The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

1) constitutions have no legitimacy if not based on the will of the people. If the people had known that the 14th amendment included gay marriage rights, it would not have passed and blacks would be disadvantaged too.

2) the correct way to approach this is to have civil unions with perhaps marriage as a "stare decisis" subcategory of civil union. no civil unions could carry with them tax benefits

3)for the dubious advancement of going from full-benefit civil unions to "marriage" in California, the gay community has perhaps done major damage to Our Republic/Democracy. The initiative and referendum is one of the few methods left to get around a purchased government.

The right way to do this is to do it as 13 states and the District of Columbia have done and properly apply the 14th Amendment.

Did you know that in the late 1800s an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to prohibit interracial marriage because this guy (rightfully) thought the 14th would be used to legalize those marriages?

Discrimination never changes.

 

[Silhouette]

1) constitutions have no legitimacy if not based on the will of the people. If the people had known that the 14th amendment included gay marriage rights, it would not have passed and blacks would be disadvantaged too.

2) the correct way to approach this is to have civil unions with perhaps marriage as a "stare decisis" subcategory of civil union. no civil unions could carry with them tax benefits

3)for the dubious advancement of going from full-benefit civil unions to "marriage" in California, the gay community has perhaps done major damage to Our Republic/Democracy. The initiative and referendum is one of the few methods left to get around a purchased government.

That's assuming their coup has been successful. All it would take is one, just one, registered voter suing the state to have his or her vote counted and to march that to the US Supreme Court. That would be the end of it. They would filter that case very quickly through the DOMA Ruling/twin of Prop 8 to declare to the world how reality really is. Gay marriage is not now, nor ever has been legal in California. The initiative system lives. No cabal can take that away from California.

 

[Silhouette]

The right way to do this is to do it as 13 states and the District of Columbia have done and properly apply the 14th Amendment.

Did you know that in the late 1800s an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to prohibit interracial marriage because this guy (rightfully) thought the 14th would be used to legalize those marriages?

Discrimination never changes.

Where are you getting the number 13 from Seawytch? SCOTUS say it's only 12.

From the DOMA Ruling:

"New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.." Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

New York + 11 = 12 and the District of Columbia, not "13" and the District of Columbia.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The right way to do this is to do it as 13 states and the District of Columbia have done and properly apply the 14th Amendment.

Did you know that in the late 1800s an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to prohibit interracial marriage because this guy (rightfully) thought the 14th would be used to legalize those marriages?

Discrimination never changes.

Where are you getting the number 13 from Seawytch? SCOTUS say it's only 12.

From the DOMA Ruling:

"New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.." Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

New York + 11 = 12 and the District of Columbia, not "13" and the District of Columbia.

I believe this has been pointed out before. Since the review of the DOMA case and the Prop 8 case occurred at the same time, at the time of the drafting of the DOMA opinion - the Prop 8 opinion had not been released.

Therefore during the drafting of the DOMA decision the number of states did number 12. However once the Prop 8 opinion was released and the State then began allowing same sex Civil Marriages based on the District Courts ruling that added one more to the list. California.

The states currently stand at:

1. California,
2. Connecticut,
3. Delaware,
4. Iowa,
5. Maine,
6. Maryland,
7. Massachusetts,
8. Minnesota,
9. New Hampshire,
10. New York,
11. Rhode Island,
12. Vermont,
13. and Washington

Adding the District of Columbia takes the list to 14 government entities.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Not if you consider that the constitutional right of each state to consensus [since the founding of the country] on gay marriage trumps any lower court saying they don't have that right.

Then SCOTUS hearing both cases at the same time and declaring in DOMA that there are only 12 states with legal gay marriage, takes on a whole new flavor, doesn't it? No lower court may take away a state's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. Back to the founding of the country it was found to be a retroactive constitutional right.

Gay marriages in CA are ergo, illegal.

