The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, you are taking a small snippet of dicta about the DOMA case and trying to apply it to the Prop 8 as stare decisis. The DOMA case was about FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Same-sex Civil Marriage from a State that choose to recognize it. It had/has no bearing on States that don't recognize it. Such a case has not reached the SCOTUS yet.

1. You complete choose to ignore that in immediately after your out of context cutting that the SCOTUS then says "subject to constitutional guarantees".

2. You try to use the DOMA case to overturn the PROP 8 case but the SCOTUS themselves allowed the Prop 8 District Court ruling to stand. They only vacated the 9th's ruling (which upheld Prop 8), but allowed the District Court ruling to remain as the governing ruling yet it found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.



Sorry, you are incorrect, but refuse to recognize that your opinion is not grounded in legal fact.


>>>>

How can a state choose to ignore a signed Federal law concerning DOMA? Are we setting new precedence where a state can also decide for themselves whether or not they care to recognize Federal Law concerning immigration? Last I checked any state challenge to go against Federal law and determine their OWN state policies was rejected? So which is it? Do we now pick and choose which Federal laws are followed and which can be ignored because the state chooses not to accept it?

Personally I find that gay marriage should be a state issue anyways, but Congress would have to write new legislation countering DOMA .... not simply say we don't like it so we're not going to defend it in court. If that's the case, expect Obamacare to be treated in much the same way from the states.

It is a state issue, provided the state obeys the Constitution, and allows same sex couples access to its marriage law.

 

[Redfish]

But there hasn't been any "direct action" as a result of Prop 8 being found unconstitutional...except gaggles of married gays.

Illegally "married" gays. Do be specific.

The US Supreme Court [the last word on the matter] found June 2013 that Prop 8's consensus and any other state's consensus on gay marriage was constitutional and protected that way since the founding of the country. Continuing to cite an overruled lower court opinion is getting a bit daft at this point.

I can pretend I'm the captain of a ship, but that doesn't make me one. I can even steer the ship around for awhile until I'm caught. I can tell everyone I know that I'm the captain. But the day will come when people will discover that I'm not. And the house of cards will fall.

Like I said, take the DOMA Ruling to your attorney and get married in another state.

No need. I'm legally married and have been since October 2008. This year we will file joint federal taxes because of the DOMA ruling. Will my tax return be proof enough for you?

which block do you check in the sex category?

male
female
neither
butch
fem
both
don't know
depends on whether its Tuesday




this whole thread makes me

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again, you are taking a small snippet of dicta about the DOMA case and trying to apply it to the Prop 8 as stare decisis. The DOMA case was about FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Same-sex Civil Marriage from a State that choose to recognize it. It had/has no bearing on States that don't recognize it. Such a case has not reached the SCOTUS yet.

1. You complete choose to ignore that in immediately after your out of context cutting that the SCOTUS then says "subject to constitutional guarantees".

2. You try to use the DOMA case to overturn the PROP 8 case but the SCOTUS themselves allowed the Prop 8 District Court ruling to stand. They only vacated the 9th's ruling (which upheld Prop 8), but allowed the District Court ruling to remain as the governing ruling yet it found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.



Sorry, you are incorrect, but refuse to recognize that your opinion is not grounded in legal fact.


>>>>

How can a state choose to ignore a signed Federal law concerning DOMA? Are we setting new precedence where a state can also decide for themselves whether or not they care to recognize Federal Law concerning immigration? Last I checked any state challenge to go against Federal law and determine their OWN state policies was rejected? So which is it? Do we now pick and choose which Federal laws are followed and which can be ignored because the state chooses not to accept it?

Personally I find that gay marriage should be a state issue anyways, but Congress would have to write new legislation countering DOMA .... not simply say we don't like it so we're not going to defend it in court. If that's the case, expect Obamacare to be treated in much the same way from the states.

Since you quoted me, I feel compelled to ask...


"How can a state choose to ignore a signed Federal law concerning DOMA?"

DOMA has two operative section. Section 2 provided that States have a choice to recognize Same-sex Civil Marriages from other States and Section 3 said that the Federal government would not recognize legally valid (under State law) Civil Marriages if the gender of the participants was not a man and a woman.

Section 3 is unconstitutional and therefore is not operative, so what do you mean by "a state choose to ignore signed Federal law"? The section that was ruled unconstitutional applied to the Federal government not the states.​

>>>>​

 

[WorldWatcher]

I believe that is the case. However, the Highest Court in the land declared that Prop 8 was a constitutionally-protected consensus for the state of California and all other of the 50 states.

No they didn't, the SCOTUS (Highest Court) allowed the Prop 8 ruling by the District Court to stand and vacated the 9th Circuit Court ruling that overruled the ruling by the District Court.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

How can a state choose...

