Preferential Treatment? California vs Utah

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, the states' did violate same sex individuals right to marriage subject to the 14th Amendment.

Your biblical and cultural view of marriage is not an imperative to the Constitution.

SCOTUS will merely refuse to hear Utah's appeal from the 10th's denial of its appeal.

Be as angry as you want, but it is what it is.

 

[Agit8r]

"It isn't a venial sin to acquiesce to or enable or have any part in normalizing a homosexual lifestyles in other words, it's a mortal sin"

Well, you could just move to Iran.

 

[Nyvin]

The Supreme Court didn't overturn prop 8 in CA...they refused to hear the case to appeal the decision of the district court to overturn the law. There's a huge difference.

Also CA did get a hold on it's gay marriages from the time the law was first overturned by a district court to the supreme court's decision to refuse to hear the case in 2013...the Ninth Circuit Court put a hold on the judge's decision to overturn prop 8. If the 9th didn't put a hold on the decision then gay marriage would've been legal in CA from 2010 onwards.

 

[Silhouette]

"It isn't a venial sin to acquiesce to or enable or have any part in normalizing a homosexual lifestyles in other words, it's a mortal sin"

Well, you could just move to Iran.

There are a lot of catholics in the US. What does Iran have to do with it? If catholics or other fundamental christian groups have a religious mandate to not enable the homosexual lifestyle/culture, that doesn't change with real estate boundaries.

The issue could have religious tinges in the Hearing, but what will also be weighed is the DOMA Opinion stating that on the question of gay marriage, states have the "unquestioned authority" on the matter and that authority derives from a broad consensus of the governed there.

The 14th cannot apply because LGBT are behaviors, not a race or class. The closest thing the LGBT subculture comes to is "religion". I've often wondered why they haven't applied for federal recognition?

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court didn't overturn prop 8 in CA...they refused to hear the case to appeal the decision of the district court to overturn the law. There's a huge difference.

Also CA did get a hold on it's gay marriages from the time the law was first overturned by a district court to the supreme court's decision to refuse to hear the case in 2013...the Ninth Circuit Court put a hold on the judge's decision to overturn prop 8. If the 9th didn't put a hold on the decision then gay marriage would've been legal in CA from 2010 onwards.

OK. But I was talking about last Summer July 2013, after DOMA/Prop 8 when the county clerks sued to halt gay marriage while they asked for clarification on Prop 8 and SCOTUS refused that stay? The county clerks of CA were under great anxiety to have to choose between defying the will of the people and defying pressure to defy the will of the people coming from Governor Brown and AG Kamala Harris of that state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

states have the "unquestioned authority" on the matter and that authority derives from a broad consensus of the governed there.

Which does not permit the overriding imperatives of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Katzndogz]

Understand what happened in California that makes it different from Utah. In California the state chose not to oppose the challenge to Prop 8. We don't know how it would have turned out because the state chose to default after one gay judge invalidated the law and promptly retired before he could experience the consequences of his ruling.

In Utah the state is acting appropriately in defending the laws passed by the people.

 

[Silhouette]

Understand what happened in California that makes it different from Utah. In California the state chose not to oppose the challenge to Prop 8. We don't know how it would have turned out because the state chose to default after one gay judge invalidated the law and promptly retired before he could experience the consequences of his ruling.

In Utah the state is acting appropriately in defending the laws passed by the people.

Define "the state" in the above. Because "the state" in California means "the initiative laws and the constitution". County clerks, part of the public servant body of "the state" pled for a stay and a resolution on how they knew public servants cannot override the initiative laws of that state.

Here's what "the state" constitution says about marriage to this very day:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_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.

Is it that the only people of Office in California that can appeal that laws be followed is the AG or the Governor? County Clerks are not allowed to mandate lawful conduct in their jurisdictions? Is this why their pleas for a stay were denied? Counties of a state don't have standing?

I'd like to see SCOTUS explain this in detail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Understand what happened in California that makes it different from Utah. In California the state chose not to oppose the challenge to Prop 8. We don't know how it would have turned out because the state chose to default after one gay judge invalidated the law and promptly retired before he could experience the consequences of his ruling.

In Utah the state is acting appropriately in defending the laws passed by the people.

If the laws violate the 14th, the judge acted correctly.

 

[Silhouette]

Understand what happened in California that makes it different from Utah. In California the state chose not to oppose the challenge to Prop 8. We don't know how it would have turned out because the state chose to default after one gay judge invalidated the law and promptly retired before he could experience the consequences of his ruling.

In Utah the state is acting appropriately in defending the laws passed by the people.

If the laws violate the 14th, the judge acted correctly.

Where in the 14th does it express that a limited group of deviant sex behavioralists "LGBT" have a "right" to marry, when marriage has always be a limited privelege defined by each state? A very similar question was asked of pro-gay lawyers last year at the DOMA/Prop 8 Twin Hearings by one of the Justices.

 

[Silhouette]

During oral arguments Tuesday, March 26th 2013, Justice Antonin Scalia asked,

“When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?”