 

[Seawytch]

The right way to do this is to do it as 13 states and the District of Columbia have done and properly apply the 14th Amendment.

Did you know that in the late 1800s an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to prohibit interracial marriage because this guy (rightfully) thought the 14th would be used to legalize those marriages?

Discrimination never changes.

Where are you getting the number 13 from Seawytch? SCOTUS say it's only 12.

From the DOMA Ruling:

"New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.." Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

New York + 11 = 12 and the District of Columbia, not "13" and the District of Columbia.

I believe this has been pointed out before. Since the review of the DOMA case and the Prop 8 case occurred at the same time, at the time of the drafting of the DOMA opinion - the Prop 8 opinion had not been released.

Therefore during the drafting of the DOMA decision the number of states did number 12. However once the Prop 8 opinion was released and the State then began allowing same sex Civil Marriages based on the District Courts ruling that added one more to the list. California.

The states currently stand at:

1. California,
2. Connecticut,
3. Delaware,
4. Iowa,
5. Maine,
6. Maryland,
7. Massachusetts,
8. Minnesota,
9. New Hampshire,
10. New York,
11. Rhode Island,
12. Vermont,
13. and Washington

Adding the District of Columbia takes the list to 14 government entities.



>>>>

Soon to be 15 with HI jumping in. Does Silhoutte believe DOMA won't apply to HI either?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not if you consider that the constitutional right of each state to consensus [since the founding of the country] on gay marriage trumps any lower court saying they don't have that right.

Then SCOTUS hearing both cases at the same time and declaring in DOMA that there are only 12 states with legal gay marriage, takes on a whole new flavor, doesn't it? No lower court may take away a state's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. Back to the founding of the country it was found to be a retroactive constitutional right.

Gay marriages in CA are ergo, illegal.

I guess you were so interested in snipping out a small chuck of text to stretch a perceived - but failing - point, you missed in the opening sentence of the next paragraph:

"In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own 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 the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other.

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.​

Even if the State reaches consensus on it's marriage laws, that "consensus" is still subject to the Constitution. Given your logic, the court would not have decided Loving in the way it did because the consensus of the Commonwealth of Virginia at the time, represented in their laws - was that Negros should not Civilly Marry whites.

That is not the decision of the Court.

The other point that you choose to ignore is that the SCOTUS did not vacate the District Court ruling, they left it in place. The only decision vacated was the 9th ruling because the SCOTUS ruled that - since they defenders were not State actors - they didn't have standing.

In the Prop 8 decision, if the meaning of the court had been to vacate the ruling that overturned Prop 8 they would have vacated the lower courts decision - they didn't.


***************************************

You are free to join us in reality. The SCOTUS was not ready to address the SSCM, therefore the crafted a Prop 8 ruling that narrowly only applied to California to allow Prop 8 to stand.

Then SCOTUS hearing both cases at the same time and declaring in DOMA that there are only 12 states with legal gay marriage, takes on a whole new flavor, doesn't it?

Not in the least, as what the Justice wrote was "New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia".

At the time of the writing there were 12 states with SSCM, after the Prop 8 decision because operative - which occurred after the writing of the DOMA decision - California became the 13th State to have SSCM (in that case re-legalized).

It makes perfect sense to those willing to take a step back look at the bigger picture and not just try to take small snippets out of context on which to base a whole - incorrect - legal theory.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I guess you were so interested in snipping out a small chuck of text to stretch a perceived - but failing - point, you missed in the opening sentence of the next paragraph:

"In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own 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 the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other.

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.​

Even if the State reaches consensus on it's marriage laws, that "consensus" is still subject to the Constitution. Given your logic, the court would not have decided Loving in the way it did because the consensus of the Commonwealth of Virginia at the time, represented in their laws - was that Negros should not Civilly Marry whites.

That is not the decision of the Court.

