Today may be The Day for California!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm fairly certain that a priest/rabbi/pastor/whatever can perform a ceremony without the legal marriage certificate....they just don't often get asked to do so. I wonder why?

I'd really like to see the Movement to Get Government out of Marriage and if postes like Si Modo are card-carrying members of that organization...and what petitioning, lobbying, etc. that group is doing to REALLY get government out of Marriage.

They aren't doing shit except bitching about it on gay marriage threads. They didn't give a shit about "getting government out of the marriage business" until the queers starting asking for equal access to it. I've also noticed that the overwhelming majority of these folks are themselves legally married. (notice how she won't answer that question).

True, marriage was fine until same-sex couples had access to their states’ laws. It’s like practicing a kind of scorched earth policy.

 

[bodecea]

I'd really like to see the Movement to Get Government out of Marriage and if postes like Si Modo are card-carrying members of that organization...and what petitioning, lobbying, etc. that group is doing to REALLY get government out of Marriage.

They aren't doing shit except bitching about it on gay marriage threads. They didn't give a shit about "getting government out of the marriage business" until the queers starting asking for equal access to it. I've also noticed that the overwhelming majority of these folks are themselves legally married. (notice how she won't answer that question).

True, marriage was fine until same-sex couples had access to their states’ laws. It’s like practicing a kind of scorched earth policy.

Old saying..."Cut off your nose to spite your face"....also "Lip service".

 

[mal]

So say the courts. And, if folks want legislation from the bench, then what the courts say, must go.

Legislating from the bench? What NEW laws are created from the bench, Si? Give us the statute numbers.

What Law is Roe v Wade?... Statute Number Please.



peace...

 

[mudwhistle]

So say the courts. And, if folks want legislation from the bench, then what the courts say, must go.

Legislating from the bench? What NEW laws are created from the bench, Si? Give us the statute numbers.

Rove vs. Wade for one.

 

[bodecea]

Legislating from the bench? What NEW laws are created from the bench, Si? Give us the statute numbers.

Rove vs. Wade for one.

Rove vs. Wade? What law? Name the statute # or name for us. Unfamiliar with that law.

 

[Seawytch]

Karl Rove will be interested to learn that he was involved in such landmark legislation...

So today may be the day we find out if the SCOTUS will be taking up the case or if marriage becomes legal in CA.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Karl Rove will be interested to learn that he was involved in such landmark legislation...

So today may be the day we find out if the SCOTUS will be taking up the case or if marriage becomes legal in CA.

Remember this?

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

 

[mal]

Karl Rove will be interested to learn that he was involved in such landmark legislation...

So today may be the day we find out if the SCOTUS will be taking up the case or if marriage becomes legal in CA.

Remember this?

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

Liberals Disagree with that...

The Despotic Branch is their Favorite...

Except when it Rules that the Rules on Election Day are the Rules on Election Day...

They Hate that.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Karl Rove will be interested to learn that he was involved in such landmark legislation...

So today may be the day we find out if the SCOTUS will be taking up the case or if marriage becomes legal in CA.

Remember this?

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

Do you have a point? If the SCOTUS decides they don't want to hear the Prop 8 case, California wins. We get to get married all across this glorious (and most populous) state. Millions of dollars will pour into our economy. People will be planning their California vacations where they can get legally married. It will be a huge victory for LGBT equality.

 

[Si modo]

Karl Rove will be interested to learn that he was involved in such landmark legislation...

So today may be the day we find out if the SCOTUS will be taking up the case or if marriage becomes legal in CA.

Remember this?

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

Do you have a point? If the SCOTUS decides they don't want to hear the Prop 8 case, California wins. We get to get married all across this glorious (and most populous) state. Millions of dollars will pour into our economy. People will be planning their California vacations where they can get legally married. It will be a huge victory for LGBT equality.

The POINT to what Roberts said is that the it is not the courts' job to MAKE the law, that is what voting is for (referendum and representatives). The courts interpret the law.

Three branches, three responsibilities.


Idiot.

 

[Seawytch]

Remember this?

