The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[KNB]

Why do Republicans care so much about gay marriage? Does it really effect your lives? Don't you have anything more important to think about?

How will gay marriage destroy America any more than the Bush administration legalizing torture? How will gay marriage destroy America's grand reputation any more than Colin Powell lying through his teeth at the UN? How is gay marriage worse than the CIA training and arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan? How is gay marriage worse than the NSA reading your emails and listening to your private telephone conversations without a warrant? How is gay marriage worse than ten years of war, raining Hellfire missiles from remote-controlled flying death robots on civilians in nine different countries that weren't involved with 9/11?

Are two guys kissing really such a big deal compared to the treason and war crimes committed by the Bush and Obama administrations?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now I know you are desperate.

Not "deperate" at all. I'm a 50's+ male, heterosexual, married once and remain so to the same woman for 27 year with two fine children in their 20's (One working in IT and the other currently in Law school and on track to enter the Air Force as a JAG [fingers crossed]).

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..

No it's not, the United States v. Windsor opinion is written from the perspective that the FEDERAL government cannot discriminate based on animus to a target class (Note: I didn't say "protected" - that is a different animal, although the Romer v. Evans decision shows a precedent towards Homosexuals being protected from targeted discrimination) by accept some legal Civil Marriages from a State that said "Yes" and not accepting other legal Civil Marriages from that same state based on the gender composition of the couple.

That is all that DOMA did.

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.

Incorrect.

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, writing in his descending opinion in the case of United States v. Windsor...

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have
before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition
of marriage"
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf​

You don't get to be the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS by being a "dullard".

So the Chief Justice agrees with me, or actually I agree with him - who ya got to top that?

>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Why do Republicans care so much about gay marriage? Does it really effect your lives? Don't you have anything more important to think about?

How will gay marriage destroy America any more than the Bush administration legalizing torture? How will gay marriage destroy America's grand reputation any more than Colin Powell lying through his teeth at the UN? How is gay marriage worse than the CIA training and arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan? How is gay marriage worse than the NSA reading your emails and listening to your private telephone conversations without a warrant? How is gay marriage worse than ten years of war, raining Hellfire missiles from remote-controlled flying death robots on civilians in nine different countries that weren't involved with 9/11?

Are two guys kissing really such a big deal compared to the treason and war crimes committed by the Bush and Obama administrations?

I know gay Republicans who got married back when it was legal before Prop H8. They're comment when Prop H8 passed...."who cares, we're married."

 

[Silhouette]

Why do Republicans care so much about gay marriage? Does it really effect your lives? Don't you have anything more important to think about?

How will gay marriage destroy America any more than the Bush administration legalizing torture? How will gay marriage destroy America's grand reputation any more than Colin Powell lying through his teeth at the UN? How is gay marriage worse than the CIA training and arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan? How is gay marriage worse than the NSA reading your emails and listening to your private telephone conversations without a warrant? How is gay marriage worse than ten years of war, raining Hellfire missiles from remote-controlled flying death robots on civilians in nine different countries that weren't involved with 9/11?

Are two guys kissing really such a big deal compared to the treason and war crimes committed by the Bush and Obama administrations?

I'm a registered democrat who supported Hillary in 2008. We are the middle, the Clinton democrats. There are millions upon millions of us in the democratic party currently being silenced by Obama's fairyland far left. This topic isn't just about the twisted march of the pedophile worshippers [Harvey Milk Law in California] wanting to get married. This topic is also about guilt by association and the utter destruction of a worthwhile set of political platforms that are being obliterated by an unreflective movement-gone-wild. It is stabbing at the heart of the consensus and democracy itself. Don't think it has gone unnoticed...

Lack of standing in the Utah case? When the AG himself is appealing to SCOTUS on behalf of the consensus 2/3 approved "no" vote on gay marriage from his state? We'll see the true definition of impeachable Judicial Overreach if the DEMOCRAT Justices deny his appeal. What grounds will they cite this time? That an AG isn't the custodian of the laws duly enacted and supported by SCOTUS precedent [DOMA] in his own state?...

In essence, to strike down Utah's AG's appeal, the High Court will have to overturn their 2013 DOMA decision on state's role in gay marriage in order to deny his appeal for a stay. This should get interesting...

 

[Silhouette]

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, writing in his descending opinion in the case of United States v. Windsor...

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have
before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition
of marriage"
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf​

You don't get to be the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS by being a "dullard".