The other point that you choose to ignore is that the SCOTUS did not vacate the District Court ruling, they left it in place. The only decision vacated was the 9th ruling because the SCOTUS ruled that - since they defenders were not State actors - they didn't have standing.

In the Prop 8 decision, if the meaning of the court had been to vacate the ruling that overturned Prop 8 they would have vacated the lower courts decision - they didn't.


***************************************

You are free to join us in reality. The SCOTUS was not ready to address the SSCM, therefore the crafted a Prop 8 ruling that narrowly only applied to California to allow Prop 8 to stand.

Then SCOTUS hearing both cases at the same time and declaring in DOMA that there are only 12 states with legal gay marriage, takes on a whole new flavor, doesn't it?

Not in the least, as what the Justice wrote was "New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia".

At the time of the writing there were 12 states with SSCM, after the Prop 8 decision because operative - which occurred after the writing of the DOMA decision - California became the 13th State to have SSCM (in that case re-legalized).

It makes perfect sense to those willing to take a step back look at the bigger picture and not just try to take small snippets out of context on which to base a whole - incorrect - legal theory.


>>>>

Or those who are into wishful thinking.

Tell me, how is it that the US Supreme Court can leave the question of gay marriage up to each state to say "yes" or "no" to as their protected right, while at the same time infer via Loving that gay marriage is an inaliable right extended to gay sexual behavior practitioners?

In fact, in the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court even brought up Loving v Virginia...pay attention here...AND THEN WENT ON TO SAY GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A GUARANTEE IN EACH STATE...

Even a legal bonehead can cipher what that means: There is no constitutional protection for gay marriage. However, the Court was careful to cement in stone that the ONLY constitutional finding in its legal siamese twin Rulings on gay marriage was that each state has the right to consensus on gay marriage retroactive to the founding of the country.

And in California's constitution, it subjects itself right out of the chute to the US Constitution. That no part of it may defy the US Constitution. And that includes the US Supreme Court's Interpretation of the US Constituiton and constitutional rights. The problem with rogue officials in CA declaring gay marriage is "legal" [it isn't, not there] is that in so doing they are revoking a constitutional right of the 7 million people who chose through their protected right to consensus on the matter "no".

That is why gay marriage is not legal in California. Because 7 million people's constitutionally-protected right to consensus on gay marriage trumps a handful of officials and the losing side of the Prop 8 initiative will to overturn that democrat consensus result.

This is why what is going on in California is so very very serious. It is sedition of democracy itself and Contempt of the US Supreme Court. In the old days, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris would be strung up by their neckties. All it will take is one of those disenfranchised voters to bring suit to reinstate the power of their vote and by extension that consensus majority, asserting their constitutional right to have their consensus on gay marriage count.

And it's game over. Retroactive to the founding of the country. Most certainly retroactive to Prop 22 and Prop 8.

Get gay married in another state. It isn't legal in California.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Or those who are into wishful thinking.

Sorry, the "wishful thinking" is being conducted by those trying to make a claim that in their opinion that the previous legally valid Civil Marriages were invalidated and that new Civil Marriages have not been restarted in California.

The reality is both are true: the previous Civil Marriage remain valid and the new marriages are also valid.

Tell me, how is it that the US Supreme Court can leave the question of gay marriage up to each state to say "yes" or "no" to as their protected right, while at the same time infer via Loving that gay marriage is an inaliable right extended to gay sexual behavior practitioners?

Because neither case address addressed that core issue. The DOMA case was about the Federal government denying recognition to legally valid Civil Marriages based on an intent to discriminate against a class of persons the state accepted into the institution of Civil Marriage. The SCOTUS punted on that issue by vacating the 9th's ruling based on standing, since the ruling was based on standing - they punted.

Actually the mentioning of the Loving case disproves what you are trying to say. That the states can define Civil Marriage without Constitutional restrictions. That states did that by banning interracial Civil Marriage.

What was that result? Oh ya, the SCOTUS said it couldn't be done.

