Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[Silhouette]

Fascist? A very piss-poor effort to use fascist as a pejorative attached to progressives.

As a troll you've clearly failed; so much so you are at risk of being tossed under the bus by the American Federation of Trolls.

You see it's comments and actions like that which will get you no favors at the Top Court. You assume your threats are delivered in a vacuum.

 

[dcraelin]

the "jurisprudence" that allowed the interference of the Federal court into the prop8 fight of California is basically yet another fraudulent lawyers loophole called ex parte Young. This "jurisprudence" was really the result of lobbying by the railroads. It was the court doing a political favor., and demonstrates the tyranny of the courts.

Ex parte Young - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This as I understand it is why the law remains on the books even tho a lower federal court has declared it "unconstitutional"

The "standing" BS in the decision by the SC is typical legal double talk....
pretending to protect the separation of powers while really giving courts excessive powers over the people of California. In FACT what the ruling did is violate the Republican government of California.

 

[Silhouette]

No there isn't. See Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The majority cannot regulate the behaviors of homosexuals. That's a done deal.

A couple of things:

1. Since we're citing narrow rulings to cast a broad blanket, don't forget Windsor and Hobby Lobby.

2. Don't presume Lawrence or Loving mean an automatic "win" for the cult of LGBT getting special protections.

3. The majority in Lawrence cannot regulate the PRIVATE behaviors of homosexuals. They were warned in that Opinion though to not assume that because they could pretend the anus was an artificial vagina with each other in private, it automatically meant that their behaviors could move out into the public sector for approval, sanctioning or iconizing in marriage.

Ergo, the jury is still QUITE OUT on this debate that has TWO SIDES and not just yours.

And so knowing and so sensing a possible state-win for the right to regulate behaviors that marry, California's rogue officials are violating their state's constitution and the constitutional rights of each individual voter therefore in a pre-emptive act of contempt towards the US Supreme Court.

You act as if LGBTs have all the rights and the 7 million who voted to protect children from these weird psuedo-hetero relationships have none. That is to say, you believe that children have no civil rights since they have no voice but through their advocates..

 

[Silhouette]

Like I said before, the silver lining in the cloud is that this extreme action on behalf of democrats [that's how the GOP is drooling on the edge of their chairs anticipating] is not going to impress the SCOTUS as to the "gentile and benign affect of those poor people struggling for civil rights".

It looks sinister, calculated and like an inquisition frankly. And that's because it is. It really is fascism. It really is a broadside shot into the hull of democracy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No there isn't. See Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The majority cannot regulate the behaviors of homosexuals. That's a done deal.

A couple of things:

1. Since we're citing narrow rulings to cast a broad blanket, don't forget Windsor and Hobby Lobby.

Windsor and HL were cases about federal law. The Windsor ruling was that the federal government can't discriminate against same-sex couples that are legally married. HL is also a case about federal law.

Don't forget that the same SCOTUS this term refused the Elane Photography case which dealt with State law, that law was allowed to stand under the State Supreme Court ruling.

2. Don't presume Lawrence or Loving mean an automatic "win" for the cult of LGBT getting special protections.

I haven't, I've repeatedly said I don't know how the SCOTUS will rule in a future case. No one does. You are the one that has been claiming a "Slam Dunk" on the issue.

3. The majority in Lawrence cannot regulate the PRIVATE behaviors of homosexuals. They were warned in that Opinion though to not assume that because they could pretend the anus was an artificial vagina with each other in private, it automatically meant that their behaviors could move out into the public sector for approval, sanctioning or iconizing in marriage.

Your claim was that the majority could regulate behaviors. Lawrence proves that wrong.

Now you are attempting to move the goalposts again.

Lawrence and Romer both prove you wrong that the majority can discriminate against homosexuals simply because they want to.

Ergo, the jury is still QUITE OUT on this debate that has TWO SIDES and not just yours.

Correct, no disagreement.

