The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Surfer]

We are spirits. We live in bodies. We have souls (mind, will, emotion). People choose to be queers.

 

[Seawytch]

Take away the tax breaks and DOMA is still discrimination and still unconstitutional (just like Prop 8)...and you still don't think it is discrimination. That makes you a bigot.

No. When you accept that homosexuality is about behavior and not a person's identity, you learn that it isn't being a "bigot" to disagree with it. We discriminate against all manner of behaviors that society finds objectionable. Is someone a "bigot" for finding polygamy objectionable? No. It's another sexual behavior that society has found repugnant to promote as "normal". We can do that. It's called "democracy", not "bigotry".

Y'all aren't a race. You're not a religion [but that's as close as you'll come]. You're not a gender. And your not from a country of origin. You don't qualify. So when someone disagrees with your behaviors, that's not bigotry. Being disagreed with is something you're going to have to get used to.

...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California. It's also called "a democracy".

Innate traits are innate traits. That red herring aside, in a free society it shouldn't matter if orientation is chosen (it is not). There is no societal harm in our consenting adult "behaviors". That's the crux of why anti gay marriage laws lose and will continue to lose...you can't ascribe a societal harm in allowing us to marry the consenting adult partner of our choice.

Yes, marriage was legal in CA in the months leading up to the unconstitutional Prop 8...then there was a short legal battle and now they are "legal" again and will remain so. CA is lost to the haters. Pennsylvania is going soon.

 

[Surfer]

The good, decent, normal people of CA keep voting it down. The queers, fags, dykes, bi's, trannies and other freakshows keep shoving it down their throats. They should just go back in the closet. Ugh.

 

[WorldWatcher]

...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California.

That is false. Legal Same-sex Civil Marriage performed in June, July, August, September, October, and prior to November 5th 2008 are still legal in California.

As previously pointed out to you, the California Constitution requires that all Amendments are effective the day after the election unless another date is specified, Prop 8 contained no such provision therefore it only became effective November 5th, 2008 and later. Prop 22 (statutory alaw) was invalidated,not by the Federal government, but by the State because it conflicted with the States Constitution.

So according to California law, ya - they are still valid.

Glad we could put that to bed.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California.

That is false. Legal Same-sex Civil Marriage performed in June, July, August, September, October, and prior to November 5th 2008 are still legal in California.

As previously pointed out to you, the California Constitution requires that all Amendments are effective the day after the election unless another date is specified, Prop 8 contained no such provision therefore it only became effective November 5th, 2008 and later. Prop 22 (statutory alaw) was invalidated,not by the Federal government, but by the State because it conflicted with the States Constitution.


>>>>

But according to federal law that trumps CA law, the consensus barring gay marriages were allowed since the founding of the country. In the CA constitution, there is a reference to its subordination to the US constitution. June 2013 the US Supreme Court found as constitutional, each state's right to consensus on gay marriage. See the OP for details and quotes. As such, no lower law may interfere with the 7 million who voted for Prop 8 and their protected right to choose "yes" or "no" on gay marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California.

That is false. Legal Same-sex Civil Marriage performed in June, July, August, September, October, and prior to November 5th 2008 are still legal in California.

As previously pointed out to you, the California Constitution requires that all Amendments are effective the day after the election unless another date is specified, Prop 8 contained no such provision therefore it only became effective November 5th, 2008 and later. Prop 22 (statutory alaw) was invalidated,not by the Federal government, but by the State because it conflicted with the States Constitution.


>>>>

But according to federal law that trumps CA law, the consensus barring gay marriages were allowed since the founding of the country. In the CA constitution, there is a reference to its subordination to the US constitution. June 2013 the US Supreme Court found as constitutional, each state's right to consensus on gay marriage. See the OP for details and quotes. As such, no lower law may interfere with the 7 million who voted for Prop 8 and their protected right to choose "yes" or "no" on gay marriage.

And the consensus under California law would have not become effective until November 5th, 2008, notice the use of "would", since it was overturned and the decision not vacated by the SCOTUS it remains overturned. The (the SCOTUS) had their chance to overturn the District Court, but didn't.

You can hang your hat on dicta from the DOMA case used in the descriptive, but the fact remains that he decision of the court in the PROP 8 case was "Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction."