In fact, in the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court even brought up Loving v Virginia...pay attention here...AND THEN WENT ON TO SAY GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A GUARANTEE IN EACH STATE...

No they didn't. What they said was that when a state chooses to include same-sex couples in the definition of Civil Marriage, that it is not within the bounds of the Federal government to then not recognize those Civil Marriages as valid.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Even a legal bonehead can cipher what that means: There is no constitutional protection for gay marriage. However, the Court was careful to cement in stone that the ONLY constitutional finding in its legal siamese twin Rulings on gay marriage was that each state has the right to consensus on gay marriage retroactive to the founding of the country.

Not reallly, what you are doing is engaging in "wishful thinking" of your own.

The court has not taken a case and decided it on the core issue of whether Same-sex Civil Marriage (the more correct term, since the laws are written in terms of gender and not sexual orientation) is a fundamental right and therefore all existing laws should be overturned.

1. The DOMA case was about Federal law, not State law.

2. The SCOTUS decided to "punt" with the Prop 8 case and vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court based on a standing issue, leaving that core question for a later date. But they vacated the Appeals Court ruling only, leavling the Disctrict Court ruling in place that invalidated Prop 8.​

And in California's constitution, it subjects itself right out of the chute to the US Constitution. That no part of it may defy the US Constitution. And that includes the US Supreme Court's Interpretation of the US Constituiton and constitutional rights.

True.

The problem with rogue officials in CA declaring gay marriage is "legal" [it isn't, not there] is that in so doing they are revoking a constitutional right of the 7 million people who chose through their protected right to consensus on the matter "no".

No "rogue officials", the SCOTUS left the District Court ruling as the valid legal standard in California which voided Prop 8. (Not saying I like the idea, but that is the reality.)

There isn't a "constitutional right" to void the "rights" of others. See Romer v. Evans and the overturning of Colorado's anti-homosexual Amendment passed by referendum. IIRC it was call Amendment 2.

That is why gay marriage is not legal in California. Because 7 million people's constitutionally-protected right to consensus on gay marriage trumps a handful of officials and the losing side of the Prop 8 initiative will to overturn that democrat consensus result.

Except that Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in California. Those performed between June and November 4th 2008 remain legal and those performed since based on the striking of Prop 8 are fully legal recognized by 13-States, the District of Columbia, and in as valid in all 50 States by the Federal government.

#1 The SCOTUS maintained their validity because they didn't vacate the District Court judges ruling, they let it stand.

#2 The California Supreme Court has recognized them as valid in a ruling specifically on the validity of the 2008 marriages and has upheld the basis of the SCOTUS ruling as it pertained to follow-on challenges. Since the Prop 8 ruling there have been multiple challenges in State court to halt all Same-sex Civil Marriages - they failed. There were challenges that tried to make a case that the ruling only applied to the county of the plaintiff couples - they failed. There were challenges that tried to make a case that the ruling only applied to the individual named plaintiffs in the case - they failed.​

This is why what is going on in California is so very very serious. It is sedition of democracy itself and Contempt of the US Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS did not vacate the ruling by the District Court striking PROP 8, they vacated the Appeal Court ruling that upheld Prop 8 leaving the District Court striking of Prop 8 in place.

When the SCOTUS allowed the District Court ruling to remain in place, they basically indicated that it was the proper ruling. If on the other hand their intend had been to uphold the appeal (which overturned Prop 8), they could have accepted the 9ths ruling on the issue.

They didn't.

And it's game over. Retroactive to the founding of the country. Most certainly retroactive to Prop 22 and Prop 8.

Nope.

Prop 22 was struck by the California Supreme Court based on the California Constitution. It was not adjudicated in Federal court, it was found invalid under the State Constitution.

Prop 8 was invalidated in Federal court and remains in valid because the SCOTUS did not vacate the ruling.

Get gay married in another state. It isn't legal in California.