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

Do you have a point? If the SCOTUS decides they don't want to hear the Prop 8 case, California wins. We get to get married all across this glorious (and most populous) state. Millions of dollars will pour into our economy. People will be planning their California vacations where they can get legally married. It will be a huge victory for LGBT equality.

The POINT to what Roberts said is that the it is not the courts' job to MAKE the law, that is what voting is for (referendum and representatives). The courts interpret the law.

Three branches, three responsibilities.


Idiot.

Again, and? Nobody is asking the court to "make" law. The law was already "made" and they are being asked to determine the Constitutionality of it. They will either decide to take it up or let the lower court ruling stand. That lower court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Same thing with DOMA. Congress passed the clearly unconstitutional law and now they are being asked to rule on that.

Hypocrite.

 

[Si modo]

Do you have a point? If the SCOTUS decides they don't want to hear the Prop 8 case, California wins. We get to get married all across this glorious (and most populous) state. Millions of dollars will pour into our economy. People will be planning their California vacations where they can get legally married. It will be a huge victory for LGBT equality.

The POINT to what Roberts said is that the it is not the courts' job to MAKE the law, that is what voting is for (referendum and representatives). The courts interpret the law.

Three branches, three responsibilities.


Idiot.

Again, and? Nobody is asking the court to "make" law. The law was already "made" and they are being asked to determine the Constitutionality of it. They will either decide to take it up or let the lower court ruling stand. That lower court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Same thing with DOMA. Congress passed the clearly unconstitutional law and now they are being asked to rule on that.

Hypocrite.

The courts already DID interfere with legislation, dear.

Now that I know more about this, you may be right. The SCOTUS may remand it back to the other court which interfered with a constitutionally valid referendum vote.

I don't know, though. I have yet to be able to predict accurately what judges will do.

 

[Seawytch]

The POINT to what Roberts said is that the it is not the courts' job to MAKE the law, that is what voting is for (referendum and representatives). The courts interpret the law.

Three branches, three responsibilities.


Idiot.

Again, and? Nobody is asking the court to "make" law. The law was already "made" and they are being asked to determine the Constitutionality of it. They will either decide to take it up or let the lower court ruling stand. That lower court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Same thing with DOMA. Congress passed the clearly unconstitutional law and now they are being asked to rule on that.

Hypocrite.

The courts already DID interfere with legislation, dear.

Now that I know more about this, you may be right. The SCOTUS may remand it back to the other court which interfered with a constitutionally valid referendum vote.

I don't know, though. I have yet to be able to predict accurately what judges will do.

You said "make law". The SCOTUS isn't "making law" by hearing a case. The Constitutionality of the law is in question and has been ruled unconstitutional more than once. Both the Prop 8 and the DOMA cases have a great track record of wins for equality going to the SCOTUS.

I think that they will kick Prop 8 back to the lower court and BAM BABY we get marriage equality in CA. What is "iffy" is whether or not they will hear a DOMA case.

They can't avoid it forever and will have to take it up one of these days. DOMA keeps getting challenged (and loses BTW).

 

[Si modo]

Again, and? Nobody is asking the court to "make" law. The law was already "made" and they are being asked to determine the Constitutionality of it. They will either decide to take it up or let the lower court ruling stand. That lower court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Same thing with DOMA. Congress passed the clearly unconstitutional law and now they are being asked to rule on that.

Hypocrite.

The courts already DID interfere with legislation, dear.

Now that I know more about this, you may be right. The SCOTUS may remand it back to the other court which interfered with a constitutionally valid referendum vote.

I don't know, though. I have yet to be able to predict accurately what judges will do.

You said "make law". The SCOTUS isn't "making law" by hearing a case. The Constitutionality of the law is in question and has been ruled unconstitutional more than once. Both the Prop 8 and the DOMA cases have a great track record of wins for equality going to the SCOTUS.

I think that they will kick Prop 8 back to the lower court and BAM BABY we get marriage equality in CA. What is "iffy" is whether or not they will hear a DOMA case.