You are the one that keeps claiming victory.

You act as if LGBTs have all the rights and the 7 million...

Yes, in this counrtry LGBT people do have the same rights as the 7million that voted to discriminate against them.

Hence the reason Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.

That is to say, you believe that children have no civil rights since they have no voice but through their advocates..

Bullshit. Child fuckers - whether of the same or different sex as the child - should be drawn and quarters (not a good way to die).

Restricting law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, adults for bullshit scare tactics is a boogeyman fallacy.



>>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

1) Windsor and HL were cases about federal law. The Windsor ruling was that the federal government can't discriminate against same-sex couples that are legally married. HL is also a case about federal law.

2) Don't forget that the same SCOTUS this term refused the Elane Photography case which dealt with State law, that law was allowed to stand under the State Supreme Court ruling.

3) I haven't, I've repeatedly said I don't know how the SCOTUS will rule in a future case. No one does. You are the one that has been claiming a "Slam Dunk" on the issue.

4) Your claim was that the majority could regulate behaviors. Lawrence proves that wrong.

5) Now you are attempting to move the goalposts again.

6) Lawrence and Romer both prove you wrong that the majority can discriminate against homosexuals simply because they want to.

7) Yes, in this counrtry LGBT people do have the same rights as the 7million that voted to discriminate against them.

8) Hence the reason Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.

9) Bullshit. Child fuckers - whether of the same or different sex as the child - should be drawn and quarters (not a good way to die).

10) Restricting law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, adults for bullshit scare tactics is a boogeyman fallacy.

1. As you know, perhaps a dozen appeals are heading to the US Supreme Court to make gay marriage be a matter of "federal law/protection".. Certainly the rogue officials in CA know that. We are in what is known as a legal-limbo state where there are two clearly contested sides that will have a decision that either affirms or denies a state's right to set standards of marriage under the question of gays [or polygamists etc.] marrying. Ergo, this action by CA officials was calculated to pre-emptively stand in contempt of a possible and expected outcome that they might not like, in violation of the 7 million who DO like it.

2. "Allowed to stand" until challenged by enough people. Suffice to say that there are enough people challenging the meat and potatoes, the kernel of Prop 8 in its various forms all across the nation. Saying you don't think this is going to come to a head at SCOTUS in the next year or two is a patent intellectual lie.

3. LGBT activists as a group and as individual activists will preach all day long to anyone who isn't sick enough of their tirades to listen that "This is a done deal. Be on the right side of history. This is inevitable." "Gay marriage is already a constitutional right". And we know they are faking it until they [hopefully] make it. This action by the rogue CA officials bumps that up a notch and takes it out of the area of public smoke and mirrors and shoves it directly into the arena of demolition of democracy at its foundation.

4. Lawrence, again, was about P-R-I-V-A-T-E homosexual behavior being decriminalized; NOT about a carte blanche for gay-everything in every PUBLIC arena that exists. It is a very very very long distance between two dudes in a bath house using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas legally [and venerating Harvey Milk's sexuality] to adopting little boys from a catholic orphanage as a "right" they just gained [cannot be legally denied once the ink dries] via "gay marriage". In fact as you know, in Lawrence, gays were warned they weren't to take that Ruling and run with it in precisely the way I just described. Don't hang your hat on that nail friend.

5. I'm defining the goal posts, not moving them. READ.

6. The majority can discriminate against polygamists, minors and homosexuals marrying. States regulate behaviors and status as to who may marry until and if the US Supreme Court rips that right away from them. In fact, in Windsor, the Court says we must default to the states while the question is up in the air. The various stays they've issued keeping gay marriage illegal [when they pick and choose which state they want to honor and which they don't?] proves this is their Intent. And of course the rogue officials in CA know this is their Intent and seek to defy it anyway.

