Section 3) was determined to be unconstitutional.


>>>>

 

[Qball]

Prop 8 wasn't constitutionally protected, as a matter of fact it was overturned as unconstitutional and the decision allowed to remain in effect.

The fact that this doesn't bother more people is the most troubling part. After Prop 8 passed, narrowly but decisively, they pushed it into district court where a gay judge decided it was unconstitutional, in part, based on how it made the plaintiffs feel. This dude is not only gay, but in a long-term relationship who lives in San Francisco. He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case. After he struck it down, he stepped down from the bench, and then actively colluded with the plaintiffs when the case went to the Supreme Court....and they let his ruling stand because they didn't have standing to appeal since CA refused to defend the law.

I mean, for something that's supposed to be inevitable, there sure is a lot of bullshit isn't there? Why beat us over the heads with what the polls say and how "young people" feel about gay marriage when it's plainly clear that when gay marriage loses, the system will just legalize it anyway?

#1 "Narrowly but decisively" is kind of an oxymoron, kind of like "jumbo shrimp". The fact is that a mere 2.5% change in the vote would have changed the outcome 5 years ago. The fact is that polling right before the election showed it was a toss-up when you factor the "fors", the "against", and the "undecided" in terms of the margin of error (which IIRC was about 4%).

So...what's your point? Either way, it passed, and not by some 1-2% margin that people could just blame on voter turnout. Most polls showed Prop 8 losing, some showing it would lose by a landslide. Clearly that didn't happen.

Times have changes and polling now shows that Prop 8 would be defeated today as social views have continued to shift has they had between Prop 22 (California anti-Same Sex Civil Marriage law that passed in 2000 with a 23% margin of victory). At the rate opinions shifted between 2000 to 2008 and with the continued shift Prop 8 would have failed on a ballot in 2012 and this time polling is solidly against as the results remain the same even if all the "undecided" were to brake into the pro-ban crowd.

***********************

How convenient is it that you don't have to put one ounce of faith in that? The gay marriage lobby didn't wait around a few years to bring the issue back to the ballot; they went to court to have it simply declared the law. Flogging the polls just keeps the conversation going and it gives supporters ammunition to use against opponents because they're "losing", but really most supporters couldn't give a shit about gay marriage polls if they see a way to just legalize it.

Though, I will say, I don't think the trend is as clear as you make it out to be. I think constitutional amendments will always be more contentious than statutes, since they're seen as being moreso permanent. The No on 8 side had more support and funding, so they loomed larger than the pro-SSM sentiment would.

#2 The Judges sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. I followed the case (via the media to the greatest extent possible), read most of the transcripts when they came available and read the decision, what Judge Walker did was allow the opponents and proponents of Prop 8 to present their case in open court and on the record. The proponents presented their case and it was very weak, Olson and and Boies then presented counter arguments. Judge Walker then wrote a decision that took each of the proponents attempts to justify discrimination and shredded them with logic and precedent.

Of course -- he ruled in a way you agreed with, so there's no question he was being fair, right? I don't think the defendants had a chance in hell of getting a fair trial or having their argument fairly considered, in part, because Walker wasn't going to deny himself and his partner their alleged right to marry voted away by the citizens of CA. To be honest, there's a certain unfairness in making people have to explain and justify their vote to a judge that doesn't really seem right, anyway. People don't have to have a Good Enough reason to vote a particular way, and trying to move the goal post to make this about something more profound than gay people's feeling being hurt because they can't legally wed, is such an obvious ploy. We have three co-equal branches of government for a reason. The judiciary isn't there for people to run overtime because they didn't get their way legislatively.

Are you saying a Judge should be removed from a case about sexual orientation because they have a sexual orientation? (In other words no judge [heterosexual or homosexual] could hear a case, a judge would have to somehow prove they were "asexual"?)

Should minority judges be removed from cases that involve minorities?

Should female judges be removed from cases involving women?

Should religious judges be removed from cases involving religion?


