6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[mdk]

By the way, a majority in France support gay marriage. lol

Poll shows 63 percent of French back gay marriage

Right. And this poll shows that 82% of people support gay marriage too I suppose? Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 512 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Are you still peddling that poll and claiming it means that 82% do not support gay marriage? Too funny. It has been explained to you on numerous occasions that this USMB poll is not scientific and doesn't even ask specifically about gay marriage. You also ignore the fact that many people; myself included, voted that they would not support a church being forced to marry anyone against their wishes but still support gays having accesses to marriage.

I suppose since I thoroughly debunked your last two posts it is time for you to change the topic to Milk, Blood Parents, and/or your sophomoric legal musings on how Prop 8 is still enforceable and valid in California.

 

[Silhouette]

Right. And this poll shows that 82% of people support gay marriage too I suppose? Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 512 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Are you still peddling that poll and claiming it means that 82% do not support gay marriage? Too funny.

Read the poll question that sports "82%" ding dong. It doesn't just say "no" does it? It says "oh HELL no!"..

 

[mdk]

By the way, a majority in France support gay marriage. lol

Poll shows 63 percent of French back gay marriage

Right. And this poll shows that 82% of people support gay marriage too I suppose? Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 512 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Are you still peddling that poll and claiming it means that 82% do not support gay marriage? Too funny. It has been explained to you on numerous occasions that this USMB poll is not scientific and doesn't even ask specifically about gay marriage. You also ignore the fact that many people; myself included, voted that they would not support a church being forced to marry anyone against their wishes but still support gays having accesses to marriage.

I suppose since I thoroughly debunked your last two posts it is time for you to change the topic to Milk, Blood Parents, and/or your sophomoric legal musings on how Prop 8 is still enforceable and valid in California.

Read the poll question that sports "82%" ding dong. It doesn't just say "no" does it? It says "oh HELL no!"..

Maybe you should take your own advice considering the poll doesn't specifically ask about gay marriage. It asks if you would support churches being forced to marry a gay couple against their wishes. The results are not that surprising either. I do not support a church being forced to marry anyone and I am willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not either. There hasn't been a single church in the US that has been forced to marry a couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes.

This is where you now change the topic to Hobby Lobby and/or Public Accommodation Laws. Round and round we go...

 

[Silhouette]

...I suppose since I thoroughly debunked your last two posts it is time for you to change the topic to Milk, Blood Parents, and/or your sophomoric legal musings on how Prop 8 is still enforceable and valid in California.

How the law stands to this day:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

And

*****
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.
(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
****

Prop 8 did not have language allowing the legislature to amend or change Prop 8; which is why it is still law today. Pretty telling that with all those lawyers in the CA State Capitol Building, none of them have used the lower federal circuit court decisions to repeal Prop 8 formally. Nor have the plethora of gay -activists in that state petitioned to put an initiative on the ballot that would revoke Prop 8. Nor an initiative to recognize gay marraige as legal as approved by voters.

Odd for such "overwhelming support for gay marriage"..

The truth is that everyone now knows, thanks to Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit, that gay marriage cannot be forced upon the states until SCOTUS says so. (Baker 1971, Windsor 2013) and "states" includes California. Ergo, Prop 8 is the standing and viable law there.

 

[mdk]

...I suppose since I thoroughly debunked your last two posts it is time for you to change the topic to Milk, Blood Parents, and/or your sophomoric legal musings on how Prop 8 is still enforceable and valid in California.

How the law stands to this day:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

And

*****
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.
(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
****

Prop 8 did not have language allowing the legislature to amend or change Prop 8; which is why it is still law today. Pretty telling that with all those lawyers in the CA State Capitol Building, none of them have used the lower federal circuit court decisions to repeal Prop 8 formally. Nor have the plethora of gay -activists in that state petitioned to put an initiative on the ballot that would revoke Prop 8. Nor an initiative to recognize gay marraige as legal as approved by voters.

Odd for such "overwhelming support for gay marriage"..

The truth is that everyone now knows, thanks to Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit, that gay marriage cannot be forced upon the states until SCOTUS says so. (Baker 1971, Windsor 2013) and "states" includes California. Ergo, Prop 8 is the standing and viable law there.

And yet gays are still getting married in California despite all your legal twisting claiming Prop 8 is still valid and enforceable. I think the opinions of the courts and legal scholars have more legal bearings then the willfully obtuse with an axe to grind. Watching you lose in the court of public opinion and in the majority of legal courts brings me great joy. All you have are Facebook "likes", lines at a fast food restaurant, a USMB poll, and amateurish legal musings. Maybe you should forward all this compelling information to the court. It may just sway the Justices. lol

 

[Silhouette]

And yet gays are still getting married in California despite all your legal twisting claiming Prop 8 is still valid and enforceable. I think the opinions of the courts and legal scholars have more legal bearings then the willfully obtuse with an axe to grind. Watching you lose in the court of public opinion and in the majority of legal courts brings me great joy. All you have are Facebook "likes", lines at a fast food restaurant, a USMB poll, and amateurish legal musings. Maybe you should forward all this compelling information to the court. It may just sway the Justices. lol

Legal scholars cannot unmake the power of the CA initiative system as enshrined in the CA Constitution. That's set in stone. There isn't any "interpretation" to it.