Please edit your post and repair your QUOTE tags as you have things attributed to me that I didn't say.

Thanks

>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

I believe that is the case. However, the Highest Court in the land declared that Prop 8 was a constitutionally-protected consensus for the state of California and all other of the 50 states.

No they didn't, the SCOTUS (Highest Court) allowed the Prop 8 ruling by the District Court to stand and vacated the 9th Circuit Court ruling that overruled the ruling by the District Court.>>>>

WorldWatcher is correct, and Silhouette wishes she was, too, but isn't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is a state issue...

Please edit your post and repair your QUOTE tags as you have things attributed to me that I didn't say.

Thanks

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

WorldWatcher is correct

If more people would just accept this, life would be much simpler.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Illegally "married" gays. Do be specific.

The US Supreme Court [the last word on the matter] found June 2013 that Prop 8's consensus and any other state's consensus on gay marriage was constitutional and protected that way since the founding of the country. Continuing to cite an overruled lower court opinion is getting a bit daft at this point.

I can pretend I'm the captain of a ship, but that doesn't make me one. I can even steer the ship around for awhile until I'm caught. I can tell everyone I know that I'm the captain. But the day will come when people will discover that I'm not. And the house of cards will fall.

Like I said, take the DOMA Ruling to your attorney and get married in another state.

No need. I'm legally married and have been since October 2008. This year we will file joint federal taxes because of the DOMA ruling. Will my tax return be proof enough for you?

which block do you check in the sex category?

male
female
neither
butch
fem
both
don't know
depends on whether its Tuesday




this whole thread makes me

Oh look, Fishy is obsessing on role playing again. So sad...

 

[Redfish]

No need. I'm legally married and have been since October 2008. This year we will file joint federal taxes because of the DOMA ruling. Will my tax return be proof enough for you?

which block do you check in the sex category?

male
female
neither
butch
fem
both
don't know
depends on whether its Tuesday




this whole thread makes me

Oh look, Fishy is obsessing on role playing again. So sad...

Bull, wytchey, or should I say bull dyke?

it is a fact that in every gay couple, male or female, one member has more male traits and one has more female


a lesbian couple are having a serious discussion. Mary says to Diane "let me be frank with you" Diane replies "no, you were frank last night"

role playing wytchey? of course, and you know it.

 

[Seawytch]

which block do you check in the sex category?

male
female
neither
butch
fem
both
don't know
depends on whether its Tuesday




this whole thread makes me

Oh look, Fishy is obsessing on role playing again. So sad...

Bull, wytchey, or should I say bull dyke?

I don't know, should you? Are you referring to me or to you? Me, no...you, that's up to you.

it is a fact that in every gay couple, male or female, one member has more male traits and one has more female

Really? This is a "fact"? That means you can offer proof of that, right? Seriously, you haven't known a lot of gay people have you?

role playing wytchey? of course, and you know it.

I do now...you just told me, but that's you not me.

 

[Redfish]

Oh look, Fishy is obsessing on role playing again. So sad...

Bull, wytchey, or should I say bull dyke?

I don't know, should you? Are you referring to me or to you? Me, no...you, that's up to you.

it is a fact that in every gay couple, male or female, one member has more male traits and one has more female

Really? This is a "fact"? That means you can offer proof of that, right? Seriously, you haven't known a lot of gay people have you?

role playing wytchey? of course, and you know it.

I do now...you just told me, but that's you not me.

I know lots of gay couples, some are friends some are family members, I love every one of them. But in every couple there is one who is more masculine and one that is more feminine. You know thats true, deny if you like but you know it.

as to me and role playing, the only role I play is that of heterosexual male with my very beautiful and feminine wife.

 

[Seawytch]

Bull, wytchey, or should I say bull dyke?

I don't know, should you? Are you referring to me or to you? Me, no...you, that's up to you.



Really? This is a "fact"? That means you can offer proof of that, right? Seriously, you haven't known a lot of gay people have you?

role playing wytchey? of course, and you know it.

I do now...you just told me, but that's you not me.

I know lots of gay couples, some are friends some are family members, I love every one of them. But in every couple there is one who is more masculine and one that is more feminine. You know thats true, deny if you like but you know it.

as to me and role playing, the only role I play is that of heterosexual male with my very beautiful and feminine wife.

No actually, I don't "know that is true"...because it isn't. You're stereotyping.

I have one of those too, a beautiful and feminine wife (who would say the same about hers)

 

[Redfish]

I don't know, should you? Are you referring to me or to you? Me, no...you, that's up to you.



Really? This is a "fact"? That means you can offer proof of that, right? Seriously, you haven't known a lot of gay people have you?




