The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[bodecea]

I repeat: can anyone name the 12 states that SCOTUS said were the only states with legal gay marriage as of the writing of the DOMA Opinion [page 14]. A typo?

It may be "inevitable" or it may not. But by goodness we're going to do it the legal way and not forced down people's throats.

Kinda gay...

Marriage is so Gay!

 

[Silhouette]

The stay in CA was still in place when DOMA was ruled on. When Prop 8 was sent back to the lower court, the stay was lifted.

All you have to do is read Scalia's DOMA dissent to know the future. The SCOTUS did not rule on whether laws like Prop 8 are Constitutional. They "punted" on Prop 8, but they will not be able to put off ruling much longer. Patience, you'll see.

Wait a minute, the dissent predicts future wins? I thought the Ruling did?

Two questions for you seawytch:

1. Why did SCOTUS hear both cases at the same Sitting?

2. How does the DOMA Ruling Upholding constitutionally, each sovereign state's right to consensus on gay marraige mean that California alone cannot have consensus?

And just for fun. In either Ruling, can you quote and cite where SCOTUS specifically made mention of constitutionality as to gay marriage being an undeniable right? They found that state's internal consensus was an undeniable right. Just wondering if they found that also for gay marriage?

I'll wait for your answers...

 

[Seawytch]

The stay in CA was still in place when DOMA was ruled on. When Prop 8 was sent back to the lower court, the stay was lifted.

All you have to do is read Scalia's DOMA dissent to know the future. The SCOTUS did not rule on whether laws like Prop 8 are Constitutional. They "punted" on Prop 8, but they will not be able to put off ruling much longer. Patience, you'll see.

Wait a minute, the dissent predicts future wins? I thought the Ruling did?

Why I hope Scalia is right on same-sex marriage

Two questions for you seawytch:

1. Why did SCOTUS hear both cases at the same Sitting?

Because they both had to do with marriage equality I reckon.

2. How does the DOMA Ruling Upholding constitutionally, each sovereign state's right to consensus on gay marraige mean that California alone cannot have consensus?

The SCOTUS chose not to rule on Prop 8 sending it back to the lower court. The lower court's ruling now stands in CA. That ruling was? That's right, that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

Seperate from Prop 8 was the DOMA ruling which, in essence, said that when it comes to the rights, benefits and privileges bestowed upon legally married couples, the Federal Government cannot discriminate against those legal same sex marriages and must recognize them as equal to heterosexual marriages. Basically that legal marriage is legal marriage.

And just for fun. In either Ruling, can you quote and cite where SCOTUS specifically made mention of constitutionality as to gay marriage being an undeniable right? They found that state's internal consensus was an undeniable right. Just wondering if they found that also for gay marriage?

I'll wait for your answers...

It wasn't a question before the court in Windsor. It would have been had they chosen to rule on Prop 8. They punted instead.

 

[Seawytch]

I repeat: can anyone name the 12 states that SCOTUS said were the only states with legal gay marriage as of the writing of the DOMA Opinion [page 14]. A typo?

It may be "inevitable" or it may not. But by goodness we're going to do it the legal way and not forced down people's throats.

Kinda gay...

Marriage is so Gay!

Only if you get the best wedding planners.

 

[Silhouette]

Because they both had to do with marriage equality I reckon.

2. How does the DOMA Ruling Upholding constitutionally, each sovereign state's right to consensus on gay marraige mean that California alone cannot have consensus?

The SCOTUS chose not to rule on Prop 8 sending it back to the lower court. The lower court's ruling now stands in CA. That ruling was? That's right, that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

Seperate from Prop 8 was the DOMA ruling which, in essence, said that when it comes to the rights, benefits and privileges bestowed upon legally married couples, the Federal Government cannot discriminate against those legal same sex marriages and must recognize them as equal to heterosexual marriages. Basically that legal marriage is legal marriage.

Actually you cannot call the two cases the same in that the were both about marriage equality [gay marriage being legal or not legal, constitutional or not constitutional, and how that is decided: state or federal], and then say they are two separate cases when it suits you.