So the Chief Justice agrees with me, or actually I agree with him - who ya got to top that?

>>>>

The Court didn't have before it and the logic of the opinion does not decide whether the historic and essential authority to define the marital relation of each state may continue..eh? [interesting choice of words in that "definitive" sentence..lol.]

So then why did they say that each state has the "unquestioned authority" to decide marriage? To cite and then uphold Loving as applied to LGBT marriage at a later date?

And if that is the case, will the Court, in your opinion, weigh any other potentials that might easily and logically use the "LGBT' or SSM standard of "consensting...in love" to anticipate near-future appeals from polygamists or others?

Remember while you're pondering, that Utah in order to gain statehood had to sign a treaty with the US Government to make and keep polygamy illegal within its boundaries...

 

[Silhouette]

As to the comment that it isn't a state's right issue in DOMA. Here is a quote from DOMA:

Pages 18-19 Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
"The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the maritalr elation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."

That was the logic and premise used to destroy the part of DOMA that was undone last June. They said the fed must respect what the states have to say on marriage. Now, before you go leaping for joy that this "must mean that the fed left the door open for this "class" of people to be protected in Loving/14th", remember that the Opinion when giving other examples of state-defined marriage, under the context and question of gay marriage as the central-theme of the Opinion, mind you, they cited 13 year olds in New Hampshire and close cousins in a couple other states.

If you think the Court had in mind considering gays a special class by its use of these other oddballs in example, then do you believe that upon just LGBT or SSM getting protection that 13 year olds won't get that same protection? Why not? If one state has said that 13 year olds are mature enough or whatever, quailfy to marry, then why are they arbitrarily denied that right in 49 other states? Are they not in love also? And if other states can say no to 13 year olds, why is that? Because they set the age of consent at 18? 21? 25? Why are those magic numbers when millions and millions "in love" don't qualify to marry? How terrible for their children that their "underaged" parents cannot marry!

And so on...

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Court didn't have before it and the logic of the opinion does not decide whether the historic and essential authority to define the marital relation of each state may continue..eh? [interesting choice of words in that "definitive" sentence..lol.]

Correct. United States v. Windsor was about Federal recognition of legally valid Civil Marriages entered into under State law and the Federal government discriminating by recognizing some, but not others for no compelling government interest.

So then why did they say that each state has the "unquestioned authority" to decide marriage?

Again you are taking snippets out of context. They never said that states had "unquestioned authority" regarding marriage in the context your are trying to make it seem like (see next quote for context). As a matter of fact they said:

Marriage was: "Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g.,
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has
long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419
U. S. 393, 404. "​

State regulation of Civil Marriage is subject to "constitutional guarantees". They didn't say that states have "unquestioned authority" to decide marriage. As in denying Civil Marriage based on race, we know they don't. The question remains open as to whether they can deny it based on gender as the DOMA decision doesn't address that question.

"DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a
disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter
into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority
of the States."​

The fact that States can say "Yes" to Same-sex Civil Marriage is unquestioned. You aren't trying to say that States "don't" have the authority to extend Civil Marriage to same-sex couples are your? I hope not.

To cite and then uphold Loving as applied to LGBT marriage at a later date?

They cited Loving in one place in the whole decision, that was to show that State regulation of Civil Marriage is "Subject to certain constitutional guarantees". They did not cite Loving as a justification for overturning Section 3 of DOMA.

Although you can bet that they will address Loving in the Utah case if they (a) the case gets that far, and (b) if they grant certiorari to review an appeal. (Really I don't know how they would dodge it this time as there is not likely to be a "standing" issue.)

And if that is the case, will the Court, in your opinion, weigh any other potentials that might easily and logically use the "LGBT' or SSM standard of "consensting...in love" to anticipate near-future appeals from polygamists or others?

The "LGBT" standard, from a legal perspective is not "consenting...in love" that is a standard used by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike to decide to Civilly Marry but IT IS NOT a standard from a legal perspective.

The standard from a legal perspective is the comparison of like situated individuals/groups being targeted for different treatment under the law and whether there is a compelling government interest for such different treatment. In this situation the like situated groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting adults in different sex relationships that are allowed to enter into Civil Marriage (in all States) and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting adults in sex relationships that are not allowed to enter into Civil Marriage (in most States).

