New Prop 8 Case Filed in CA July 12, 2013 Headed to SCOTUS Ultimately

[OODA_Loop]

You mean the one gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time of trial and who practiced active witness bullying by threatening to air the trail on youtube outside court rules? That guy?

vs 7 million?
...

Doesn't matter. The courts will uphold the findings. That part is over. A new vote of the people will uphold same-sex marriage, so that is over.

This is over, and your continued crying shames God's people.

There won't be a new vote. The CA Constitutional Amendment was ruled unconstitutional. There's no way to change that without an amendment to the US Constitution and that will NEVER fly.

The CA case was thrown out on lack of standing not constitutionality.

 

[Seawytch]

Kids, it wasn't just Loving in 1967. It was also in ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL and TURNER v. SAFLEY. Read up.

Did SCOTUS just not read up when they made a decision on the precedent and affirmation marriage is state purview ?

Once again for the cheap seats...the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS.

You already admitted that states can't violate the Constitution when making laws.

What are you still not getting?

 

[MeBelle]

Marriage altogether is not a civil right.

it's a contract, a legal institution

there are many categories of humans which can not enter into any legal contract.

Yes Vox and the Supreme Court addressed that specifically within the context of also addressing so-called "gay marriage":

From the DOMA Opinion text: scribd.com/doc/150137274/Supreme-Court-DOMA-Opinion]Supreme Court - DOMA Opinion

Pages 18-20
"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’sbeginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012).Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary(most States permit first cousins to marry

Supreme Court - DOMA Opinion

You need to put up more posts so you can post links.

 

[Seawytch]

Doesn't matter. The courts will uphold the findings. That part is over. A new vote of the people will uphold same-sex marriage, so that is over.

This is over, and your continued crying shames God's people.

There won't be a new vote. The CA Constitutional Amendment was ruled unconstitutional. There's no way to change that without an amendment to the US Constitution and that will NEVER fly.

The CA case was thrown out on lack of standing not constitutionality.

Leaving the lower court ruling as THE ruling. What was the ruling? Unconstitutional.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Kids, it wasn't just Loving in 1967. It was also in ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL and TURNER v. SAFLEY. Read up.

Did SCOTUS just not read up when they made a decision on the precedent and affirmation marriage is state purview ?

Once again for the cheap seats...the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS.

You already admitted that states can't violate the Constitution when making laws.

What are you still not getting?

SCOTUS made a decision on the precedent of a states right.

As a SCOTUS affirmed state's right under the 10thAM thus give no purview to the Federal construct on marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

There won't be a new vote. The CA Constitutional Amendment was ruled unconstitutional. There's no way to change that without an amendment to the US Constitution and that will NEVER fly.

Ruled unconstitutional by whom? On what grounds? Answer: Judge Walker on his own belief that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, that ruling is inferior and stale to the fresh and Superior one declaring a state's right to say "no" to gay marriage IS constitutional.


The gay is not at alla race, neither polygamy, incest nor minors. Gay is a behavior, not a race.

His ruling stands regardless. That ruling?

 

[Seawytch]

Did SCOTUS just not read up when they made a decision on the precedent and affirmation marriage is state purview ?

Once again for the cheap seats...the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS.

You already admitted that states can't violate the Constitution when making laws.

What are you still not getting?

SCOTUS made a decision on the precedent of a states right.

As a SCOTUS affirmed state's right under the 10thAM thus give no purview to the Federal construct on marriage.

So no, you're still not getting it. I could have told myself that. You'll understand soon.

 

[OODA_Loop]

There won't be a new vote. The CA Constitutional Amendment was ruled unconstitutional. There's no way to change that without an amendment to the US Constitution and that will NEVER fly.

The CA case was thrown out on lack of standing not constitutionality.

Leaving the lower court ruling as THE ruling. What was the ruling? Unconstitutional.

An appeal is thrown out for standing so that means the lower court decision is unconstitutional ?

Link ?

 

[g5000]

Because the recent Ruling in DOMA last month said over and over that states get to choose on gay marriage, stating therefore at the same moment that gay marriage is not a constitutional right, a new case has been filed that will test this.

In spite of what you may have heard, DOMA in total was not "struck down" last month. Only one part of it was, where the fed has to abide by what the Court calls "the states' unquestioned authority" to decide on gay marriage.

Actually, DOMA was struck down in total. The decision means the federal government must recognize any gay marriage recognized by a state. If a state has legalized gay marriage, the federal government must extend all the federal cash and prizes to same sex marriages performed in that state which it extends to opposite sex marriages.

So that means all 50 states get to choose "no" on gay marriage if they like as their constitutional guarantee. The Court just interpreted that.

That means, that Prop 8 and the California iniative system that duly enacted that law have been under illegal attack by the Governor there, Jerry Brown and others.

The case is an injunction filed to stop bogus marriage licenses being issued to gay people under the misconception that Gov. Brown has the authority over the state initiative system. He doesn't. He is merely a public servant charged with upholding state law, not dictating it against the Will of the majority 7 million who voted for Prop 8.

So Gov. Brown ordered the County Clerks to issue marriage licenses in violation of law. Only Los Angeles and Alameda were excepted in the weird vague "Opinion" on the rat's nest that is the original Prop 8 hearing at the State Supreme Court. The other counties are still bound to abide by state law: which the Supreme Court just said was legal by virtue of their statement that states get to decide with their "unquestioned authority".