***********************

Oh please. If the judge is manifestly implicated in the outcome of his own ruling, he should recuse himself. It's not this superficial thing of identifying with one party of a case being grounds for recusal. Walker being gay in and of itself isn't a problem. His being gay, a citizen of CA, and in a relationship similarly situated to that of the plaintiffs, when that's the entire point of the case, created a clear conflict of interest, but the people who would normally be smart enough to catch that were too busy cheering him on to say anything about it.

#3 "He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case."

I remember two reasons is pre-trial decisions were overturned, maybe you could remind us of the third?

He tried to circumvent the rules around recording the trial; it wound up going to the SCOTUS. He didn't want to allow the defendants to appeal or stay his ruling while they appealed, but they obviously were able to do both.

#4 IMHO it was shameful that the State did not defend the law. Prop 8 was passed and amended California Constitution. The California Supreme Court had ruled that Prop 8 was valid, the Governor and Attorney General SHOULD have defended the law in court. If they choose not to support the law personally is irrelevant, they should have either resigned to let the next person in line defend it or appointed a State endorsed counsel to defend it - one that would have had standing.

So you can understand how the law being struck down on a matter of standing could be, at the very least, seen as complete bullshit, yeah?

Of course given the DOMA decision where the SCOTUS ruled federal law (DOMA, Section 3) was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional, it might be a good thing. If the defenders of Prop 8 had had "standing" in federal court the case would have not been dismissed for that reason. The SCOTUS then would have had to rule on the merits of the case and since the DOMA decision acknowledged the federal law was discriminatory with no compelling interest, the likelihood is that they would have ruled the Prop 8 was discriminatory with no compelling interest. Such a decision would then have had national impact. But by side-stepping the core question and ruling on "standing" only, the SCOTUS allowed Prop 8 to be overturned but in a manner that applied only to California - limiting the scope of the impact. For now.


>>>>

I don't see what would've been wrong with saying "there is no right to same-sex marriage". It wouldn't stop any state that felt compelled to legalize it from doing so. The only thing it would've done is shored up the legal back-stop where activist judges and lawyers go to court to have it declared the law.

 

[Qball]

The fact that this doesn't bother more people is the most troubling part. After Prop 8 passed, narrowly but decisively, they pushed it into district court where a gay judge decided it was unconstitutional, in part, based on how it made the plaintiffs feel. This dude is not only gay, but in a long-term relationship who lives in San Francisco. He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case. After he struck it down, he stepped down from the bench, and then actively colluded with the plaintiffs when the case went to the Supreme Court....and they let his ruling stand because they didn't have standing to appeal since CA refused to defend the law.

I mean, for something that's supposed to be inevitable, there sure is a lot of bullshit isn't there? Why beat us over the heads with what the polls say and how "young people" feel about gay marriage when it's plainly clear that when gay marriage loses, the system will just legalize it anyway?

What he said!

…is incorrect.

See post #809.

What should be bothering people is the specter of voters seeking to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

Uh huh.

People use the fact that this country has a history of denying people rights as an excuse to cry foul over not getting their way. Marriage as a legal institution exists due to the economic and sociological differences between men and women; it's not there to bestow social validation for romantic relationships. It's not a denial of inalienable rights because some people can't marry the person they want and it's not animus to disagree with a minority groups political agenda.

Although that such hate still exists in the United States should not be surprising, it should certainly be subject to condemnation by a majority of citizens regardless the jurisdiction. That it is not is troubling, and exists as further evidence that we remain very much in need of the Constitution and its case law to protect all citizens from that hate and ignorance, where fearful reactionaries seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Funny how "civil liberties" is now synonymous with "the government's blessing". Nobody's stopping gays from being together, but there is a rationale for legal marriage that doesn't really apply to gays.

 

[Silhouette]

Homosexuality is not a sexual BEHAVIOR, it is a sexual ORIENTATION. I knew I was heterosexual for many years before ever having sex with a woman.


