9th Circuit Assumes Legislative Power In Same Sex Marriage Case

[bodecea]

What is the statute number of the new law the court created?

Ok smart ass, there is no possible answer to that question and you know it.
However, all you have to do is search for the 9th Circuit's decision which does essentially over turn a binding and legal legislative action.
In effect, the 9th Circuit wrote new law without writing it.

Because there is no new law...ergo, the court is not legislating. Ipso Facto.

 

[Skylar]

So, once again the court fails to demonstrate the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, and the court goes on to assume legislative power by second guessing the wisdom of legislation which is not the court’s function!

It doesn't sound like you've read the 14th amendment. Try it. I think it will help clear up a lot of your misconceptions on what the 14th was adopted to do. Pay special attention to the last half of section 1.

Yes. The Equal Protection clause. And?
In what way were anyone's right to due process denied?
Just answer that question.

Marriage is a recognized right. If you deny that right to individuals, you need a good reason why. And advocates of gay marriage bans can't produce such a reason. As there is none.

 

[bodecea]

So, once again the court fails to demonstrate the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, and the court goes on to assume legislative power by second guessing the wisdom of legislation which is not the court’s function!

It doesn't sound like you've read the 14th amendment. Try it. I think it will help clear up a lot of your misconceptions on what the 14th was adopted to do. Pay special attention to the last half of section 1.

Yes. The Equal Protection clause. And?
In what way were anyone's right to due process denied?
Just answer that question.

Marriage is a recognized right. If you deny that right to individuals, you need a good reason why. And advocates of gay marriage bans can't produce such a reason. As there is none.

Thus why they keep failing in court after court after court.

 

[Skylar]

With the USSC allowing to stand every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the court action is a . . . wait for it . . . a court action not legislation.

People can have their own opinions but not their own definitions.

 

[Rotagilla]

I know the "courts" recognize it...that wasn't the point...

In terms of having any relevance to any court case, it really is the point. As nothing you've posted has any effect on the outcome of any case. Including any ruling the court may make on gay marriage.Making your argument inconsequential to the issues we're discussing.

I know that, counselor...

This fraud by the fed gvmt to rig the process occurred over a hundred years ago and it was against people who couldn't do anything to oppose it.

the 14th may be "recognized" by the courts but it wasn't legally presented nor ratified...and that's a fact. .....counselor...

 

[Skylar]

I know that, counselor...

Then your entire post is irrelevant to what we're discussing. When and if you have a relevant point to make, I'm all ears.

 

[Silhouette]

What is the statute number of the new law the court created?

I can tell you the statute number of the law the court violated by legislating from the bench against 7 million in California.

I'll cite you a couple actually:

1.
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

2.
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

Since the 9th has gutted referendum-law in California as to Article I Section 7.5, there is nothing banning polygamists from suing today to be legally married there. As you say, since there is no replacement law commanded from the bench of the 9th, the only existing law about marriage rights is obliterated. Saying that part of it still applies "a/a" while gutting the other part "man/woman" is arbitrary and exclusionary to other consenting adults wishing to marry..

 

[Silhouette]

What is the statute number of the new law the court created?

I can tell you the statute number of the law the court violated by legislating from the bench against 7 million in California.

I'll cite you a couple actually:

1.
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

2.
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

Since the 9th has gutted referendum-law in California as to Article I Section 7.5, there is nothing banning polygamists from suing today to be legally married there. As you say, since there is no replacement law commanded from the bench of the 9th, the only existing law about marriage rights is obliterated. Saying that part of it still applies "a/a" while gutting the other part "man/woman" is arbitrary and exclusionary to other consenting adults wishing to marry..

If the GOP figures this out in time, a polygamy lawsuit in CA would be the swan song of any democratic hopes to retake Congress. And it might even snap the heads around of the SCOTUS Justices too. It would bring a hilarious and shameful display of hypocrisy or worse, support from the LGBT/dem party [in that order, LGBT is dominating my party now, we have no say on our important platforms anymore. They'll all be lost]. Imagine how all those well-meaning housewives currently bleeding heart towards the Gay Agenda suddenly waking up and learning dem leadership means sharing hubby with a younger gal?

 

[Skylar]

I can tell you the statute number of the law the court violated by legislating from the bench against 7 million in California.

The court didn't legislate from the bench. They overturned an unconstitutional law. Which is what they're supposed to do.

 

[Silhouette]

I can tell you the statute number of the law the court violated by legislating from the bench against 7 million in California.

The court didn't legislate from the bench. They overturned an unconstitutional law. Which is what they're supposed to do.

What law is substituted in its place? None. So today, polygamists may marry in California. They need to march right up to their closest county clerk's office and apply ASAP.

 

[Skylar]

I can tell you the statute number of the law the court violated by legislating from the bench against 7 million in California.

The court didn't legislate from the bench. They overturned an unconstitutional law. Which is what they're supposed to do.

What law is substituted in its place? None. So today, polygamists may marry in California. They need to march right up to their closest county clerk's office and apply ASAP.

Says you. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Gay marriage is unquestioningly legal in California. As demonstrated by all the gay marriages that occur in the State every day. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.

This is the simple problem that gay marriage ban advocates face: they have no good reason for their position. And the courts have recognized this lack.

 

[bodecea]

I know the "courts" recognize it...that wasn't the point...

In terms of having any relevance to any court case, it really is the point. As nothing you've posted has any effect on the outcome of any case. Including any ruling the court may make on gay marriage.Making your argument inconsequential to the issues we're discussing.

I know that, counselor...