The fact remains that the SCOTUS vacated the 9th's ruling and ordered dismissal of the appeal. Therefore the District Court decision remains in effect because the SCOTUS DID NOT over turn the District Court. The State chose not to appeal the District Courts ruling and therefore became binding. Even if later administrations wished to reopen the case for appeal, they won't be able to because I believe there are certain time frames after the initial decision in which appeals can be filed. That time frame has long past.

Now if you think that the consensus of the vote in Prop 8 was that it invalidated Civil Marriages back to the beginning of time, feel free to show the text of the amendment that provides such a time frame? Otherwise the amendment would have been effective on the 5th and the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution validated those Civil Marriages that had already ocurred.

You would need a new vote to invalidate them and times have continued to change, good luck with winning that at (removing legal Civil Marriages that were already in place) the polls.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

And the consensus under California law would have not become effective until November 5th, 2008, notice the use of "would", since it was overturned and the decision not vacated by the SCOTUS it remains overturned. The (the SCOTUS) had their chance to overturn the District Court, but didn't.

You can hang your hat on dicta from the DOMA case used in the descriptive, but the fact remains that he decision of the court in the PROP 8 case was "Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction."

The fact remains that the SCOTUS vacated the 9th's ruling and ordered dismissal of the appeal. Therefore the District Court decision remains in effect because the SCOTUS DID NOT over turn the District Court. The State chose not to appeal the District Courts ruling and therefore became binding. Even if later administrations wished to reopen the case for appeal, they won't be able to because I believe there are certain time frames after the initial decision in which appeals can be filed. That time frame has long past.

Now if you think that the consensus of the vote in Prop 8 was that it invalidated Civil Marriages back to the beginning of time, feel free to show the text of the amendment that provides such a time frame? Otherwise the amendment would have been effective on the 5th and the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution validated those Civil Marriages that had already ocurred.

You would need a new vote to invalidate them and times have continued to change, good luck with winning that at (removing legal Civil Marriages that were already in place) the polls.
>>>>

In your "time of validity" calculations, don't forget Prop 22...

And don't forget that SCOTUS tied the two cases legally together by hearing them at the same time. Can you think of a time when the US Supreme Court has ever done this and why?

The Ruling said that the specific petitioners lacked standing to bring the case, not that every single person lacked standing to bring the case. The "appeal" was heard and Ruled upon in a very sneaky way. By combining the two cases and joining them legally at the hip by hearing them at the same Sitting and Ruling on them at the same revelation, SCOTUS actually "Heard" and factually did represent a case of good standing against the overturners of Prop 8: Itself. The Court Itself in one clever legal manuever stood up for the petitioners/defenders of Prop 8 by Ruling in the twin case DOMA that each and EVERY single state had since the start of the country, the unquestioned constitutionally protected authority to decide BY CONSENSUS the legality of gay marriage. That is the Finding as of June 2013.

Ergo, They brought the case themselves in favor of Prop 8 and ruled upon it in a covert, yet fully visible way, by combining it with DOMA at the same Sitting. You have yet to appreciate the cleverness, but it makes it no less legally binding because you won't look it straight in the eye...

Again, if you think you're legally "gay" married in CA, think again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the consensus under California law would have not become effective until November 5th, 2008, notice the use of "would", since it was overturned and the decision not vacated by the SCOTUS it remains overturned. The (the SCOTUS) had their chance to overturn the District Court, but didn't.

You can hang your hat on dicta from the DOMA case used in the descriptive, but the fact remains that he decision of the court in the PROP 8 case was "Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction."

The fact remains that the SCOTUS vacated the 9th's ruling and ordered dismissal of the appeal. Therefore the District Court decision remains in effect because the SCOTUS DID NOT over turn the District Court. The State chose not to appeal the District Courts ruling and therefore became binding. Even if later administrations wished to reopen the case for appeal, they won't be able to because I believe there are certain time frames after the initial decision in which appeals can be filed. That time frame has long past.

Now if you think that the consensus of the vote in Prop 8 was that it invalidated Civil Marriages back to the beginning of time, feel free to show the text of the amendment that provides such a time frame? Otherwise the amendment would have been effective on the 5th and the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution validated those Civil Marriages that had already ocurred.