The simple fact is that in DOMA the constitutional finding was that sovereign states have the right to consensus to decide gay marriage. That Finding was also retroactive. The Court cited that it had always been that way since the founding of our country. So that Finding, a state's constitutional right to consensus on oddball marriages, in question "gay marriage", going back to the start of our nation, applies to any legal situation where a state's right to decide on gay marriage is called into question.

Enter Prop 8 case. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT when the lower fed court heard it. The Supreme Court did not make mention of Prop 8's constituitonality. They didn't have to. Anyone who knows Supremacy of law knows the more recent and superior federal ruling nullifies all past ones in conflict with it. That applies to any law or ruling, anywhere, anytime.

When you say the US Supreme Court "punted" Prop 8 back to the lower court, what you don't realize that you're saying is that the US Supreme Court actually did rule on the constituionality of Prop 8. Just because you missed that connection in DOMA's applicable constitutional finding, doesn't make this de facto declaration any more dilute.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Look up the supremacy heirarchy with the federal courts and note that if the US Supreme Court just said something about "issue x" that is in direct conflict with a lower, staler ruling on "issue x", then that lower court's ruling isn't worth the paper its written on from that point forward.

You say "punt" and I say "de facto Ruling"...

 

[EriktheRed]

***-bashers lost.

 

[Antares]

Blacks OVERWHEMINGLY supported 8....shhhh!!!!!

 

[Seawytch]

Because they both had to do with marriage equality I reckon.

2. How does the DOMA Ruling Upholding constitutionally, each sovereign state's right to consensus on gay marraige mean that California alone cannot have consensus?

The SCOTUS chose not to rule on Prop 8 sending it back to the lower court. The lower court's ruling now stands in CA. That ruling was? That's right, that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

Seperate from Prop 8 was the DOMA ruling which, in essence, said that when it comes to the rights, benefits and privileges bestowed upon legally married couples, the Federal Government cannot discriminate against those legal same sex marriages and must recognize them as equal to heterosexual marriages. Basically that legal marriage is legal marriage.

Actually you cannot call the two cases the same in that the were both about marriage equality [gay marriage being legal or not legal, constitutional or not constitutional, and how that is decided: state or federal], and then say they are two separate cases when it suits you.

The simple fact is that in DOMA the constitutional finding was that sovereign states have the right to consensus to decide gay marriage. That Finding was also retroactive. The Court cited that it had always been that way since the founding of our country. So that Finding, a state's constitutional right to consensus on oddball marriages, in question "gay marriage", going back to the start of our nation, applies to any legal situation where a state's right to decide on gay marriage is called into question.

Enter Prop 8 case. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT when the lower fed court heard it. The Supreme Court did not make mention of Prop 8's constituitonality. They didn't have to. Anyone who knows Supremacy of law knows the more recent and superior federal ruling nullifies all past ones in conflict with it. That applies to any law or ruling, anywhere, anytime.

When you say the US Supreme Court "punted" Prop 8 back to the lower court, what you don't realize that you're saying is that the US Supreme Court actually did rule on the constituionality of Prop 8. Just because you missed that connection in DOMA's applicable constitutional finding, doesn't make this de facto declaration any more dilute.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Look up the supremacy heirarchy with the federal courts and note that if the US Supreme Court just said something about "issue x" that is in direct conflict with a lower, staler ruling on "issue x", then that lower court's ruling isn't worth the paper its written on from that point forward.

You say "punt" and I say "de facto Ruling"...

Legal experts say "punt". They didn't choose to rule on the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws, but they will have to eventually. They only put off the inevitable.

 

[The Rabbi]

Queers deserve equal rights, but not special rights. Legal unions or special POAs, I can tolerate, but I don't like calling it a marriage.

So you want to keep "marriage" a "special right" all to yourself?

If you get to call your legal union a marriage, so do we. Want it changed? Change it for everybody.

You have exactly the same right of marriage as anyone else. Go find yourself a nice guy and get married. It's only normal!

 

[Seawytch]

Queers deserve equal rights, but not special rights. Legal unions or special POAs, I can tolerate, but I don't like calling it a marriage.

So you want to keep "marriage" a "special right" all to yourself?

If you get to call your legal union a marriage, so do we. Want it changed? Change it for everybody.