>>>>

And all the species animal and zoo handlers train to be artificially oriented thereafter started out knowing they were attracted to the opposite gender too. Only when their trainers were done with them, they weren't any more. They were thereafter excited and stimulated only when the associated objects/environment that mimicked their first few orgasms in training presented themselves.

I've seen stallions "oriented" to blue halters, boars "oriented" to other boars, bulls "oriented" to male steers, rams "oriented" to stuffed dummy mounts. You can train orientation post natally to any warm blooded animal. In humans this artificial orientation can pass on socially. That's why the links between gay men having been molested as children by other men and their propensity to molest kids themselves is a long and strong established link. And NONE of it is innate. It is learned and ergo, a BEHAVIOR:

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

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 “abusedabusers 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
http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What he said!

…is incorrect.

See post #809.

What should be bothering people is the specter of voters seeking to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

Uh huh.

People use the fact that this country has a history of denying people rights as an excuse to cry foul over not getting their way. Marriage as a legal institution exists due to the economic and sociological differences between men and women; it's not there to bestow social validation for romantic relationships. It's not a denial of inalienable rights because some people can't marry the person they want and it's not animus to disagree with a minority groups political agenda.

Although that such hate still exists in the United States should not be surprising, it should certainly be subject to condemnation by a majority of citizens regardless the jurisdiction. That it is not is troubling, and exists as further evidence that we remain very much in need of the Constitution and its case law to protect all citizens from that hate and ignorance, where fearful reactionaries seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

Funny how "civil liberties" is now synonymous with "the government's blessing". Nobody's stopping gays from being together, but there is a rationale for legal marriage that doesn't really apply to gays.

And this post is a good example of those who seek to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

What is the compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples their due process and equal protection rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

What is the legitimate legislative end in seeking to do so?

And absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, what other motive is there to deny same-sex couples their civil rights besides that of animus and the desire to make homosexuals different from anyone else?

If you can answer these three questions contact the Utah attorney general immediately, he very much needs your help with his appeal:

“The court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” Judge Shelby, appointed by President Obama, wrote in a 53-page decision. “The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/us/utahs-gay-marriage-ban-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0

 

[Silhouette]

And this post is a good example of those who seek to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

So you are in favor of dismantling the civil and penal codes of each state? Because nearly every law as such limits behaviors of people every day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And this post is a good example of those who seek to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

So you are in favor of dismantling the civil and penal codes of each state? Because nearly every law as such limits behaviors of people every day.

The states alone are responsible for any measure struck down as un-Constitutional. Every state has an attorney general, and those attorneys general should know the Constitution and its case law, and warn the lawmakers of their states that they are indeed enacting laws offensive to the Founding Document, and that those laws will be invalidated accordingly.

 

[Qball]

…is incorrect.

See post #809.

What should be bothering people is the specter of voters seeking to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

Uh huh.

People use the fact that this country has a history of denying people rights as an excuse to cry foul over not getting their way. Marriage as a legal institution exists due to the economic and sociological differences between men and women; it's not there to bestow social validation for romantic relationships. It's not a denial of inalienable rights because some people can't marry the person they want and it's not animus to disagree with a minority groups political agenda.



Funny how "civil liberties" is now synonymous with "the government's blessing". Nobody's stopping gays from being together, but there is a rationale for legal marriage that doesn't really apply to gays.

And this post is a good example of those who seek to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

The bold part is the problem, in a nutshell. People don't have to have "a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end" to define a legal term. For one very big reason, it would be almost impossible to reach a clear consensus on what is a fair understanding of it. Oh sure, you could have just about every state in the union hold its own referendum on the matter, but then you'll have the losing side going to court saying it's "animus" that their side lost, and having courts legalize it anyway. Oh wait, that's exactly what's happened.