When arguments were concluded for the twin DOMA/Prop 8 case, an Opinion was written. In that Opinion was cited that states have the final say on marriage under the context of the question of gay marriage. The Opinion even brought up the oft-cited "Loving v Virginia" where race prompted the Court to override state law regarding marriage.

Gays are quick to celebrate their little victories with much in-your-face smirking and whoops. No doubt they saw the citation in DOMA to "Loving" as a harbinger of an easy win, a shoe in once a new case made its way to the Court. However, the opposite is true. After citing Loving as an exception to state's unquestioned authority, the Court went on to say that gay marriage is only allowed "in some states". That's not what I would call an excellent omen on how future cases will be decided as to "Loving" to the favor of LGBT [but not polygamy, right?] marriage.

And with the Utah case, gays were quick to "whoop whoop in-your-face breeders!" Just the same they should be as cautious about absolute victory as they should be with DOMA/Windsor/Prop 8. Upon the announcement that the judge in Utah overturned the 2/3rds will of the People of that state, I quickly read the entire opinion. In it, curiously, was a series of vignettes of the gays petitioning the court for the overturn. Oddly, their entire life story was laid out one by one. In a good number of the six petitioners, several of them were reported to have morphed into "being gay".

This is pivotal because the only argument that would force the Court to overturn its conclusion of states-unquestioned-authority in DOMA would be convincing it that gayness is somehow, some way "innate" in spite of enormous amounts of scientific data to the opposite. The Mayo Clinic, Clinical Psychologists and university neurobiological behavioralists in Quebec who cite some 350 supporting peer reviewed studies all agree that sexual orientation and conditioning have undeniable links. And, polygamists could just as easily argue they were "born that way". The point is, the Court will have to draw the line on the nonsense and the question for them will be "where". Sexual fetishes run the gamut since they are learned and come co-morbid with infinite numbers of grafted stimuli. The Court cannot say "oh just this group of fetish behaviors can marry, but not this one cuz it's icky".

And if the Court finds that Utah is fully within its rights to set qualifiers for the privelege of marriage, then California always was too. Any marriages performed in this illegal environment, particularly onerous in California where county clerks were petitioning to stop having to issue illegal marriage licenses and were turned down both in appeal and stay when DOMA clearly said they had standing, will be nullified. Encouraging lawlessness via reward for bad behavior is not something the Court should do. And yes, knowingly usurping the democratic process and the clear description in DOMA by AG Kamala Harris and Governor Jerry Brown that their state legally defined marriage in Prop 8, completely qualifies as "bad behavior".

I say, if gays who thought they were married in California have an issue where they want to sue, they should sue the Governor and AG Harris for misleading them by ordering county clerks there under duress and their real and legitimate concerns for lawbreaking to order bogus marriage licenses in violation of iniative statute and the CA constitution as it is still written today:

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

 

[Silhouette]

It logically follows, of course, that if it's found that Utah's consensus is/was binding on their qualifiers for marriage, California's is/was/were as well.

This is it. The US Supreme Court has to validate gay marriage and polygamy and any other same or simliar "consenting...in love" across the 50 or definitively spell out that each state gets to decide.

Having already decided, many of them, those laws will be retroactively binding. That's how DOMA was written last Summer:

[Page 17- 19] Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations...

...In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction....

...The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning...

...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, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice)...

...The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism....

...In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sexmarriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of theirown times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in thefederal system are to allow the formation of consensus

Utah's law: state defined consensus on marriage.

California's law: state defined consensus on marriage.

One state's AG got a stay on "gay marriage" and an appeal granted.

The other state's county clerks got no stay on marriage and no appeal granted on the same legal grounds. IDENTICAL.

Like I warned many months ago to gays prematurely celebratory about their "certain victory", their marriages may just be a sham since they are/were not lawful as federally described in DOMA/Prop 8. You CANNOT usurp democratic consensus with the sweep of one judge's pen. Our country was founded on checks and balances. Read the fine print in DOMA to find out how gay marriage judicial-fiats were annulled June 2013...

 

[Silhouette]

Crickets...lol..

Eric Holder I see has joined California's AG Harris and Governor Brown in the contempt of the US Supreme Court's intent with the stay it just issued in the Utah case. They know what the stay means and they've read DOMA. The language in my last post their eyes have walked upon and they know exactly what implications this has for both Utah and California.

Their logic seems to be "if we keep breaking the law, we can change the rules of the US legal system."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Understand what happened in California that makes it different from Utah. In California the state chose not to oppose the challenge to Prop 8. We don't know how it would have turned out because the state chose to default after one gay judge invalidated the law and promptly retired before he could experience the consequences of his ruling.

In Utah the state is acting appropriately in defending the laws passed by the people.

If the laws violate the 14th, the judge acted correctly.

Where in the 14th does it express that a limited group of deviant sex behavioralists "LGBT" have a "right" to marry, when marriage has always be a limited privelege defined by each state? A very similar question was asked of pro-gay lawyers last year at the DOMA/Prop 8 Twin Hearings by one of the Justices.