Either the voters have repealed Prop 8 or they haven't (they haven't). Either a state has a right to say yes or no to gay marriage or they don't (they do, Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013). Either lower circuit courts can circumvent procedure to overrule from underneath or they can't (they can't).

Ergo, Prop 8 is viable, enforceable law. And like I said on the other thread, insurance companies would be the first to head up the "hey, wait a minute!..." campaign to illuminate the charade.

 

[mdk]

And yet gays are still getting married in California despite all your legal twisting claiming Prop 8 is still valid and enforceable. I think the opinions of the courts and legal scholars have more legal bearings then the willfully obtuse with an axe to grind. Watching you lose in the court of public opinion and in the majority of legal courts brings me great joy. All you have are Facebook "likes", lines at a fast food restaurant, a USMB poll, and amateurish legal musings. Maybe you should forward all this compelling information to the court. It may just sway the Justices. lol

Legal scholars cannot unmake the power of the CA initiative system as enshrined in the CA Constitution. That's set in stone. There isn't any "interpretation" to it.

Either the voters have repealed Prop 8 or they haven't (they haven't). Either a state has a right to say yes or no to gay marriage or they don't (they do, Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013). Either lower circuit courts can circumvent procedure to overrule from underneath or they can't (they can't).

Ergo, Prop 8 is viable, enforceable law. And like I said on the other thread, insurance companies would be the first to head up the "hey, wait a minute!..." campaign to illuminate the charade.

Your interpretation of the law and court procedures have zero bearing whatsoever legally speaking. If it did gays wouldn't be getting married in California and yet they are doing so. Do you have any more straws to grasp at left?

 

[Silhouette]

Your interpretation of the law and court procedures have zero bearing whatsoever legally speaking. If it did gays wouldn't be getting married in California and yet they are doing so. Do you have any more straws to grasp at left?

I can say I'm marrying my soap dish. That doesn't make it legal. Moreover, if 10,000 people decide to marry their soapdishes it doesn't make it anymore legal.

Care to revise your argument? You are aware of how laws are made in this country, yes?

 

[mdk]

Your interpretation of the law and court procedures have zero bearing whatsoever legally speaking. If it did gays wouldn't be getting married in California and yet they are doing so. Do you have any more straws to grasp at left?

I can say I'm marrying my soap dish. That doesn't make it legal. Moreover, if 10,000 people decide to marry their soapdishes it doesn't make it anymore legal.

Care to revise your argument? You are aware of how laws are made in this country, yes?

I am more then aware of how laws are made in this country and whom decides if they pass the Constitutional smell test or not. Maybe you spend less time gassing on about USMB polls/Facebook "likes" and educate yourself on the process.

By all means, marry your soap dish if you wish. I presume you'll be registered at Bed Bath and Beyond.

 

[Silhouette]

So your self declared credentials here as an anonymous poster on the net make your interpretation of law superior to reality?

 

[Silhouette]

Remember the reality of the situation that even the best lawyer on earth couldn't spin:

Legal scholars cannot unmake the power of the CA initiative system as enshrined in the CA Constitution. That's set in stone. There isn't any "interpretation" to it.
Either the voters have repealed Prop 8 or they haven't (they haven't). Either a state has a right to say yes or no to gay marriage or they don't (they do, Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013). Either lower circuit courts can circumvent procedure to overrule from underneath or they can't (they can't).

Ergo, Prop 8 is standing, viable law. And all "gay marriages" in California are exactly equal to me marrying my soap dish.

Cute remark about Bed, Bath and Beyond though..

 

[mdk]

So your self declared credentials here as an anonymous poster on the net make your interpretation of law superior to reality?

Clearly my interpretations are superior considering gays are still getting married in California despite you prating on about Prop 8 still being valid and enforceable. Obviously it is neither or gays would not be tying the knot.

 

[Seawytch]

So your self declared credentials here as an anonymous poster on the net make your interpretation of law superior to reality?

Clearly my interpretations are superior considering gays are still getting married in California despite you prating on about Prop 8 still being valid and enforceable. Obviously it is neither or gays would not be tying the knot.

And, oddly, I've not encountered any difficulties getting federal dependent benefits with my "illegal" marriage.

 

[mdk]

So your self declared credentials here as an anonymous poster on the net make your interpretation of law superior to reality?

Clearly my interpretations are superior considering gays are still getting married in California despite you prating on about Prop 8 still being valid and enforceable. Obviously it is neither or gays would not be tying the knot.