7. LGBTs DO NOT have a "right' to marry because the laws on the books say that only a man and a woman may marry and nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to marry to anyone. States have the "unquestioned authority" [Windsor 2013] to regulate marriage within their boundaries. Any exceptions must find redress in the 14th. Applying the 14th to JUST the cult of LGBT as an incomplete grouping of some deviant sexual behaviors in the minority being able to dictate to a majority that do not approve, is setting an impossible precedent that stands to unravel American law [penal and civil] at its roots. And so doing exposes yet another insidious act of the destruction of democracy and our checks and balances in order to forward the Gay Agenda.

8. Prop 8's constitutionality is still in question. If it wasn't, no stay would have been granted in Utah on gay marriage. The fed has spoken via that stay to announce to the legal world and all the public officials charged with dispensing law in their states 'not so fast...this thing hasnt' been settled'. CA Officials' actions therefore are contempt of Court.

9. "Child-fuckers". Would that include or disinclude the people seen in the first photo of the OP of this thread? : http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html In other words, do "child-fuckers" include people who knowingly and soberly do depraved public sexual acts in front of where they anticipate children will be, as a matter of "pride"?

10. #9 is hardly a "bullshit scare tactic". There are two categories of civil rights in question in the gay marriage debate. 1. The civil rights of children to be protected from situations that a reasonable person would suspect might cause them harm and 2. Everyone else. The weight is always given to #1 in a civilized society, and indeed as a matter of federal and state laws. A reasonable person would suspect that people who parade down main street near-naked and promoting and even performing or mock-performing deviant sex acts in an area where they soberly anticipate children will be watching, are not fit to parent or adopt children. Let me repeat that: They are not fit to adopt children. And that is a reasonable conclusion. When it comes to child-welfare, one need not even have a conviction but only to suspect that situation might bring harm to a child. If they don't act, they can be charged criminally. So it's a double-jeopardy we would be putting adoption agents [and the entire citizenry of a state who opposes gay marriage] in with respect to child safety and "reasonable-suspicion".

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fascist? A very piss-poor effort to use fascist as a pejorative attached to progressives.

As a troll you've clearly failed; so much so you are at risk of being tossed under the bus by the American Federation of Trolls.

You see it's comments and actions like that which will get you no favors at the Top Court. You assume your threats are delivered in a vacuum.

Threats? Are you a moron too?

 

[Intolerant]

What part of "**** your God" is really so difficult to understand?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution says, "**** your God." It doesn't get any more plain than that. Your stupid ******* fairy tale does not dictate our laws.

**** prop 8, **** your church, **** your god, and **** you. Why are all of you such hate-filled cretins? Honestly? What happened in your lives to make each of you SO fucked-up that you want to write laws that keep other people from being happy? Because you don't like to think about what they do in their own homes? **** you, **** your bible, **** your church, **** your god and **** you again.

Go back to Germany. Move to Uganda if you hate homosexuals so much. Move to Saudi Arabia or some other mangled religious shithole. Get the **** out of our United States.

Your religion is a danger to our First Amendment.

^^^ Look who's calling others hate-filled. You need Jesus in your life, KNB.

Jesus is not on your side in this. Go read through your stupid ******* Bible and find where Jesus Christ said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married. He never said anything like that.

The First Amendment, however, starts out by saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which if you bothered to notice, writing a religious law banning gay marriage because of your religious beliefs is establishing a religion as law. There isn't any scientific basis for the law, so how do you justify taking away an entire segment of the population's rights to live their own lives without hurting anyone else?

When all is said and done, the only logical conclusion in all of this is, "**** you, **** your god, **** your church, **** your religion, **** your bible, and **** you some more." Move to Uganda if you hate homosexuals so much.

Get the **** out of our free society. Quit hurting our free people with your stupid ******* religion.

Your one vile ass piece of shit. Someone that doesn't deserve to walk the earth.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. As you know, perhaps a dozen appeals are heading to the US Supreme Court to make gay marriage be a matter of "federal law/protection".. Certainly the rogue officials in CA know that. We are in what is known as a legal-limbo state...