Polygamists will have to make their own arguments on the unconstitutionality of denying their religious beliefs - comparing polygamists to two consenting adults is an apple to oranges comparison and is used mostly as a slippery slope fallacy and for fear mongering.

Remember while you're pondering, that Utah in order to gain statehood had to sign a treaty with the US Government to make and keep polygamy illegal within its boundaries...

States or Territories don't have "treaties" with the United States government as they are already subordinate to the US government.

Now, as a condition of admitting Utah to the Union in 1896 after the citizens of the Territory applied for Statehood, the Congress required that an anti-polygamy clause be included, but it was not a "treaty" it was a more a condition of passage of the Bill of Admittance.

But so?

Alabama had provisions in it's State Constitution (and so did other States) barring interracial marriage, after the Loving decision those clauses in those State Constitutions were void - which of course just goes to show that States don't have "unquestioned authority" in the context you were attempting. State laws are still subject to Constitutional guarantees.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The "LGBT" standard, from a legal perspective is not "consenting...in love" that is a standard used by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike to decide to Civilly Marry but IT IS NOT a standard from a legal perspective.

The standard from a legal perspective is the comparison of like situated individuals/groups being targeted for different treatment under the law and whether there is a compelling government interest for such different treatment. In this situation the like situated groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting adults in different sex relationships that are allowed to enter into Civil Marriage (in all States) and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting adults in sex relationships that are not allowed to enter into Civil Marriage (in most States).

Polygamists will have to make their own arguments on the unconstitutionality of denying their religious beliefs - comparing polygamists to two consenting adults is an apple to oranges comparison and is used mostly as a slippery slope fallacy and for fear mongering.

>>>>

No polygamists won't have to make different arguments...by your own definition their way of doing sex cannot be arbitrarily discriminted against once you make "different ways of doing sex" a qualifier to legally change the definition of marriage. The SSM or LGBT brands are limited and arbitrarily exclude other "same or similars".

 

[WorldWatcher]

The "LGBT" standard, from a legal perspective is not "consenting...in love" that is a standard used by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike to decide to Civilly Marry but IT IS NOT a standard from a legal perspective.

The standard from a legal perspective is the comparison of like situated individuals/groups being targeted for different treatment under the law and whether there is a compelling government interest for such different treatment. In this situation the like situated groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting adults in different sex relationships that are allowed to enter into Civil Marriage (in all States) and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting adults in sex relationships that are not allowed to enter into Civil Marriage (in most States).

Polygamists will have to make their own arguments on the unconstitutionality of denying their religious beliefs - comparing polygamists to two consenting adults is an apple to oranges comparison and is used mostly as a slippery slope fallacy and for fear mongering.

>>>>

No polygamists won't have to make different arguments...by your own definition their way of doing sex cannot be arbitrarily discriminted against once you make "different ways of doing sex" a qualifier to legally change the definition of marriage. The SSM or LGBT brands are limited and arbitrarily exclude other "same or similars".

I believe don't believe there is any difference in the way that polygamist have sex and the rest of us do. BTW - how people have sex is not part of "my definition" of why the government cannot have capricious and invidious laws against citizens.

Not everything revolves around coitus, you know.

If/when challenged the government will have to demonstrate a secular justification as to why multiple-spouse marriages will not function under the law. Something that can't be shown with two person Civil Marriage (since it's already that way).


>>>.

 

[Silhouette]

I believe don't believe there is any difference in the way that polygamist have sex and the rest of us do. BTW - how people have sex is not part of "my definition" of why the government cannot have capricious and invidious laws against citizens.

Not everything revolves around coitus, you know.

If/when challenged the government will have to demonstrate a secular justification as to why multiple-spouse marriages will not function under the law. Something that can't be shown with two person Civil Marriage (since it's already that way).


>>>.

Two people of the same gender is a fundamental assault on the thousands-year old term "marriage". Once that legal dismantling of that word is complete, based on the argument "consenting..in love", you cannot turn to another who isn't one man and one woman and say "sorry, you're not included". And you know this. Your knowledge of this and your refusal to discuss polygamy as a quick precedent shoe-in particular with the case arising from Utah where polygamy is also under challenge is an insidious form of dishonesty. The simple truth is that if SSM sets the precedent for dismantling "marriage" legally, polygamy will be legal across the 50 states as quickly as SSM burns the trail...

 

[Silhouette]

Jake, how do you know which 5 Justices will be rubber-stamping the refusal on the Utah AG's appeal to stay? You are usually pretty prompt answering. But people get busy, I understand..