You have exactly the same right of marriage as anyone else. Go find yourself a nice guy and get married. It's only normal!

Thanks, but I am already legally married...to my same sex partner of 17.5 years. Thanks to the SCOTUS, my legal marriage is treated exactly the same as everybody else's. We will be getting her a military dependent ID just as soon as I can take time off of work.

 

[Silhouette]

Blacks OVERWHEMINGLY supported 8....shhhh!!!!!

That's not been my experience talking to my black friends, nor my hispanic ones. PRIVATELY the "polling data" reflects a very different reality.

Your bringing this up though reminds me of something with respect to the challenges coming back to SCOTUS on the DOMA Prop 8 legal "conundrum". [it isn't really, if you understand how supremacy of law works in the federal system.] I've thought that when it is found that California cannot be the single exception to the recent constitutionaly Upholding by the Supreme Court to have and always have had the right to consensus on gay marriage, that a new ballot initiative for gay marriage in CA would be their remedy for all the illegal gay marriages happening there now. How sad for these people duped into believing what they're doing is "legal" when the Supreme Court just de facto upheld Prop 8 in DOMA...

[For those a little slower to dawn, this is why the conservative justices combined the two cases. Senior Justices know a thing or two about law, procedure and timing]

If, as you are certain, "everyone in CA supports gay marriage" why the hesitation to make it legal there via the consensus [constitutionally Upheld as always being legitimate to decide gay marriage]? Put an initiative on the ballot. Yet in spite of gay propaganda artists laughing and claiming "it's already a done deal, everyone supports gay marriage" we find a very different rendering when it's put to a consensus. Very different. And hence the reason gay litigants prefer propaganda, judicial activism and outright blackmail in some cases to force gay marriage upon the citizenry instead of inviting their consent: They know the real numbers behind "support for gay marriage".

 

[FA_Q2]

So you want to keep "marriage" a "special right" all to yourself?

If you get to call your legal union a marriage, so do we. Want it changed? Change it for everybody.

You have exactly the same right of marriage as anyone else. Go find yourself a nice guy and get married. It's only normal!

Thanks, but I am already legally married...to my same sex partner of 17.5 years. Thanks to the SCOTUS, my legal marriage is treated exactly the same as everybody else's. We will be getting her a military dependent ID just as soon as I can take time off of work.

Really?

You are in the service or are you retired?

Making it through service as a gay woman before repeal of dadt had to be somewhat difficult?

 

[Silhouette]

That's all well and good Seawytch, however, that doestn't impact the fact that gay marriages are still illegal in CA, because CA legally disallowed gay marriage through it's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. Prop 8 said "no". And that is a "constitutional no", retroactively as of June 2013, DOMA Opinion, page 19... All previous rulings, laws and findings to the opposite are rendered null and void. That's how the law of supremacy works in the federal court system. SCOTUS has the last word. And that word is "by definition, proposition 8 in California is a fully legal product of California's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage"...

Sorry..

 

[Seawytch]

You have exactly the same right of marriage as anyone else. Go find yourself a nice guy and get married. It's only normal!

Thanks, but I am already legally married...to my same sex partner of 17.5 years. Thanks to the SCOTUS, my legal marriage is treated exactly the same as everybody else's. We will be getting her a military dependent ID just as soon as I can take time off of work.

Really?

You are in the service or are you retired?

Making it through service as a gay woman before repeal of dadt had to be somewhat difficult?

I retired in 2003. It was very difficult on my partner (the Nanny).

 

[Seawytch]

That's all well and good Seawytch, however, that doestn't impact the fact that gay marriages are still illegal in CA, because CA legally disallowed gay marriage through it's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. Prop 8 said "no". And that is a "constitutional no", retroactively as of June 2013, DOMA Opinion, page 19... All previous rulings, laws and findings to the opposite are rendered null and void. That's how the law of supremacy works in the federal court system. SCOTUS has the last word. And that word is "by definition, proposition 8 in California is a fully legal product of California's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage"...

Sorry..

Don't be sorry...because you are incorrect in your summation.

I'll be celebrating my 5th (legal marriage) wedding anniversary this October.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you want to keep "marriage" a "special right" all to yourself?