And, oddly, I've not encountered any difficulties getting federal dependent benefits with my "illegal" marriage.

Be careful, once the Justices are made aware of that USMB poll, those long lines at Chik-fil-A, and, the Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" they may see things differently. Let's hope that compelling information never crosses their desks.

 

[Syriusly]

Your interpretation of the law and court procedures have zero bearing whatsoever legally speaking. If it did gays wouldn't be getting married in California and yet they are doing so. Do you have any more straws to grasp at left?

I can say I'm marrying my soap dish. That doesn't make it legal. Moreover, if 10,000 people decide to marry their soapdishes it doesn't make it anymore legal.

Care to revise your argument? You are aware of how laws are made in this country, yes?

Everyone is more aware of the law than you.

Prop 8 is null and void. It was judged unconstitutional and became as null and void as Virginia's law against mixed race marriages.

People in love are getting married in California and the haters hate that.

 

[Syriusly]

I have to share a realization with everyone.

A few weeks ago Silhouette was pushing her bizarre interpretation of the Prop 8 rulings so to mean that since same gender marriage was legal, that that meant that polygamous marriage was legal in California also.

Now Silhouette's new- and contradictory theory- is that despite the court's rulings and everyone getting married in California, that Prop 8 is still valid and same gender marriages are not legal in California.

Who knows what Silly's new fiction will be next week?

 

[Silhouette]

I have to share a realization with everyone.

A few weeks ago Silhouette was pushing her bizarre interpretation of the Prop 8 rulings so to mean that since same gender marriage was legal, that that meant that polygamous marriage was legal in California also.

Now Silhouette's new- and contradictory theory- is that despite the court's rulings and everyone getting married in California, that Prop 8 is still valid and same gender marriages are not legal in California.

Who knows what Silly's new fiction will be next week?

It isn't controversial. The SCOTUS found 'no standing' on the protectors of the Prop 8 initiative law. They didn't visit the merits of the case. Instead they ruled in Windsor that states have the ultimate authority on the question of gay marriage until further notice. That means Prop 8 is law. Unless you're going to argue that procedural rules apply in the federal system when it comes to technicalities like 'standing' but can be suspended when it comes to gross procedural misconduct of lower courts trying to overrule Baker 1971 & Windsor 2013 from underneath?

So, do federal procedural rules count all the time or just when they serve the LGBT cult movement? Does California still have an intact initiative law system or don't they? If they do, then Windsor 2013 says that their choice and standing law still on the books in CA constitution are the law until further notice. Windsor also found that this "state's choice" on gay marriage has always been the case since the 1800s at least.

Sorry.

And BTW, it's not "my bizarre interpretation". Sutton of the 6th circuit deduced the same conclusions.

 

[Syriusly]

I have to share a realization with everyone.

A few weeks ago Silhouette was pushing her bizarre interpretation of the Prop 8 rulings so to mean that since same gender marriage was legal, that that meant that polygamous marriage was legal in California also.

Now Silhouette's new- and contradictory theory- is that despite the court's rulings and everyone getting married in California, that Prop 8 is still valid and same gender marriages are not legal in California.

Who knows what Silly's new fiction will be next week?

And BTW, it's not "my bizarre interpretation". Sutton of the 6th circuit deduced the same conclusions.

It is entirely your bizarre interpretation.

Which is why people in love have been marrying- and will continue to marry in California regardless of your bigotry.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"'No one is born gay' billboard advertiser responds to controversy"

Two twins: one is gay one is not. Oops... they're genetically identical. Therefore: Homosexuality is not genetic.

For the benefit of the Intellectually Less Fortune: THAT MEANS YOU PERVES WERE NOT "BORN" GAY!

No one is born gay billboard advertiser responds to controvers - FOX 8 WVUE New Orleans News Weather Sports

 

[Syriusly]

"'No one is born gay' billboard advertiser responds to controversy"

Two twins: one is gay one is not. Oops... they're genetically identical. Therefore: Homosexuality is not genetic.

For the benefit of the Intellectually Less Fortune: THAT MEANS YOU PERVES WERE NOT "BORN" GAY!
t

Oh ye of the intellectually challenged.

Two twins: one is left handed and one is not. Oops their genetically identical. Yet one is born left handed and one is born right handed.

Mirror-image twins occur only in identical twins. In approximately 23 percent of identical twins the egg splits later than usual, most often day seven or beyond. The original right half of the egg becomes one individual and the original left half becomes the other. These twins will often have "mirror images" of their features, such as hair whorls that run clockwise in one and counter clockwise in the other, a birthmark on the right shoulder of one and the left shoulder of the other, etc. There is no specific test for determining if twins are mirror-image. The determination is made by observation only, and the twins must be monozygotic, or identical.

For those of you who still want to argue that unless you can find a gene, then no one is 'born that way', look up epigenetic- which is one of the more current theories.

Of course then again- really who cares? You homophobes will hate gays whether they are born that way or not.