No you are not in any "legal limbo" state. California's Prop 8 was unconstitutional and SSCM is legal there. There is no limbo about it.

Depending on what SCOTUS decides in the future won't change the Status of Prop 8. If the pro-discrimination side wins at the SCOTUS next year, you will be re-voting on the issue. You would either have to re-vote to implement a new discriminatory initiative or you will be voting on a repeal effort.

Remember what can be passed by initiative can be repealed by initiative.

2. "Allowed to stand" until challenged by enough people. Suffice to say that there are enough people challenging the meat and potatoes, the kernel of Prop 8 in its various forms all across the nation. Saying you don't think this is going to come to a head at SCOTUS in the next year or two is a patent intellectual lie.

Prop 8 is dead, you might want to get over it.

4. Lawrence, again, was about P-R-I-V-A-T-E homosexual behavior being decriminalized; NOT about a carte blanche for gay-everything in every PUBLIC arena that exists. It is a very very very long distance between two dudes in a bath house using each other's anuses as artificial vaginas legally [and venerating Harvey Milk's sexuality] to adopting little boys from a catholic orphanage as a "right" they just gained [cannot be legally denied once the ink dries] via "gay marriage". In fact as you know, in Lawrence, gays were warned they weren't to take that Ruling and run with it in precisely the way I just described. Don't hang your hat on that nail friend.

Again your statement was that there are NO constitutional protections based on behavior and the majority can vote with 50+1 to make them illegal.

Lawrence and Romer prove you wrong.

5. I'm defining the goal posts, not moving them. READ.

No you were moving them. First it's no behaviors are protected by the 14th. Then when shown you are wrong suddenly you want to make it P-R-I-V-A-T-E behaviors. That is moving the goalposts.

6. The majority can discriminate against polygamists,

Correct, it was adjudicated through the courts and in Reynolds v. United States it was shown their was a compelling interest in limiting marriage to two people.

minors

The grow out of the restrictions once able to provide adult level consent.

and homosexuals marrying.

See there you go again, making a definative unsupportable claim.

We won't know the answer to that question until next year sometime, assuming SCOTUS accepts the appeal of the 10th's ruling. If they don't accept the appeal, then the 10th's ruling stands - BTW that ruling was that it was unconstitutional to deny Civil Marriage based on gender.

7. LGBTs DO NOT have a "right' to marry because the laws on the books say that only a man and a woman may marry and nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to marry to anyone.

OK theres #4 (see previous post showing you don't understand the law) - here is a clue....

1. Rights need not be enumerated in the Constitutions for the people to have them.

2. The right to equal treatment under the law and due process are enumerated rights.​

8. Prop 8's constitutionality is still in question.

No it's not, it's as dead as Dracula with a stake through his heart.

If it wasn't, no stay would have been granted in Utah on gay marriage.

Prop 8 and Utah have nothing to do with each other. Prop 8 is decided. Depending on the outcome of the Utah case at the SCOTUS level then California can decide to do something else in the future: (a) continue to allow SSCM, or (b) run a new initiative through the works to try to reban SSCM. But Prop 8 is dead.

9. "Child-fuckers". Would that include or disinclude the people seen in the first photo of the OP of this thread?

Child fuckers needing to be either (a) put to death or (b) locked in solitary for the rest of their natural lives applied to anyone that rapes a child.

10. #9 is hardly a "bullshit scare tactic".

That's exactly what it is. Attempting to restrict the Civil Marriage of law abiding, US Citizen, consenting, adults because a homosexual in the past as raped a child is scare tactic at is most blatant.

So you think we should pass a law restricting Civil Marriage for law abiding, US Citizen, consenting, adults that are heterosexuals because in the past some heterosexual has raped a child?



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

No you are not in any "legal limbo" state. California's Prop 8 was unconstitutional and SSCM is legal there. There is no limbo about it.