They can't avoid it forever and will have to take it up one of these days. DOMA keeps getting challenged (and loses BTW).

<- (at me, mostly)

I don't know why I even try with you; you're just not too bright.

 

[Seawytch]

The courts already DID interfere with legislation, dear.

Now that I know more about this, you may be right. The SCOTUS may remand it back to the other court which interfered with a constitutionally valid referendum vote.

I don't know, though. I have yet to be able to predict accurately what judges will do.

You said "make law". The SCOTUS isn't "making law" by hearing a case. The Constitutionality of the law is in question and has been ruled unconstitutional more than once. Both the Prop 8 and the DOMA cases have a great track record of wins for equality going to the SCOTUS.

I think that they will kick Prop 8 back to the lower court and BAM BABY we get marriage equality in CA. What is "iffy" is whether or not they will hear a DOMA case.

They can't avoid it forever and will have to take it up one of these days. DOMA keeps getting challenged (and loses BTW).

<- (at me, mostly)

I don't know why I even try with you; you're just not too bright.

Then by all means, don't try. You're obviously not interested in having a conversation on it and just want to name call. I expect that from a hypocrite like you. Tell your hubby I said "hi".

 

[Si modo]

You said "make law". The SCOTUS isn't "making law" by hearing a case. The Constitutionality of the law is in question and has been ruled unconstitutional more than once. Both the Prop 8 and the DOMA cases have a great track record of wins for equality going to the SCOTUS.

I think that they will kick Prop 8 back to the lower court and BAM BABY we get marriage equality in CA. What is "iffy" is whether or not they will hear a DOMA case.

They can't avoid it forever and will have to take it up one of these days. DOMA keeps getting challenged (and loses BTW).

<- (at me, mostly)

I don't know why I even try with you; you're just not too bright.

Then by all means, don't try. You're obviously not interested in having a conversation on it and just want to name call. I expect that from a hypocrite like you. Tell your hubby I said "hi".

mK.

One more shot.

There are three (that's 3) branches of the government. Executive, legislative, judicial. We'll leave out the executive role for now.

The legislative branch makes law - the code - statutory law. And, in some states, such as yours, laws are also made by referendum votes (never been a big fan of that myself - tyranny of the majority and all that - thus my preference for representative democracies).

The judicial branch interprets law and sets precedence - common law.

As Roberts said, it is NOT the job of the COURTS (judicial branch) to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices (those consequences are the statutory laws that are made, via representation or referendum).

The federal courts ALREADY did exactly what Roberts (and any 8th grader fresh out of civics class) knows - it is not the job of the courts to legislate (make statutory law) from the bench.

 

[Seawytch]

<- (at me, mostly)

I don't know why I even try with you; you're just not too bright.

Then by all means, don't try. You're obviously not interested in having a conversation on it and just want to name call. I expect that from a hypocrite like you. Tell your hubby I said "hi".

mK.

One more shot.

There are three (that's 3) branches of the government. Executive, legislative, judicial. We'll leave out the executive role for now.

The legislative branch makes law - the code - statutory law. And, in some states, such as yours, laws are also made by referendum votes (never been a big fan of that myself - tyranny of the majority and all that - thus my preference for representative democracies).

The judicial branch interprets law and sets precedence - common law.

As Roberts said, it is NOT the job of the COURTS (judicial branch) to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices (those consequences are the statutory laws that are made, via representation or referendum).

The federal courts ALREADY did exactly what Roberts (and any 8th grader fresh out of civics class) knows - it is not the job of the courts to legislate (make statutory law) from the bench.

It IS their job to determine the Constitutionality of the law created...which is what they will have to do with DOMA. The Prop 8 case and DOMA are two separate issues. With Prop 8, the "law" created by referendum was taking away rights that had already been granted.

 

[Si modo]

Then by all means, don't try. You're obviously not interested in having a conversation on it and just want to name call. I expect that from a hypocrite like you. Tell your hubby I said "hi".

mK.

One more shot.

There are three (that's 3) branches of the government. Executive, legislative, judicial. We'll leave out the executive role for now.