Actually, Prop 8 was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court. By the US Supreme Court refusing to hear the case, that last decision by the Ninth Circuit stands. Prop 8 is struck down.

Gay marriages performed in California are consequently valid.

 

[bendog]

There won't be a new vote. The CA Constitutional Amendment was ruled unconstitutional. There's no way to change that without an amendment to the US Constitution and that will NEVER fly.

Ruled unconstitutional by whom? On what grounds? Answer: Judge Walker on his own belief that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, that ruling is inferior and stale to the fresh and Superior one declaring a state's right to say "no" to gay marriage IS constitutional.


The gay is not at alla race, neither polygamy, incest nor minors. Gay is a behavior, not a race.

His ruling stands regardless. That ruling?

My understanding is Walker's ruling stands. I suppose Calif govt could change position and try to defend Prop 8 by taking it back to the Fed Cir Court. Eventually, we'll probably havie a bunch of fed court cases saying no gay marriage bans are ok, and others saying the opposite. Then the Scoutus will be forced to decide.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Once again for the cheap seats...the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS.

You already admitted that states can't violate the Constitution when making laws.

What are you still not getting?

SCOTUS made a decision on the precedent of a states right.

As a SCOTUS affirmed state's right under the 10thAM thus give no purview to the Federal construct on marriage.

So no, you're still not getting it. I could have told myself that. You'll understand soon.

In order for the Constitutionality to be at issue it has to be for something afforded the purview of the Federal construct under the 10th.......race, handicap, religion.

Marriage law has been upheld by SCOTUS who relied on it as a state right to affirm Windsor.

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry g5000, gotta correct you. Only Sec 3 of DOMA was under review. Section 2 coming to a SCOTUS near you soon!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Gay marriages performed in California are legal and must be recognized by the federal government.

Yep a California purview and right.

Other states...not so much.

 

[bodecea]

no, it does not. if the issue is left to states - that is as clear as it can be NOT a civil right designation by SCOTUS

So...you've not read the decision on Loving v Virginia?

I could not care less about the decision. If the matter is left to the states - it is NOT a civil right.

Which it is not anyway

So you too wish to ignore one third of our federal government as set up by the Framers.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So you too wish to ignore one third of our federal government as set up by the Framers.

I wish to honor the Constitution and SCOTUS = states right.

 

[Vox]

So...you've not read the decision on Loving v Virginia?

I could not care less about the decision. If the matter is left to the states - it is NOT a civil right.

Which it is not anyway

So you too wish to ignore one third of our federal government as set up by the Framers.

SCOTUS never ruled marriage is a civil right, get of your ignorant high horse

 

[Seawytch]

SCOTUS made a decision on the precedent of a states right.

As a SCOTUS affirmed state's right under the 10thAM thus give no purview to the Federal construct on marriage.

So no, you're still not getting it. I could have told myself that. You'll understand soon.

In order for the Constitutionality to be at issue it has to be for something afforded the purview of the Federal construct under the 10th.......race, handicap, religion.

Marriage law has been upheld by SCOTUS who relied on it as a state right to affirm Windsor.

Only the pro, not the anti. Get it?

 

[bodecea]

Because the recent Ruling in DOMA last month said over and over that states get to choose on gay marriage, stating therefore at the same moment that gay marriage is not a constitutional right, a new case has been filed that will test this.

In spite of what you may have heard, DOMA in total was not "struck down" last month. Only one part of it was, where the fed has to abide by what the Court calls "the states' unquestioned authority" to decide on gay marriage.

Actually, DOMA was struck down in total. The decision means the federal government must recognize any gay marriage recognized by a state. If a state has legalized gay marriage, the federal government must extend all the federal cash and prizes to same sex marriages performed in that state which it extends to opposite sex marriages.

So that means all 50 states get to choose "no" on gay marriage if they like as their constitutional guarantee. The Court just interpreted that.

That means, that Prop 8 and the California iniative system that duly enacted that law have been under illegal attack by the Governor there, Jerry Brown and others.

The case is an injunction filed to stop bogus marriage licenses being issued to gay people under the misconception that Gov. Brown has the authority over the state initiative system. He doesn't. He is merely a public servant charged with upholding state law, not dictating it against the Will of the majority 7 million who voted for Prop 8.

So Gov. Brown ordered the County Clerks to issue marriage licenses in violation of law. Only Los Angeles and Alameda were excepted in the weird vague "Opinion" on the rat's nest that is the original Prop 8 hearing at the State Supreme Court. The other counties are still bound to abide by state law: which the Supreme Court just said was legal by virtue of their statement that states get to decide with their "unquestioned authority".

Actually, Prop 8 was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court. By the US Supreme Court refusing to hear the case, that last decision by the Ninth Circuit stands. Prop 8 is struck down.

Gay marriages performed in California are consequently valid.

And are going on again.

 

[g5000]

Sorry g5000, gotta correct you. Only Sec 3 of DOMA was under review. Section 2 coming to a SCOTUS near you soon!

Ah. Right you are. Thank you.

 

[g5000]

I think the more interesting and compelling legal point made in Loving is that you cannot ban a marriage for nothing more than irrational reasons, which is what bigotry is.

I believe this rationality requirement will eventually be the legal basis for legalizing gay marriages everywhere.