This fraud by the fed gvmt to rig the process occurred over a hundred years ago and it was against people who couldn't do anything to oppose it.

the 14th may be "recognized" by the courts but it wasn't legally presented nor ratified...and that's a fact. .....counselor...

Thats just...like...your opinion, man.

 

[Silhouette]

Says you. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Gay marriage is unquestioningly legal in California. As demonstrated by all the gay marriages that occur in the State every day. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.

This is the simple problem that gay marriage ban advocates face: they have no good reason for their position. And the courts have recognized this lack.

Mini marts are robbed every day in California too. Does it then mean that's legal too? Is polygamy also "unquesioningly legal" in California? If not, why not, specifically?

 

[Skylar]

the 14th may be "recognized" by the courts but it wasn't legally presented nor ratified...and that's a fact. .....counselor...

Thats just...like...your opinion, man.

Yup. That's the folly of amendment deniers. They assume that their personal intepretations are authoritative. They aren't. They are mere personal opinion. And opinions aren't facts.

Which is why such banter is so useless and irrelevant to any discussion of the outcome of actual cases. As some random dude's personal opinion on how the law 'oughta be' has no relevance to how the law is.

 

[bodecea]

Says you. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Gay marriage is unquestioningly legal in California. As demonstrated by all the gay marriages that occur in the State every day. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.

This is the simple problem that gay marriage ban advocates face: they have no good reason for their position. And the courts have recognized this lack.

Mini marts are robbed every day in California too. Does it then mean that's legal too? Is polygamy also "unquesioningly legal" in California? If not, why not, specifically?

You will have to show us where ANY court struck down laws against robbery.

Or better yet, any state that has laws that allow some people to rob mini marts legally, while making it illegal for others to do the same.

 

[Skylar]

Says you. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Gay marriage is unquestioningly legal in California. As demonstrated by all the gay marriages that occur in the State every day. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.

This is the simple problem that gay marriage ban advocates face: they have no good reason for their position. And the courts have recognized this lack.

Mini marts are robbed every day in California too. Does it then mean that's legal too? Is polygamy also "unquesioningly legal" in California? If not, why not, specifically?

Gay marriage robs no one. As gays and lesbians marrying don't diminish or effect the rights of any straight couple who wish to be married. Its not like marriage is a finite resource, where some bright eyed young straight couple are going to be turned away at the court house on their wedding day because the gays 'got the last of the marriage'. There's enough for straights and gays.

You have no valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. You just don't like it.

Too bad. Get used to the idea.

 

[johnwk]

For the second time, how about explaining what you think the 14th Amendment was intended to accomplish.

Let me restate my position, this time without the typo:

The purpose of the 14th amendment, per its advocates at the time of its passage, was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

I see you have a very active imagination. Aside from that, how was the 14th Amendment intended to forbid a state from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license?


JWK




When will the America People realize we have a Muslim terrorist enabler in the Whitehouse? Will they come to this conclusion when terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage robs no one. As gays and lesbians marrying don't diminish or effect the rights of any straight couple who wish to be married. Its not like marriage is a finite resource, where some bright eyed young straight couple are going to be turned away at the court house on their wedding day because the gays 'got the last of the marriage'. There's enough for straights and gays.

You have no valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. You just don't like it.

Too bad. Get used to the idea.

Gay marriage robs adoptable orphans of a mother and father. A combination that statistically produces the best adjusted kids. Also, the LGBT community at large robs adoptable orphans of sexual innocence when they get behind public sober lewd sex acts as a matter of cultural "pride" down public thoroughfares.

When you say "Gay marriage robs no one.", you're pretending like kids don't exist in this conversation, right?

 

[Skylar]

For the second time, how about explaining what you think the 14th Amendment was intended to accomplish.

Let me restate my position, this time without the typo:

The purpose of the 14th amendment, per its advocates at the time of its passage, was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States.

I see you have a very active imagination.

No, I'm actually paraphrasing some of the primary authors of the Amendment like John Bingham and the debates on the topic. Some members of congress were so specific in their desire to communicate this purpose of the 14th amendment that they actually read the entirety of the Bill of Rights to describe what they wanted the amendment to apply to the States. Senator Howard was a bit long winded on the topic, but outlines what I'm describing quite eloquently:

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the
Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of
decision of our courts and the present settled do ctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are se
cured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. Statesare not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers,
but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced inthem except by their own local constitutions, whichmay be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees. . . . This is done by the
fifth section of this amendment, which declares that "the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article." Here is a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principles of all these guarantees, a power not found in the Constitution.

SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH
INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/senatorhowardspeechonthefourteenthamendment.pdf

What you call 'imagination', I call being informed. You should try it.

Aside from that, how was the 14th Amendment intended to forbid a state from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license?

The 14th amendment mandates equal protection under the law. As marriage is a recognized right, the state needs a compelling reason to deny it to gays and lesbians. And they have none. Their restriction against gay and lesbians marrying is an arbitrary abrogation of rights. And the laws of such states governing marriage is thus not applied equally, as it denies the right to marry to a group for no particular reason.

You're falling into the same blunder that the opponents of the Bill of Rights predicted would occur: that if a Bill of Rights were created, some hapless soul would assume that it was an exhaustive list. And only those rights that are enumerated by the Bill of Rights would exist. But as the 9th amendment makes clear, there are other unemumerated rights held by the people. Like the right to marry.

There's a reason why the record of failure of gay marriage bans is nearly perfect; because the reasoning supporting such a ban is quite awful. And contradicted by the 14th amendment that requires equal protection under the law.