There may be no good doggone reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal; that doesn't mean you win the argument, because, we don't sit in judgment of people's rationales and justifications for why they vote a certain way. I could say voting for our President on the basis that he's black is a horrible reason to vote for him, but if I got my way, we would've had to nullify several million votes for Obama, and he probably wouldn't be President. In a democracy, being right doesn't necessarily mean you get to win.

What is the compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples their due process and equal protection rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Erroneous question. What does due process and equal protection have to do with having a legally recognized marriage? Unless same-sex couples (a constitutionally frivolous distinction, btw) face losing their life, freedom, or property in a court of law because they don't have a legal marriage, I'm not sure where the entitlement comes from.

What is the legitimate legislative end in seeking to do so?

And absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, what other motive is there to deny same-sex couples their civil rights besides that of animus and the desire to make homosexuals different from anyone else?

I've answered this before. Legal marriage has a purpose, namely to provide a social benefit to women and children, who tend to be the most economically and sociologically vulnerable people in our society. Men tend to work and earn more than women, and they don't have to worry about the economic and health effects that come with children, so having a legal institution that ties them to the father of their children, and their chosen spouse, provides a safety net to those women. It doesn't exist just to give social validation to your romantic relationship, nor does it exist to correct some prior injustice of a minority group.

The interesting thing is how you and many others expect some perfect rationale for why someone would disagree with gay marriage, but you speak of gay marriage as this thing that's unquestionably entitled. You don't seem very keen on there being some grand reason why we're obliged to legalize it other than vague allusions to "inalienable rights".

I'll give you a hint: the same people who laid the rhetorical and/or legal framework for your argument...wouldn't have applied to the specific issue of gay marriage.

If you can answer these three questions contact the Utah attorney general immediately, he very much needs your help with his appeal:

“The court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” Judge Shelby, appointed by President Obama, wrote in a 53-page decision. “The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/us/utahs-gay-marriage-ban-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0

It seems like an easy argument, but people make fairly studied attempts to miss the point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"[V]ague allusions to 'inalienable rights' are only vague allusions now from the opponents of same six marriage, which is now valid in 19 states and the D.C.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you posting drunk again?

 

[Silhouette]

"[V]ague allusions to 'inalienable rights' are only vague allusions now from the opponents of same six marriage, which is now valid in 19 states and the D.C.

That "validity" is in question. Did the US Supreme Court in DOMA 2013 say that they recognized gay marriage because it was ramrodded through? Or did they say they recognized it because it needed approval from a broad swath of the public as members of a discreet community in daily interaction with each other? In "consensus" that is the way the "Framers of the Constitution Intended"?

Can activist judges override the Will of millions in this question? And if they can, on what constitutional grounds do they have that authority to dissolve a democracy?

 

[Silhouette]

From the Utah case that will soon also retroactively determine the Prop 8 case:
Utah asks for a stay..

Judges in previous same-sex marriage cases have put their decisions on hold until the losing party could appeal, says law professor Steve Sanders of Indiana University's Maurer School of Law.

"It preserves a little bit of respect for the state's interest," says Sanders, who thinks it more likely that the Supreme Court will grant the stay without revealing its thinking on the merits of the case.

In the week since the district court ruling, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have married in the state. A stay from the Supreme Court would halt future marriages, but would not make the same-sex marriages performed this week invalid, Sanders said.

"Those marriages were done in good faith during the time when it was legal. I think you have to say those marriages are valid," Sanders says. Utah will ask Supreme Court to stop gay marriage during appeal

Wrong Mr Sanders. In DOMA, SCOTUS said that consitutionally-protected states' consensus surrounding their choice on the gay marriage question is a RETROACTIVE finding dating back to the founding of the country. Utah said no in consensus and therefore from that date forward all gay marriage is illegal.

That a singular judge has not properly read and understood DOMA does not mean his mistake makes something illegal, legal. Like in California, it will take a special proclamation from SCOTUS to legitimize any marriage performed illegally from a ignorantly misinterpreted ruling or a wilfully misinterpreted ruling [contempt] from rogue officials, for example, in California. Flipping the middle finger to DOMA-protected state consensus on gay marriage does not succeed in making the crime of voters'-rights disenfranchisement "legitimate"...