Sure it is, and to just kind of come full circle with this post we can close with your opening comment: "Or those who are into wishful thinking."

The SCOTUS has never addressed a case based on the core issue of "is Same-sex Civil Marriage a fundamental right and therefore States are not allowed to discriminate based on gender in terms of it's Civil Marriage laws."

DOMA is Federal law and it was (or at least Section 3 was) struck down because it changed the very nature of the relationship of the States to the Federal government in terms of domestic relations where since the founding of this country the Federal government had always recognized ALL legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law. DOMA then was passed because of the fear of Same-sex Civil Marriage and Section 3 denied equal treatment and due process (under the 5th Amendment).

What you are attempting to do, with no great success, is take dicta from the DOMA case and apply is as stare decisis to the Prop 8 case when in fact the SCOTUS allowed the overturning of Prop 8 to remain in place.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The DOMA case was about the Federal government denying recognition to legally valid Civil Marriages based on an intent to discriminate against a class of persons the state accepted into the institution of Civil Marriage. The SCOTUS punted on that issue by vacating the 9th's ruling based on standing, since the ruling was based on standing - they punted.

They can leave the ruling in place. And you can call it punting. But when they went and Ruled in DOMA that each state has and always has had the constitutional right to define marriage, within the larger question of gay marriage being legal or not, that meant that any ruling below it, punted, stayed, you name it, is null and void if it directly conflicts. No law, ruling, edict, declaration etc. etc. may be in place that conflicts wiht a Constitutional Finding. You know that. So they let the old ruling stay..lol...for what they knew it was worth: nothing!

Let me put it this way: Do you think the US Supreme Court was going to come out to a subclass of people famous for throwing tantrums and commiting punishment suicides and say "sorry, gay marriage isn't protected but a state's right to say no to it is"? Just like that all blunt and confrontational? No. They knew the hot potatoes they had on their plate that day.

Did you notice they combined the two cases in one Sitting? Have you ever known the Court to do that before? Think it isn't significant legally? Think again...

 

[WorldWatcher]

The DOMA case was about the Federal government denying recognition to legally valid Civil Marriages based on an intent to discriminate against a class of persons the state accepted into the institution of Civil Marriage. The SCOTUS punted on that issue by vacating the 9th's ruling based on standing, since the ruling was based on standing - they punted.

They can leave the ruling in place. And you can call it punting. But when they went and Ruled in DOMA that each state has and always has had the constitutional right to define marriage, within the larger question of gay marriage being legal or not, that meant that any ruling below it, punted, stayed, you name it, is null and void if it directly conflicts. No law, ruling, edict, declaration etc. etc. may be in place that conflicts wiht a Constitutional Finding. You know that. So they let the old ruling stay..lol...for what they knew it was worth: nothing!

No, by letting the ruling stand they allowed Prop 8 to be overturned.

You still ignore the the next lines of text, in context the dicta was:

""In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own 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 the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other.

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality​

Since they haven't heard a case on the core issue of Same-sex Civil Marriage, i.e. State discriminating in terms of Civil Marriage using gender as a basis, we don't now how they will rule yet. The only case they ever made a precedent setting determination on the question was Baker v. Nelson in the early 70's (1972 IIRC) where they issued a one sentence dismissal of the case on appeal to the SCOTUS for "want of a federal question". Which was appropriate at the time as there was no federal question since the federal government had no laws regarding the matter and no State recognized SSCM. Now there are federal questions because the legal landscape has changed. DOMA (Section 2) is still part of federal law and 13 States (plust DC) new have legal SSCM's.

Let me put it this way: Do you think the US Supreme Court was going to come out to a subclass of people famous for throwing tantrums and commiting punishment suicides and say "sorry, gay marriage isn't protected but a state's right to say no to it is"? Just like that all blunt and confrontational? No. They knew the hot potatoes they had on their plate that day.

I have no idea what the first part of this paragraph is supposed to mean.