I do now...you just told me, but that's you not me.

I know lots of gay couples, some are friends some are family members, I love every one of them. But in every couple there is one who is more masculine and one that is more feminine. You know thats true, deny if you like but you know it.

as to me and role playing, the only role I play is that of heterosexual male with my very beautiful and feminine wife.

No actually, I don't "know that is true"...because it isn't. You're stereotyping.

I have one of those too, a beautiful and feminine wife (who would say the same about hers)

great, so let me qualify--------of the many many gay couples that I know and have known, every one of them consists of a masculine member and a feminine member, in some the difference is greater than others, but its always there.

you may be the exception, but I doubt it.

and for the record I have said the same things to my gay friends that I have said to you. Not one of them is as defensive as you are. Role playing??????????

 

[Seawytch]

I know lots of gay couples, some are friends some are family members, I love every one of them. But in every couple there is one who is more masculine and one that is more feminine. You know thats true, deny if you like but you know it.

as to me and role playing, the only role I play is that of heterosexual male with my very beautiful and feminine wife.

No actually, I don't "know that is true"...because it isn't. You're stereotyping.

I have one of those too, a beautiful and feminine wife (who would say the same about hers)

great, so let me qualify--------of the many many gay couples that I know and have known, every one of them consists of a masculine member and a feminine member, in some the difference is greater than others, but its always there.

you may be the exception, but I doubt it.

and for the record I have said the same things to my gay friends that I have said to you. Not one of them is as defensive as you are. Role playing??????????

Stating facts isn't being defensive, it's stating facts.

Like the fact that you're seemingly obsessed with the sex life of lesbians to the point that you can't stay on topic if one posts in a thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Seawytch is not defensive, but Redfish is, and then attacks the personality instead of dealing with the topic.

Clear example fishy is losing.

 

[Silhouette]

great, so let me qualify--------of the many many gay couples that I know and have known, every one of them consists of a masculine member and a feminine member, in some the difference is greater than others, but its always there.

you may be the exception, but I doubt it.

and for the record I have said the same things to my gay friends that I have said to you. Not one of them is as defensive as you are. Role playing??????????

Yes, role playing is exactly it. Now you are getting warmer.

Next question to ask yourself is, what is it in the mannish lesbian that the feminine one is attracted to, and the femme one that a masculine gay man is attracted to likewise? Can anyone say "closet heterosexuality"?

The issues are mental. And as such, states have a right to consensus, to say "no" to gay marriage. Marriage is the acme of institutions that carry the torch of a social icon. To iconize untreated mental issues as a "race" is perhaps one of the greatest perverse mistakes in modern times.

Add to that the high incidence of gays having been molested as children. Their gravitation to drug abuse, depression and so forth; all stemming from untreated mental illness from the scars of childhood sexual abuse, and you really see what's going on: Institutionalized insanity as a social movement.

Surviving it is something to be proud of. Promoting it is not.

 

[Seawytch]

great, so let me qualify--------of the many many gay couples that I know and have known, every one of them consists of a masculine member and a feminine member, in some the difference is greater than others, but its always there.

you may be the exception, but I doubt it.

and for the record I have said the same things to my gay friends that I have said to you. Not one of them is as defensive as you are. Role playing??????????

Yes, role playing is exactly it. Now you are getting warmer.

Next question to ask yourself is, what is it in the mannish lesbian that the feminine one is attracted to, and the femme one that a masculine gay man is attracted to likewise? Can anyone say "closet heterosexuality"?

The issues are mental. And as such, states have a right to consensus, to say "no" to gay marriage. Marriage is the acme of institutions that carry the torch of a social icon. To iconize untreated mental issues as a "race" is perhaps one of the greatest perverse mistakes in modern times.

Add to that the high incidence of gays having been molested as children. Their gravitation to drug abuse, depression and so forth; all stemming from untreated mental illness from the scars of childhood sexual abuse, and you really see what's going on: Institutionalized insanity as a social movement.

Surviving it is something to be proud of. Promoting it is not.

^^^Pure, unadulterated bovine feces.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silh is bloviating because she has nothing with which to support Prop 8 other than her opinions.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Section 3 is unconstitutional and therefore is not operative, so what do you mean by "a state choose to ignore signed Federal law"? The section that was ruled unconstitutional applied to the Federal government not the states.[/indent]


>>>>

That question was in response to the view that "The DOMA case was about FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Same-sex Civil Marriage from a State that choose to recognize it. It had/has no bearing on States that don't recognize it. Such a case has not reached the SCOTUS yet."

I was under the belief, that when President Clinton signed it, that it was a national recognition of traditional marriage not in any way endorsing same sex unions.