The legislative branch makes law - the code - statutory law. And, in some states, such as yours, laws are also made by referendum votes (never been a big fan of that myself - tyranny of the majority and all that - thus my preference for representative democracies).

The judicial branch interprets law and sets precedence - common law.

As Roberts said, it is NOT the job of the COURTS (judicial branch) to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices (those consequences are the statutory laws that are made, via representation or referendum).

The federal courts ALREADY did exactly what Roberts (and any 8th grader fresh out of civics class) knows - it is not the job of the courts to legislate (make statutory law) from the bench.

It IS their job to determine the Constitutionality of the law created...which is what they will have to do with DOMA. The Prop 8 case and DOMA are two separate issues. With Prop 8, the "law" created by referendum was taking away rights that had already been granted.

It certainly is their responsibility to determine the constitutionality of statutory law. Indeed.

It is ALSO their job to determine the constitutionality of all things considered in the current situation of the question currently presented to the court. Did a court overstep its jurisdiction? Is this the correct jurisdiction? What is the standard of review of the question? How do we balance all constitutional questions in this current case? Do we remand (my guess) to the lower court telling them the took jurisdiction where there was none? Etc.

There are many constitutional questions associated with this, so I suspect the decision will be quite narrow, because those jurists who are wise enough about their jobs, know their bounds - those bounds defined in the constitution as well.

That's my best guess as to what will happen - a remand with narrow instructions telling the lower court to butt out of state issues.

Now, just so some don't get all in a huff about where I stand, I do not like ANY of these states' constitutional changes regarding marriage. But, those are the rights of the states to do so - to govern themselves yet keep in line with the US Constitution.

There's very little in the US Constitution about marriage - as it should be so that it stays simple and doesn't turn into a complete clusterfuck. There is quite a bit about state sovereignty. It's not just equal protection in question, here. The role of the courts is to keep sending it back to the moronic elected folks until they get it fucking right.

It's a process that has worked for a long time....and, sure, there are injustices along the way. But, IMO, it is the best process man knows of right now. We fuck with THAT, we fuck with a foundation that does work, but often takes a while TO work.

They say, "The wheels of justice turn slowly, but still turn", for good reason. Checks and balances of the three branches to prevent any absolute power.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, and to comment on the bigger picture: IF the government entirely butts out of marriage (as it should, IMO), contract law will cover it AND the interstate commerce clause will cover that by keeping a contract between two parties binding in all states.

Because, that is fundamentally what a marriage is - a contract between two persons - in the legal sense.

 

[MeBelle]

It IS their job to determine the Constitutionality of the law created...which is what they will have to do with DOMA. The Prop 8 case and DOMA are two separate issues. With Prop 8, the "law" created by referendum was taking away rights that had already been granted.

Seawytch, with all due respect, I'm going to repost complete (hopefully) information regarding SSM in Cali.
Nothing personal, and you should know that. I'm just too dang lazy to go find my original postings!

* One problem originated in the Constitution of the state of California which lacked clarity of The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* The constitution of the State of California distinguishes between constitutional amendments and revisions, the latter of which is considered to be a "substantial change to the entire constitution, rather than ... a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions". Both require passage of a California ballot proposition by voters, but they differ in how they may be proposed. An amendment may be placed on the ballot by either a two-thirds vote in the California State Legislature or signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, among the lowest thresholds for similar measures of any U.S. state
Constitution of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* So the people voted, yet the will of the people was overturned by the CSC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

Two times!
California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Some history:

Prior to 1977, marriage was defined in Section 4100 of the California Civil Code. This stated that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary". While related sections of the law made references to sex, a State Assembly committee that was debating adding sex-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married". That year, the legislature amended the legal definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity. In 1992 the legal definition of marriage was moved from the Civil Code to Section 300 of the Family Code.
When Proposition 22 came before voters, marriage was defined in the Family Code as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

* In the above instance it was the state who changed the wording, which is exactly the way it should happen according to the State Constitution.
Constitution of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Someone asked for this (I think)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 31.
Good read!