You would need a new vote to invalidate them and times have continued to change, good luck with winning that at (removing legal Civil Marriages that were already in place) the polls.
>>>>

In your "time of validity" calculations, don't forget Prop 22...

Prop 22 was a statutory law overturned the State Supreme Court in the "re: Marriages" decision of 2008 which it what allowed for legal Civil Marriages between members of the same gender to occur beginning in June 2008.

Prop 22 has no bearing on Prop 8 other than that it was the law struck down by the state.

And don't forget that SCOTUS tied the two cases legally together by hearing them at the same time. Can you think of a time when the US Supreme Court has ever done this and why?

The SCOTUS has both heard cases together and has merged separate appeals, typically when conflicting decisions have been submitted for appeal from different Court of Appeals from different jurisdictions.

The SCOTUS did not merge the cases, if they had they would have issued one opinion covering both cases. That is not what they did here. Anticipating that both DOMA and Prop 8 would present redundant arguments, they expanded the time for oral arguments and allowed them to be heard concurrently. The SCOTUS though did not merge the cases and issue a single ruling, they maintained each case as a separate entity. This is shown since they issued separate rulings in each case.

The Ruling said that the specific petitioners lacked standing to bring the case, not that every single person lacked standing to bring the case. The "appeal" was heard and Ruled upon in a very sneaky way. By combining the two cases and joining them legally at the hip by hearing them at the same Sitting and Ruling on them at the same revelation, SCOTUS actually "Heard" and factually did represent a case of good standing against the overturners of Prop 8: Itself. The Court Itself in one clever legal manuever stood up for the petitioners/defenders of Prop 8 by Ruling in the twin case DOMA that each and EVERY single state had since the start of the country, the unquestioned constitutionally protected authority to decide BY CONSENSUS the legality of gay marriage. That is the Finding as of June 2013.

Wrong, the SCOTUS issued two separate rulings, they did not join the cases. Expanding the time for oral arguments and issueing two separate rulings is not the same as merging cases and issuing a single ruling covering both.

Again, if you think you're legally "gay" married in CA, think again.

I'm not married under the laws of California, I'm "straight" married under the laws of TN and have been for 26 years.

However the folks Civilly Marriage between June and November 4th 2008 though are all legally Civilly Married under the laws of CA irregardless of gender. If you think they aren't, think again. I know you don't want them to be, but the reality is that they are.



>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

read an article recently that hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases

In Doma the gay couple had already won, yet somehow wound up in Supreme court anyway. The justice department refused to defend Doma which was the will of the people as expressed by Congress,.. that should not be allowed...if they dont want to defend a law, resign, or find someone who does..as in California,

In California the will of the people was expressed in prop8, the Attorney general refused to defend the law, (again...should have resigned,)...but California does have provisions for that...which the Supreme court hypocritically (especially in light of the doma case) refused to recognize.

no doubt Scalia, is chuckling to himself about the outcome

 

[Seawytch]

read an article recently that hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases

In Doma the gay couple had already won, yet somehow wound up in Supreme court anyway. The justice department refused to defend Doma which was the will of the people as expressed by Congress,.. that should not be allowed...if they dont want to defend a law, resign, or find someone who does..as in California,

In California the will of the people was expressed in prop8, the Attorney general refused to defend the law, (again...should have resigned,)...but California does have provisions for that...which the Supreme court hypocritically (especially in light of the doma case) refused to recognize.

no doubt Scalia, is chuckling to himself about the outcome

You need to read up on the DOMA and Prop 8 cases. You're wrong on just about every point.

 

[dcraelin]

You need to read up on the DOMA and Prop 8 cases. You're wrong on just about every point.

I have read substantial portions, And believe I am right, but if your so knowlegable please point out the errors.

 

[Seawytch]

read an article recently that hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases

In Doma the gay couple had already won, yet somehow wound up in Supreme court anyway. The justice department refused to defend Doma which was the will of the people as expressed by Congress,.. that should not be allowed...if they dont want to defend a law, resign, or find someone who does..as in California,

No, Edith Windsor had not "already won". Do you not understand the appeals process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7), which provided that the term "spouse" only applies to a marriage between a man and woman. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes.