However as to the second part, ya eventually they will come out and say that equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right and that States can't use gender composition as a means of discrimination. Just like they came out in 1968 and said that States can't discrimination in terms of Civil Marriage based on race. Race in 1968 was much more of a "hot potatoes" issue then than SSCM is today. But, IMHO, they are going to wait a few more years while more states come on-board on their own. In the 2000's States voted in anti-gay Marriage laws to preclude SSCM. But society has been shifting and were States a decade ago had victory at the polls and in public opinion. But that opinion has been shifting, we've seen SSCM win in the courts, then the legislatures, and even last year there were 4 initiatives on the ballot and all 4 went to the pro-equality side.

Did you notice they combined the two cases in one Sitting? Have you ever known the Court to do that before? Think it isn't significant legally? Think again...

I finally went and looked it up. They didn't. The SCOTUS heard oral arguments in two different sittings:

March 26, 2013 for Prop 8

March 27, 2013 for DOMA​

It's not uncommon for the SCOTUS to combine like cases and issue a single ruling, especially when they have conflicting rulings for different jurisdictional Appeal Courts. While both cases homosexuals, in this case, were not combined as they dealt with fundamentally different issues. They were heard in separate oral argument sessions and the court issued two separate decisions. The Prop 8 decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts and the DOMA decision was authored by Justice Kennedy.

1. You can Google the decisions and read who authored them.
2. Marriage arguments March 26-27 : SCOTUSblog
3. DOMA as a states? rights problem? Today?s oral argument in Plain English : SCOTUSblog
4. What will the Court do with Proposition 8? Today?s oral argument in Plain English : SCOTUSblog


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The DOMA case was about the Federal government denying recognition to legally valid Civil Marriages based on an intent to discriminate against a class of persons the state accepted into the institution of Civil Marriage. The SCOTUS punted on that issue by vacating the 9th's ruling based on standing, since the ruling was based on standing - they punted.

They can leave the ruling in place. And you can call it punting. But when they went and Ruled in DOMA that each state has and always has had the constitutional right to define marriage, within the larger question of gay marriage being legal or not, that meant that any ruling below it, punted, stayed, you name it, is null and void if it directly conflicts. No law, ruling, edict, declaration etc. etc. may be in place that conflicts wiht a Constitutional Finding. You know that. So they let the old ruling stay..lol...for what they knew it was worth: nothing!

Let me put it this way: Do you think the US Supreme Court was going to come out to a subclass of people famous for throwing tantrums and commiting punishment suicides and say "sorry, gay marriage isn't protected but a state's right to say no to it is"? Just like that all blunt and confrontational? No. They knew the hot potatoes they had on their plate that day.

Did you notice they combined the two cases in one Sitting? Have you ever known the Court to do that before? Think it isn't significant legally? Think again...

They only ruled on the "yes" states. The SCOTUS punted on the "no" states.

 

[Silhouette]

They only ruled on the "yes" states. The SCOTUS punted on the "no" states.

Now that is officially grasping at straws.

So you think the constitutionally-protected interpretation SCOTUS just issued for each state's right to consensus on gay marriage, retroactive to the founding of the country mind you, excludes California. ie: only some states get this constitutional protection but not others?

Case closed. If this is the type of thinking that is justifying illegal gay "marriage licenses" in CA, this seals it. Take DOMA to your attorney & marry in another state. You're not getting legally married in CA.

Seawytch, any constitutional proclamation or interpretation applies to all 50 states. You seriously believe that the word "consensus" means "only if you choose yes", right?...lol...LOL!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette, you are grasping now at anything.

The tide moves forward inevitably to full recognition in all of the United States.

 

[Silhouette]

If you mean by "grasping" I am examining US laws at their face value.

Do you deny that the constitutional finding as to consensus applies to all 50 states? If so, give your reasons and back them up with substance. Don't stoop to ad hominem to cover for the fact that you don't have a rebuttal to what I've said.