If you get to call your legal union a marriage, so do we. Want it changed? Change it for everybody.

You have exactly the same right of marriage as anyone else. Go find yourself a nice guy and get married. It's only normal!

Thanks, but I am already legally married...to my same sex partner of 17.5 years. Thanks to the SCOTUS, my legal marriage is treated exactly the same as everybody else's. We will be getting her a military dependent ID just as soon as I can take time off of work.

So what are you whining about?

 

[Silhouette]

That's all well and good Seawytch, however, that doestn't impact the fact that gay marriages are still illegal in CA, because CA legally disallowed gay marriage through it's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. Prop 8 said "no". And that is a "constitutional no", retroactively as of June 2013, DOMA Opinion, page 19... All previous rulings, laws and findings to the opposite are rendered null and void. That's how the law of supremacy works in the federal court system. SCOTUS has the last word. And that word is "by definition, proposition 8 in California is a fully legal product of California's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage"...

Sorry..

Don't be sorry...because you are incorrect in your summation.

I'll be celebrating my 5th (legal marriage) wedding anniversary this October.

Not if you were married in California after Prop 8 was passed. I feel sorry actually for the gays believing they are being legally married. The injunctions sought in both the Gutierrez et al v Brown et al and Dronenburg et al v Brown et al cases were the "red flag" to gays in that state: beware, you may want to wait....

Instead, please describe for me Seawytch why a ballot initiative in CA wouldn't be the more prudent way to attempt to legalize gay marriage instead of outright sedition and public servants there being in full contempt of the US Supreme Court's DOMA constitutional finding on each sovereign state's right to consensus on gay marriage...including California's...?

 

[hazlnut]

Gay Marriage is inevitable....better get used to it

True,

Continuing to fighting it is like fighting a tsunami with your own hands. It is stupid and there's really little reason to do so.

The faster the republicans can drop the opposition the better.

The far-right is filled with closeted homosexuals that express their self-loathing through homophobia.

 

[Silhouette]

Ridicule and accusation of closet homophobia in your opponents is a tired trick. Much like a toddler changing the subject to mommy's bad breath as she yells at her for getting caught with her hand in the cookie jar. The object is to cause the opponent to shrink in horror at some alleged embarassing flaw...

...and thereby get the subject to change....

Only we're not doing that here.

I'll ask you hazlnut, how is it possible for SCOTUS to have so recently upheld the retroactive constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage for each sovereign state EXCEPT California? Wouldn't a lower ruling in direct conflict with that finding be immediately null and void?

[Rhetorical question; of course it would...]

 

[bodecea]

Blacks OVERWHEMINGLY supported 8....shhhh!!!!!

That's not been my experience talking to my black friends, nor my hispanic ones. PRIVATELY the "polling data" reflects a very different reality.

Your bringing this up though reminds me of something with respect to the challenges coming back to SCOTUS on the DOMA Prop 8 legal "conundrum". [it isn't really, if you understand how supremacy of law works in the federal system.] I've thought that when it is found that California cannot be the single exception to the recent constitutionaly Upholding by the Supreme Court to have and always have had the right to consensus on gay marriage, that a new ballot initiative for gay marriage in CA would be their remedy for all the illegal gay marriages happening there now. How sad for these people duped into believing what they're doing is "legal" when the Supreme Court just de facto upheld Prop 8 in DOMA...

[For those a little slower to dawn, this is why the conservative justices combined the two cases. Senior Justices know a thing or two about law, procedure and timing]

If, as you are certain, "everyone in CA supports gay marriage" why the hesitation to make it legal there via the consensus [constitutionally Upheld as always being legitimate to decide gay marriage]? Put an initiative on the ballot. Yet in spite of gay propaganda artists laughing and claiming "it's already a done deal, everyone supports gay marriage" we find a very different rendering when it's put to a consensus. Very different. And hence the reason gay litigants prefer propaganda, judicial activism and outright blackmail in some cases to force gay marriage upon the citizenry instead of inviting their consent: They know the real numbers behind "support for gay marriage".

I think you should compare the support numbers for Prop 22 and Prop H8.