The appellate court or SCOTUS can explain it to you. That you don't get the 14th, Sil, is your issue: no one else's.

Holder said that the state of Utah will not interfere with married couples and federal law and perquisites and reciprocities. That means the Utah state income tax, which rides on the back of the federal tax filings of married coupes, will have to recognize all married couples' filings.

 

[Silhouette]

If the laws violate the 14th, the judge acted correctly.

Where in the 14th does it express that a limited group of deviant sex behavioralists "LGBT" have a "right" to marry, when marriage has always be a limited privelege defined by each state? A very similar question was asked of pro-gay lawyers last year at the DOMA/Prop 8 Twin Hearings by one of the Justices.

The appellate court or SCOTUS can explain it to you. That you don't get the 14th, Sil, is your issue: no one else's.

Holder said that the state of Utah will not interfere with married couples and federal law and perquisites and reciprocities. That means the Utah state income tax, which rides on the back of the federal tax filings of married coupes, will have to recognize all married couples' filings.

The state of Utah could simply defy Eric Holder since he is in defiance of the spirit of the stay from the Supreme Court.

 

[Silhouette]

The appellate court or SCOTUS can explain it to you. That you don't get the 14th, Sil, is your issue: no one else's.

Holder said that the state of Utah will not interfere with married couples and federal law and perquisites and reciprocities. That means the Utah state income tax, which rides on the back of the federal tax filings of married coupes, will have to recognize all married couples' filings.

I say, the state of Utah SHOULD interfere with federal law if it's coming as a contempt-of-court-mandate like Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris in California. Who is Eric Holder anyway? He's not going to stand up to the entire state of Utah if they call him out. He's one guy with no punch on this issue.

Let's say for argument's sake that the state of Utah said to Holder's mandate, "no, screw you." What would his next move be? And before you start mentioning the national guard and dragging officials from Utah into hearings, bear in mind that to do so would be political suicide for the democratic party which Holder is clearly being an activist for in this little kerfuffle.

The bottom line is that this little play of disrespecting the US Supreme Court's decisions can start spiralling outward in many weird forms. If Holder wants to act in contempt of the spirit of the stay in Utah, then Utah can act in contempt of the spirit of anything Holder comes up with. ie: call him on his bluff and see what this Administration does about it.

I could be wrong but I don't think that will be anything. 2014 is a year the dems are going to need every vote they can't get back that they've alienated out of the middle by promoting the cult of Harvey Milk worshippers.

 

[Silhouette]

On fairness and predicting how this thing might go:

The federal appeals court has already set an expedited schedule to hear Utah’s plea to permanently halt gay weddings. The court has ordered that briefing be complete by February.

“This stay is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is over,” says James Magleby, one of the attorneys representing the same sex couples in the case. “Every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally.”

The Supreme Court, as is its custom, gave no explanation for its order today. There were no noted dissents. On one hand, there could be justices who think that Utah might prevail on the issue eventually. But on the other hand, the stay might simply indicate that the justices felt the most prudent course was to stop the marriages for now.

“In issuing a stay, the Supreme Court has essentially ‘frozen’ the order of the federal district court until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the merits of the case,” says Elizabeth Cooper of Fordham Law ” That is not likely to happen until spring 2014 . The Supreme Court gave no reasoning for its action, but in some ways acted in keeping with the Court’s tradition: when there is a lot at stake, moving slowly is the best approach.”

Cooper says the 10th Circuit will have to rule both on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on marriages by same-sex couples, as well as the validity of the hundreds of marriages entered into by same-sex couples in the state since the district court’s ruling last month. In their briefings before the court, both sides relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision, United States v. Windsor. That decision struck part of a federal law that denied federal benefits to couples legally married in their state. But Windsor left open the question of whether states could bar same-sex couples from civil marriage. Utah Gay Marriage Case Could Make It Back to Supreme Court After Appeal - ABC News

Yeah, no. Windsor directly addressed that states have the unquestioned authority to define marriage for themselves. They brought up Loving and then still decided gay marriage was up to each state. They already decided that. Could they change their mind on their own stance less than a year old? Sure, I suppose. But it isn't very likely.

"Children will be harmed if gay marriage isn't allowed in Utah"? Are these the same gays and lesbians holding up a child predator as their cultural icon in California..and requiring kids celebrate his sexual achievments? I'd say children are already being harmed and making gay marriage legal isn't going to fix that problem...

The bit that's underlined above is the part where SCOTUS completely disregarded California's pleas for a stay to uphold the majority will of 7 million. Apparently those 7 million US Citizens and their right to democracy and self-rule don't count? The Court in that instance where the county clerks appealed in California, basically acted in collusion with rogue CA officials to hold down Cali residents and cram gay marriage down their throats with their hands tied behind their backs... The Court didn't move slowly, it moved swiftly to remove legitimate pleas from County clerks who did not and still do not want to be in violation of state law. Does the High Court not realize that this is what California's constitution says to this day, this very minute?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_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.

...whatever...