 

[rdean]

The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..

In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.

They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.

Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own 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 the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. 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. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.

In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.

The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:

Page 14 same link as above:
New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry

A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.

Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?

Wow, that's a lot of words.

But you forgot the "evidence". Oops.

 

[Seawytch]

They only ruled on the "yes" states. The SCOTUS punted on the "no" states.

Now that is officially grasping at straws.

So you think the constitutionally-protected interpretation SCOTUS just issued for each state's right to consensus on gay marriage, retroactive to the founding of the country mind you, excludes California. ie: only some states get this constitutional protection but not others?

Case closed. If this is the type of thinking that is justifying illegal gay "marriage licenses" in CA, this seals it. Take DOMA to your attorney & marry in another state. You're not getting legally married in CA.

Seawytch, any constitutional proclamation or interpretation applies to all 50 states. You seriously believe that the word "consensus" means "only if you choose yes", right?...lol...LOL!

They didn't rule on the "no" states...as you'll find out soon enough.

 

[Silhouette]

They have to use the same CONSTITUTIONAL RULING on ALL STATES...as YOU will find out soon enough. Did you ever take political science in school?

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own 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 the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-doma-full-decision-text-pdf/

How can there be a consensus on whether or not to "allow same-sex marriages" and at the same time they are a "constitutionally protected right"? I guess Loving v Virginia being quoted in that Ruling still didn't make the grade for gays.

Since gay marriage isn't a constitutionally-protected right, nor are they race, creed, gender or country of origin, the only matter to discuss as to constitutional rights is that in the Ruling that found that each and every single sovereign state among the 50 has and always has had the right to consensus to decide to "allow same-sex marriages".

Now why did they choose the word "allow" instead of "mandate"? You know how lawyers are very careful with their wording.

Like I said, YOU may be in for a surprise soon..

 

[Seawytch]

They have to use the same CONSTITUTIONAL RULING on ALL STATES...as YOU will find out soon enough. Did you ever take political science in school?

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own 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 the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-doma-full-decision-text-pdf/

How can there be a consensus on whether or not to "allow same-sex marriages" and at the same time they are a "constitutionally protected right"? I guess Loving v Virginia being quoted in that Ruling still didn't make the grade for gays.

Since gay marriage isn't a constitutionally-protected right, nor are they race, creed, gender or country of origin, the only matter to discuss as to constitutional rights is that in the Ruling that found that each and every single sovereign state among the 50 has and always has had the right to consensus to decide to "allow same-sex marriages".

Now why did they choose the word "allow" instead of "mandate"? You know how lawyers are very careful with their wording.

Like I said, YOU may be in for a surprise soon..

Care to place a little wager? I'll bet my legal marriage in CA allows me to file joint federal taxes this year...just as I have been filing my state taxes for years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They have to use the same CONSTITUTIONAL RULING on ALL STATES...as YOU will find out soon enough. Did you ever take political science in school?

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own 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 the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

How can there be a consensus on whether or not to "allow same-sex marriages" and at the same time they are a "constitutionally protected right"? I guess Loving v Virginia being quoted in that Ruling still didn't make the grade for gays.

Since gay marriage isn't a constitutionally-protected right, nor are they race, creed, gender or country of origin, the only matter to discuss as to constitutional rights is that in the Ruling that found that each and every single sovereign state among the 50 has and always has had the right to consensus to decide to "allow same-sex marriages".

Now why did they choose the word "allow" instead of "mandate"? You know how lawyers are very careful with their wording.

Like I said, YOU may be in for a surprise soon..

No one ever said it was, because there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is a Constitutional right to marry, however, and a Constitutional right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law.

Same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law, unaltered, unchanged, where nothing needs to be done to marriage laws to accommodate same-sex couples.

Consequently, it’s a 14th Amendment violation to exclude a class of persons, in this case same-sex couples, from marriage law.