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...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Two people of the same gender is a fundamental assault on the thousands-year old term "marriage". Once that legal dismantling of that word is complete, based on the argument "consenting..in love", you cannot turn to another who isn't one man and one woman and say "sorry, you're not included". And you know this. Your knowledge of this and your refusal to discuss polygamy as a quick precedent shoe-in particular with the case arising from Utah where polygamy is also under challenge is an insidious form of dishonesty. The simple truth is that if SSM sets the precedent for dismantling "marriage" legally, polygamy will be legal across the 50 states as quickly as SSM burns the trail...

There is no rising case where polygamy is under challenge. The portion of the law that was found unconstitutional was only the cohabitation part, as a matter of fact (IIRC) the decision pacifically noted that polygamy remained illegal.s

Just a sec...

OK, actually the case is Brown v. Buhman.

CONCLUSION
The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous
grounds and strikes it. As a result, and to save the Statute, the court adopts the
interpretation of “marry” and “purports to marry,” and the resulting narrowing
construction of the Statute, offered by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm, 2006
UT 31, ¶¶ 131-53, 137 P.3d 726, 758-66, thus allowing the Statute to remain in force
as prohibiting bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible
possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into
more than one purportedly legal marriage.

Brown v. Buhman​

Yes - the case is about cohabitation. No - the part of the law regarding polygamy was not found unconstitutional. Yes - you attempted to mischaracterize the case.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Here's an argument from American Thinker:

With the ruling of a federal judge last week that declared part of Utah's anti-polygamy law unconstitutional, the left finds itself torn. Of course, with their ever-wavering consciences that are willing to go along with whatever seems the latest fad that tests our moral boundaries (especially in the sexual realm), some liberals say that it is time that we take a closer look at plural marriage. After all, if consenting adults want to enter into such relationships, what is the problem? In other words, as I asked over five years ago, what's wrong with polygamy?...

...Those who support polygamy are simply following the same playbook used in pushing the homosexual agenda to obtain full legal recognition of same-sex marriage. First, get legal recognition of the behavior. Then use the rulings of the courts along with allies in the media to sway public opinion. Finally, use the courts again to further erode whatever elements of Christian morality that remain in the U.S. legal code.

But currently the left does face a quandary: on the one hand, their ever-evolving morality says that there really can't be anything wrong with polygamy, but on the other hand, the line for marriage must be drawn somewhere. Thus, since liberals really don't want to defend the inevitable myriad of consequences of a legal redefinition of marriage, and since polygamy doesn't yet poll well among Americans, and democrats don't yet want the political burden of supporting polygamy, right now at least, liberals are willing to "discriminate" when it comes to marriage.

Yes, whether they would admit it (and they almost never do), liberals do take moral stands and they do discriminate. All of us do. Yet, liberals (and even some confused conservatives) would have us believe that it's wrong to "legislate morality." CNN's Mark Goldfeder ignorantly concludes that in the light of the Lawrence ruling, morals based legislation is "unconstitutional."...

...As I have often noted, all law is rooted in some morality. It is illogical, ignorant, and hypocritical for liberals to rail against laws that are rooted in Christian morality, all the while preaching a morality of their own making. Americans simply need to decide by whose morality we want to be governed.

Read more: Articles: Polygamy and the Left
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And from USA Today:

While these rulings only directly affect states that have legalized same-sex marriage, those in support of plural unions view the repeals as progress for their cause because it broadens the definition of marriage.

Polygamy has received popular exposure due to hit shows like TLC's "Sister Wives" and HBO's "Big Love," and experts estimate that there are roughly 30,000 to 50,000 people in polygamist unions nationally. Although polygamists reside throughout the country, the largest enclaves are found in Utah, Arizona and other Southwestern states due to the large Mormon fundamentalist populations living there.

Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization, Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.

"I think it's a step in the right direction," she says. "As consenting adults, we have a right to form our families as we see fit as long as there are no other crimes involved."

Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages. Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here's an argument from American Thinker:

I do my own thinking.

You made the claim that Utah had "a rising polygamy" case, it doesn't. The Judge upheld the polygamy portion of the law and struck cohabitation.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Here's an argument from American Thinker:

I do my own thinking.

You made the claim that Utah had "a rising polygamy" case, it doesn't. The Judge upheld the polygamy portion of the law and struck cohabitation.


>>>>

For now...