And DOMA did not go undefended. The House of Representatives hired a very expensive law firm to defend it...those fiscal hawks!

On November 9, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the federal government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Windsor sought a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for "differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples without justification."[4] On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement from the Obama administration that agreed with the plaintiff's position that DOMA violated the U.S. Constitution and said he would no longer defend the law in court. On April 18, 2011, Paul Clement, representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) continued defense of the law. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012

BLAG and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."

In California the will of the people was expressed in prop8, the Attorney general refused to defend the law, (again...should have resigned,)...but California does have provisions for that...which the Supreme court hypocritically (especially in light of the doma case) refused to recognize.

In CA, the "will of the people" violated the Constitution. Why should the Attorney General have to defend a law they didn't write and that they believe took rights away from people. Why would you want them to? Think they'd do a good job?

The travesty is in the SCOTUS ruling that the defendants of Prop 8 had no standing. With a people's initiative, the SCOTUS needs to have more tolerance for who gets to defend it. The SCOTUS chickened out...because they know they too would have had to find Prop 8 unconstitutional.

no doubt Scalia, is chuckling to himself about the outcome

Scalia knows its coming, just read his dissent.

 

[dcraelin]

"On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012"

(she had already won)

"U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed"

if you arent defending you should not be able to appeal,,..this makes a mockery of the appeals process. Im not sure what the role of the "bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG)" was but if standing wasnt granted in prop8 this group shouldnt have been given standing either. ....

"In CA, the "will of the people" violated the Constitution. Why should the Attorney General have to defend a law they didn't write and that they believe took rights away from people. Why would you want them to? Think they'd do a good job?

The travesty is in the SCOTUS ruling that the defendants of Prop 8 had no standing. With a people's initiative, the SCOTUS needs to have more tolerance for who gets to defend it. The SCOTUS chickened out...because they know they too would have had to find Prop 8 unconstitutional. "

agree with you on most of this but that it was unconstitutional. also attorneys work for their clients, AGs should too, but alongside other group......or resign

Scalia is chuckling to himself cause he doesnt really believe in the initiative process, and the Prop8 ruling may well have damaged that. Even when he made empty noises about Democracy in DOMA case. the LGBT community was used.

 

[Seawytch]

"On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012"

(she had already won)

"U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed"

if you arent defending you should not be able to appeal,,..this makes a mockery of the appeals process. Im not sure what the role of the "bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG)" was but if standing wasnt granted in prop8 this group shouldnt have been given standing either. ....

The winner isn't the one that appeals, duh. The DOJ, as the loser, appealed.

The Obama administration initially defended the marriage act under the Department of Justice’s traditional role of defending acts of Congress as presumptively constitutional. In February 2011, however, the Justice Department declined to defend the act in court, though the government continued to enforce the law. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a House panel, took on the case under the leadership of Paul Clement, a former solicitor general in the administration of President George W. Bush.

U.S. Marriage Act Is Unfair to Gays, Court Panel Says

agree with you on most of this but that it was unconstitutional. also attorneys work for their clients, AGs should too, but alongside other group......or resign

And I disagree. It's a people's initiative. The people that drafted it should defend it and the SCOTUS should have let them.

Oh, and its not me you're disagreeing with on the Constitutionality of Prop 8...it was ruled unconstitutional and since the SCOTUS punted, it's the ruling that stands.

Scalia is chuckling to himself cause he doesnt really believe in the initiative process, and the Prop8 ruling may well have damaged that. Even when he made empty noises about Democracy in DOMA case. the LGBT community was used.

No, Scalia is bitter and angry because he knows gay marriage is inevitable.

I don't believe in the initiative process either so there is at least one thing Scalia and I agree on.

 

[JoeB131]

It is true that gay marriage is inevitable, as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire was. Therefore, our fall is inevitable as we eat away at the underpinnings of the nation until, like a two legged table, it falls.

It is sad to see. We were once such a great nation and now it's time for someone else's turn.

Pssst. Pssst. When Rome Collapsed, it was a CHRISTIAN EMPIRE for over two centuries.

So your argument is kind of the oppossite. It isn't loose morals that brought down Rome, it was religious stupidity.