 

[bodecea]

Just checked....stilling legally marrying gay couples in CA.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong Mr Sanders. In DOMA, SCOTUS said that consitutionally-protected states' consensus surrounding their choice on the gay marriage question is a RETROACTIVE finding dating back to the founding of the country. Utah said no in consensus and therefore from that date forward all gay marriage is illegal.

Sorry but you are incorrect. The DOMA case had nothing to do with States and had no impact on States that said "No".

No credible legal authority buys into what you are trying to say, even the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court noted that the DOMA case has no bearing on whether States can say "No", the case was centered on whether if a State says "Yes" whether the Federal government can discriminate and recognize some legal marriages based on state law and not others.

As he noted, that question (whether States can say "No") will have to be addressed in another case - and the Utah case might be it. But that does not change the fact the DOMA decision was limited to the Federal government being able to discriminate - which the answer was "No".


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Here's all of what I said, not just part of it...

From the Utah case that will soon also retroactively determine the Prop 8 case:
Utah asks for a stay..

Judges in previous same-sex marriage cases have put their decisions on hold until the losing party could appeal, says law professor Steve Sanders of Indiana University's Maurer School of Law.
"It preserves a little bit of respect for the state's interest," says Sanders, who thinks it more likely that the Supreme Court will grant the stay without revealing its thinking on the merits of the case.

In the week since the district court ruling, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have married in the state. A stay from the Supreme Court would halt future marriages, but would not make the same-sex marriages performed this week invalid, Sanders said.

"Those marriages were done in good faith during the time when it was legal. I think you have to say those marriages are valid," Sanders says. Utah will ask Supreme Court to stop gay marriage during appeal

Wrong Mr Sanders. In DOMA, SCOTUS said that consitutionally-protected states' consensus surrounding their choice on the gay marriage question is a RETROACTIVE finding dating back to the founding of the country. Utah said no in consensus and therefore from that date forward all gay marriage is illegal.

That a singular judge has not properly read and understood DOMA does not mean his mistake makes something illegal, legal. Like in California, it will take a special proclamation from SCOTUS to legitimize any marriage performed illegally from a ignorantly misinterpreted ruling or a wilfully misinterpreted ruling [contempt] from rogue officials, for example, in California. Flipping the middle finger to DOMA-protected state consensus on gay marriage does not succeed in making the crime of voters'-rights disenfranchisement "legitimate"...

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong Mr Sanders. In DOMA, SCOTUS said that consitutionally-protected states' consensus surrounding their choice on the gay marriage question is a RETROACTIVE finding dating back to the founding of the country. Utah said no in consensus and therefore from that date forward all gay marriage is illegal.

Sorry but you are incorrect. The DOMA case had nothing to do with States and had no impact on States that said "No".

No credible legal authority buys into what you are trying to say, even the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court noted that the DOMA case has no bearing on whether States can say "No", the case was centered on whether if a State says "Yes" whether the Federal government can discriminate and recognize some legal marriages based on state law and not others.

As he noted, that question (whether States can say "No") will have to be addressed in another case - and the Utah case might be it. But that does not change the fact the DOMA decision was limited to the Federal government being able to discriminate - which the answer was "No".


>>>>

Now I know you are desperate. The entire DOMA Opinion was written from the perspective of keen and comprehensive interest in just EXACTLY what states' roles were in determining marriage. Niiiiiiccce try pal..lol..

Even the dullest of dullards who reads DOMA cannot walk away and with a straight face say that DOMA had nothing to do with states. IT HAD EVERYTHING to do with states! That's the entire premise upon which part of DOMA was repealled at the end of all of it. The premise was: the exact nature and role of each sovereign state to determine whether or not gay marriage is legal within its boundaries. And from that premise sprang the conclusion: "since marriage is a state's-only deal, the fed has to respect what each state says".