Depending on what SCOTUS decides in the future won't change the Status of Prop 8. If the pro-discrimination side wins at the SCOTUS next year, you will be re-voting on the issue. You would either have to re-vote to implement a new discriminatory initiative or you will be voting on a repeal effort.

Remember what can be passed by initiative can be repealed by initiative.

The 9th District Court of Appeals is but one block in the pyramid below the US Supreme Court. Above it and to the side of it are stays on gay marriage pending appeal to the SCOTUS. Those appeals are happening right now. Proposition 8 was a legally enacted initiative defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. As such, polygamy and minors are also excluded in addition to gays [people who pretend they are man and wife].

The same or extraordinarily-similar laws have been "struck down" and are pending appeal with a stay on gay marriage until that appeal is heard at the Top of the Judicial pyramid. Your logic appears to be "if SCOTUS finds as it did in Windsor that states have always had the right to define marriage under the question of gay marriage since the founding of the nation [the 1770s], and kicks the definition back to the states [which I have strong reason to believe they will do, stronger now that Hobby Lobby was Found as it was], you are saying that each and every statute of each and every state that was legally voted on to define traditional marriage will have to be re-submitted and re-voted on?

You know that isn't the case, don't you? Retroactive is reatroactive. Since the 1770s, the definition of marriage in California has come up twice for a vote. And twice it was limited to only a man and a woman. That doesn't need re-submission.

I get it. If the rogue CA officials can't squelch the law by rewriting it or removing it. They'll declare it defunct and suppress any future petitions by the electors to enter it onto the ballot on some or other defect in that process. Over and over until the gays have successfully forced gay marriage on an unwilling public.

Which of course is sedition and suppression of democracy.

I hope the Justices are reading this thread. Thanks for a heads-up on the rest of the plan, in advance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I hope the Justices are reading this thread. Thanks for a heads-up on the rest of the plan, inadvance.

Probably not reading this thread, at least the Chief Justice. He was busy denying a stay.


Remember when you said any individual or voter had the power to have standing to appeal a suit where the state is the party?


Guess what, the SCOTUS just denied a stay for PA submitted by a clerk after the State Officials said they wouldn't challenge the ruling.


I guess you were wrong, as I said, about "standing".


Pennsylvania Gay Marriages to Continue After Court Rebuff - Bloomberg
Utah same-sex marriage case on way to the Court (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I hope the Justices are reading this thread. Thanks for a heads-up on the rest of the plan, inadvance.

Probably not reading this thread, at least the Chief Justice. He was busy denying a stay.


Remember when you said any individual or voter had the power to have standing to appeal a suit where the state is the party?


Guess what, the SCOTUS just denied a stay for PA submitted by a clerk after the State Officials said they wouldn't challenge the ruling.


I guess you were wrong, as I said, about "standing".


Pennsylvania Gay Marriages to Continue After Court Rebuff - Bloomberg
Utah same-sex marriage case on way to the Court (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog


>>>>

Did they lift the stay they granted to Utah?

No?

Why not?

They had to reject that appeal for a stay because if they allowed it, they would have to revisit their denial of a county clerk's appeal in California. They only refused the stay because a county clerk brought that request. If Penn's AG had brought it, it would have had to be issued because they issued one in Utah to their AG. Clerks have standing. They can lose their job for refusing to follow state laws correctly. SCOTUS is wrong in this regard treating clerks this way.

But removing initiative law without permission in CA is a whole other kettle of fish. The AG doesn't get to control if a person's vote counts or not. That is a constitutional-guarantee. There needs to be an immediate intervention from SCOTUS on the CA situation...

 

[WorldWatcher]

I hope the Justices are reading this thread. Thanks for a heads-up on the rest of the plan, inadvance.

Probably not reading this thread, at least the Chief Justice. He was busy denying a stay.


Remember when you said any individual or voter had the power to have standing to appeal a suit where the state is the party?