The Dark Ages- The First "Faith-Based Initiative"

 

[JoeB131]

read an article recently that hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases

In Doma the gay couple had already won, yet somehow wound up in Supreme court anyway. The justice department refused to defend Doma which was the will of the people as expressed by Congress,.. that should not be allowed...if they dont want to defend a law, resign, or find someone who does..as in California,

In California the will of the people was expressed in prop8, the Attorney general refused to defend the law, (again...should have resigned,)...but California does have provisions for that...which the Supreme court hypocritically (especially in light of the doma case) refused to recognize.

no doubt Scalia, is chuckling to himself about the outcome

I think you have a few points wrong.

In Windsor, the issue was whether DOMA required the survivor to pay a non-relative's level of tax on her partner's estate. yes, she won in lower courts, but a group representing Congress appealled the lower court rulings. the DOJ also filed to protect parts of DOMA that they were still defending.

In Perry, the problem remains that because CA was issuing Civil Union licenses, banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, period.

Incidently, I do think SCOTUS punted on this one, as they could have struck down DOMA in its entirity and upheld Judge Walker's original finding that there is a constitutional right to marriage under previous rulings in Roemer and Lawrence. but they aren't ready to jump that far yet.

They are probably waiting for a few more states to legalize it.

 

[dcraelin]

The winner isn't the one that appeals, duh. The DOJ, as the loser, appealed.

thats what I said, can you read? "U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed", but someone said below they appealed only parts still standing, that makes more sense
but sill leaves this other group with standing which is hypocritical especially in light of Prop8 outcome. To be consistent they should have not heard the case.

And I disagree. It's a people's initiative. The people that drafted it should defend it and the SCOTUS should have let them.

I'm agreeing with you on this except to a small degree that someone from AGs office should have defended alongside drafters.

Oh, and its not me you're disagreeing with on the Constitutionality of Prop 8...it was ruled unconstitutional and since the SCOTUS punted, it's the ruling that stands.

........I assume Im also disagreeing with you, that you support prop8

[

quote]Scalia is chuckling to himself cause he doesnt really believe in the initiative process, and the Prop8 ruling may well have damaged that. Even when he made empty noises about Democracy in DOMA case. the LGBT community was used.

No, Scalia is bitter and angry because he knows gay marriage is inevitable.

I don't believe in the initiative process either so there is at least one thing Scalia and I agree on.[/QUOTE]

Scalia made alot of noises like he was angry but when push came to shove he got his way on prop8.

The initiative is one of few ways to check a corrupt or unrepresentative government. It is an essential part of a Republic/Democracy. see my picture of Jefferson quotes.

[hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases

I think you have a few points wrong.

In Windsor, the issue was whether DOMA required the survivor to pay a non-relative's level of tax on her partner's estate. yes, she won in lower courts, but a group representing Congress appealled the lower court rulings. the DOJ also filed to protect parts of DOMA that they were still defending.

In Perry, the problem remains that because CA was issuing Civil Union licenses, banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, period.

A constitution, to have legitimacy, has to reflect the will of the people. The California constitution spoke most recently and directly on the issue. NO to gay marriage (and it has always been the states area of law) ...this case never should have got to the federal courts at all ...the right way to handle this would have been to bring it up again in a few years as an initiative in California

 

[WorldWatcher]

A constitution, to have legitimacy, has to reflect the will of the people. The California constitution spoke most recently and directly on the issue. NO to gay marriage (and it has always been the states area of law) ...this case never should have got to the federal courts at all ...the right way to handle this would have been to bring it up again in a few years as an initiative in California

The people said NO to interracial marriage passing statutory and constitutional amendment banning it. Do you also feel that a state can bar such a right (or privilege) based on color since Civil Marriage has always been a state area of law?

Was the Supreme Court of California wrong in 1948 to over that states provisions against interracial marriage based on the States Constitution guarantee of equal protection and was the SCOTUS wrong to overturn Virginia law based on the guarantee of equal protection in the federal Constitution?


>>>>

 

[g5000]

Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is.

"Habituated sexual paraphilia." Nice try. You are just another bigot trying to equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

 

[g5000]

It is true that gay marriage is inevitable, as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire was.

Why do you keep parroting this idiotic meme? Don't you realize it reveals your utter ignorance of Roman history?