They cited Loving and didn't apply it. Instead they said that retroactive to the founding of the country, each sovereign state on oddball marriages like gay, 13 year olds and close cousins has the legal right of consensus to say "yes" or "no" to those marriages!

Do you think they included all that verbage arbitrarily, whimsically, amorphically so that gays could come along later and spin that "DOMA wasn't about state's rights as applied to marriage"?? You are high as a kite pal. DOMA was the Ruling on State's rights. Its essence was "who has the right, when discussing gay marriage, to tell who what's what on what's legal". The determination was THE STATES! And not just the states, but the STATES' INDIVIDUAL CONSENSUS. And not just that either. It was the states' individual consensus as protected constitutionally, back to the founding of the country. Not 2004, or 2008, or 2012....that's the binding law according to the US Supreme Court since 1776 folks.

So anyone who comes along since then, be they activists judges, activist AGs, activists governors, who defies that and claims they can ratify "legal gay marriage" outside the parameters of Supreme American Law, is deeply entrenched in delusion.

Just because I feel strongly about say, wanting to club baby seals, doesn't mean I can flip our country's laws the middle finger and start clubbing them, claiming 'well, I get to keep all the furs of the ones that are already dead as you decide whether or not I am in gross violation of the law.'

Un-uh...it doesn't work that way.

Next anticipation: the child-sympathy play.... the "well their parents are already married so they'll be harmed psychologically if those marriages are annulled".

My response to that is why is a pedophile forced upon kids in California schools to "celebrate his life and achievments" when his life and achievements were simply coming out gay while holding an office and using his power and influence to prey upon vulnerable teen homeless boys on drugs to bring home, sodomize and discard when they passed that "magic age" pedophiles become disgusted by in their sex targets? You fix that little problem before you start strumming the heartstrings of US Justices about not allowing gays what they want illegally because "children will be harmed if you don't"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 10th Circuit will use the same brief for Amendment 3 (Utah) as did SCOTUS for Prop 8. Sotomayor will do her best to expedite the Utah appeal as quickly as possible. She has the other four votes she needs.

 

[Silhouette]

The 10th Circuit will use the same brief for Amendment 3 (Utah) as did SCOTUS for Prop 8. Sotomayor will do her best to expedite the Utah appeal as quickly as possible. She has the other four votes she needs.

Which four would those be and how do you know? Aren't US Supreme Court Justices supposed to deliberate their decisions and not be predictable? Because if they were predictable, espcially on very controversial topics like forcing gay marriage on Utah, probably the most conservative state in the Union on the matter, then the Justices would look biased politically. And that would be grounds for their impeachment.

Sure it's a long shot. But it looks really bad you know. And what they do about Utah, according to how liberals like you feel you can make them jump through hoops on, will have deep repurcussions for the 2014 Election. Of course the crafters of the Utah appeal process want Sotomayor or another liberal/DEMOCRAT Justice to turn on the people of Utah. What better way to completely herd those in the middle [see millons of likes on Boycott A&E Facebook page] to the right than to have a lib Justice deny the stay? Sotomayor et al may not get impeached, but the democrats by association in 2014 sure will...

You folks are waltzing right into a politcal trap. Enjoy your 2014 defeat democrats. Will you all lose your jobs and political platforms for the gay?... What's more important for instance, the gay or healthcare? The gay or green energy? The gay or more jobs? The gay or a woman's right to choose? The gay or ...? You will be sacraficing all those very important and hugely weighty historical gains all for butt sex being normalized.

And just in the years gay marriage has been forced into the social fabric as "the new normal"...

The number of new infections among the youngest MSM (aged 13-24) increased 22 percent, from 7,200 infections in 2008 to 8,800 in 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/2012/HIV-Infections-2007-2010.pdf

What do you know? Those are the same years gay marriage was forcing itself upon the various states where it's legality is in question; and the big media blitz accompanying it...