Guess what, the SCOTUS just denied a stay for PA submitted by a clerk after the State Officials said they wouldn't challenge the ruling.


I guess you were wrong, as I said, about "standing".


Pennsylvania Gay Marriages to Continue After Court Rebuff - Bloomberg
Utah same-sex marriage case on way to the Court (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog


>>>>

Did they lift the stay they granted to Utah?

No?

Why not?

Deflection.


You said anyone has standing to appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay, the SCOTUS said nope.



In Utah the State requested a stay, they have standing, they got the stay.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Probably not reading this thread, at least the Chief Justice. He was busy denying a stay.


Remember when you said any individual or voter had the power to have standing to appeal a suit where the state is the party?


Guess what, the SCOTUS just denied a stay for PA submitted by a clerk after the State Officials said they wouldn't challenge the ruling.


I guess you were wrong, as I said, about "standing".


Pennsylvania Gay Marriages to Continue After Court Rebuff - Bloomberg
Utah same-sex marriage case on way to the Court (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog


>>>>

Did they lift the stay they granted to Utah?

No?

Why not?

Deflection.


You said anyone has standing to appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay, the SCOTUS said nope.



In Utah the State requested a stay, they have standing, they got the stay.


>>>>

Read my last post. This is a different legal situation than merely asking for a stay on gay marriage. This is the illegal revocation of the power of intitiative law and a circumvention of democracy per CA's constitution.

Completely different deal pal...speaking of deflection...

 

[Erand7899]

What part of "**** your God" is really so difficult to understand?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution says, "**** your God." It doesn't get any more plain than that. Your stupid ******* fairy tale does not dictate our laws.

**** prop 8, **** your church, **** your god, and **** you. Why are all of you such hate-filled cretins? Honestly? What happened in your lives to make each of you SO fucked-up that you want to write laws that keep other people from being happy? Because you don't like to think about what they do in their own homes? **** you, **** your bible, **** your church, **** your god and **** you again.

Go back to Germany. Move to Uganda if you hate homosexuals so much. Move to Saudi Arabia or some other mangled religious shithole. Get the **** out of our United States.

Your religion is a danger to our First Amendment.

Did some Christian piss in your Wheaties, asshole? Your ignorant rant should get you a lot of respect from the other 12 year olds on the school grounds, but overall, it is nothing more than a great example of an idiot with a vulger mouth and little common sense.

 

[Silhouette]

What part of "**** your God" is really so difficult to understand?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution says, "**** your God." It doesn't get any more plain than that. Your stupid ******* fairy tale does not dictate our laws.

**** prop 8, **** your church, **** your god, and **** you. Why are all of you such hate-filled cretins? Honestly? What happened in your lives to make each of you SO fucked-up that you want to write laws that keep other people from being happy? Because you don't like to think about what they do in their own homes? **** you, **** your bible, **** your church, **** your god and **** you again.

Go back to Germany. Move to Uganda if you hate homosexuals so much. Move to Saudi Arabia or some other mangled religious shithole. Get the **** out of our United States.

Your religion is a danger to our First Amendment.

Did some Christian piss in your Wheaties, asshole? Your ignorant rant should get you a lot of respect from the other 12 year olds on the school grounds, but overall, it is nothing more than a great example of an idiot with a vulger mouth and little common sense.

KNB [as the rogue officials in CA are] is mad as hell that Hobby Lobby rendered out as it did. He/They know what it means and what's coming: a retroactive pronunciation that the states will determine who will marry within their borders.

 

[dcraelin]

Did they lift the stay they granted to Utah?
No?
Why not?

Deflection.
You said anyone has standing to appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay, the SCOTUS said nope.In Utah the State requested a stay, they have standing, they got the stay.
>>>>

Read my last post. This is a different legal situation than merely asking for a stay on gay marriage. This is the illegal revocation of the power of intitiative law and a circumvention of democracy per CA's constitution.
Completely different deal pal...speaking of deflection...

As I said in the post below, the whole reasoning used to get the prop8 case to federal court is fraudulent. Its all based on a case decided as a favor for railroad companies essentially.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...pt-another-coup-on-democracy.html#post9410710

What part of "**** your God" is really so difficult to understand?
The First Amendment of the US Constitution says, "**** your God." It doesn't get any more plain than that. Your stupid ******* fairy tale does not dictate our laws.
**** prop 8, **** your church, **** your god, and **** you. Why are all of you such hate-filled cretins? Honestly? What happened in your lives to make each of you SO fucked-up that you want to write laws that keep other people from being happy? Because you don't like to think about what they do in their own homes? **** you, **** your bible, **** your church, **** your god and **** you again.
Go back to Germany. Move to Uganda if you hate homosexuals so much. Move to Saudi Arabia or some other mangled religious shithole. Get the **** out of our United States.
Your religion is a danger to our First Amendment.

Did some Christian piss in your Wheaties, asshole? Your ignorant rant should get you a lot of respect from the other 12 year olds on the school grounds, but overall, it is nothing more than a great example of an idiot with a vulger mouth and little common sense.

Its not hating gays to want the word marriage to have its traditional meaning. I think most who oppose gay"marriage" would gladly grant most aspects of civil unions to gay couples.

What is dangerous, and I wish the gay community would see this, is using and pressuring the courts to pas something that should be done by legislatures or we the people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did they lift the stay they granted to Utah?

No?

Why not?

Deflection.


You said anyone has standing to appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay, the SCOTUS said nope.



In Utah the State requested a stay, they have standing, they got the stay.


>>>>

Read my last post. This is a different legal situation than merely asking for a stay on gay marriage. This is the illegal revocation of the power of intitiative law and a circumvention of democracy per CA's constitution.

Completely different deal pal...speaking of deflection...

Uhhhh - not really.


California - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide not to appeal. Clerk tries to intervene. Doesn't have standing.

Pennsylvania - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide not to appeal. Clerk tries to intervene. Doesn't have standing.

Utah - Federal judges rules against state. State officials decide to appeal. SCOTUS grants stay.




See the difference? You said anyone has standing to appeal. False, only the State officials have standing to appeal.



>>>>

 

[Dante]

In a reaction, obviously to the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the writing they see on the wall, the fascist leadership of California...

...


I suggest that citizens in California begin a lawsuit IMMEDIATELY...

...

For reasons why citizens all across the country should be alarmed: this is a cult that has been utilizing blackmail and nazi-style techniques to force its agenda on various states and ultimately to access orphaned children...

...

Ahh, hiding behind the children? Are you now or were you ever a Catholic Priest?

How did you get in here. Your rantings and ravings about gays and legal opinions and 'children' are highly disturbing. Does the floor charge nurse know you are online?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Its not hating gays to want the word marriage to have its traditional meaning. I think most who oppose gay"marriage" would gladly grant most aspects of civil unions to gay couples.

A decade ago many homosexuals would have accepted Civil Unions equal in every respect to Civil Marriage (not a subset of treatment).

However it's those that oppose equal treatment of homosexual that slamed that door shut by passing in many States Constitutional Amendments that banned BOTH Civil Unions and Civil Marriage (like my State of Virginia).


Only now that homosexuals are winning in the courts, winning in the legislatures, winning in the polls, and winning at the ballot box is, suddenly, "Civil Unions" an acceptable alternative. Many of those that speak "for" it now are the same people that spoke "against" it then when they felt they were in power. Now that their position is not so secure the attitude is changing.

Personally I supported them back then also, they would have been a fine intermediate step. Pass Civil Unions, wait a generation or two (20-40 years) and people would still have referred to them as Marriage, and Spouses, and Wives (Husbands). Slowly then it would have merged back into one legal aspect.


>>>>