The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

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.

What? Your post makes no sense. Wiki DOMA for pity sake.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

In the 90s Hawaii looked like it might pass a marriage equality bill. The anti-gay of America panicked and we got DOMA which said, in a nutshell, that only marriages between a man and a woman would receive Federal recognition (Section 2) and that gay marriages in one state do not have to abide by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. (Section 3)

Section 2 was found unconstitutional. Congress violated the Constitution when they carved out their exception from recognition. Section 3 still remains in effect.

Understand?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Not really a national recognition of different-sex marriage** as in saying "these are the only ones allowed to exist" as even under the Federal DOMA states could and did pass same-sex Civil Marriage.

But thank you. Not I get it.



** "different-sex" and "same-sex" being the more technically correct terms than "traditional" marriage since traditionally polygamy has been and is still practiced in many places around the world, in which case "traditional" marriage would also include polygamy.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Your post makes no sense. Wiki DOMA for pity sake.

No, using an alterable source of "information" like Wiki to cipher the DOMA case would be like using a Rainbow Alliance website to cipher it. ie: useless except for subjective/hopeful opinions.

Much better would be to take the DOMA opinion to an attorney and when s/he is done reading it, ask them "so do you think Prop 8 is still legal in CA or not"?

If the answer is yes [it has to be since lawyers know that one state may not be the exception in Constitutional protection of their consensus-rights on the topic of gay marriage], then rogue officials in CA are operating under contempt of the highest Court in our land and in violation of their own constitution which mandates they perform enforcement of CA initiative law.

If California decides to set a very dangerous and foolish autocratic-rule precedent like this, where the legislature or other singular smaller entity in Sacramento can dictate that they will not abide by initiative law arbitrarily [no lower court ruling may dominate/contradict the more recent and higher one in 2013 by SCOTUS] then other "laws" may follow along the same suit.

Perhaps the next act of dictatorship in CA will be for the oil industry to pack their legislature with its puppets, running as democrats or liberals in disguise, then overrule the public's initiatives there "as a matter of law" and say that offshore oil drilling along its entire coast is now allowable. Once you discover as an industry or industrious social movement, that you can pack and bribe/threaten a tiny oligarchy in Sacramento to dictate to the millions and overrule their will at their whim, even in violation of their constitutional rights to consensus, sky's the limit really.

What's going on in California needs the attention of the rest of the nation. Because this industrious social movement is now trying to overrule public sentiments in other states. Comes to mind here New Mexico. But trust me, their laundry list of fascism doesn't end there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In the 90s Hawaii looked like it might pass a marriage equality bill. The anti-gay of America panicked and we got DOMA which said, in a nutshell, that only marriages between a man and a woman would receive Federal recognition (Section 2) and that gay marriages in one state do not have to abide by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. (Section 3)

Section 2 was found unconstitutional. Congress violated the Constitution when they carved out their exception from recognition. Section 3 still remains in effect.

Understand?

Just a technical correction, you got your sections backward.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your post makes no sense. Wiki DOMA for pity sake.

No, using an alterable source of "information" like Wiki to cipher the DOMA case would be like using a Rainbow Alliance website to cipher it. ie: useless except for subjective/hopeful opinions.

Much better would be to take the DOMA opinion to an attorney and when s/he is done reading it, ask them "so do you think Prop 8 is still legal in CA or not"?

If the answer is yes [it has to be since lawyers know that one state may not be the exception in Constitutional protection of their consensus-rights on the topic of gay marriage], then rogue officials in CA are operating under contempt of the highest Court in our land and in violation of their own constitution which mandates they perform enforcement of CA initiative law.

If California decides to set a very dangerous and foolish autocratic-rule precedent like this, where the legislature or other singular smaller entity in Sacramento can dictate that they will not abide by initiative law arbitrarily [no lower court ruling may dominate/contradict the more recent and higher one in 2013 by SCOTUS] then other "laws" may follow along the same suit.

Perhaps the next act of dictatorship in CA will be for the oil industry to pack their legislature with its puppets, running as democrats or liberals in disguise, then overrule the public's initiatives there "as a matter of law" and say that offshore oil drilling along its entire coast is now allowable. Once you discover as an industry or industrious social movement, that you can pack and bribe/threaten a tiny oligarchy in Sacramento to dictate to the millions and overrule their will at their whim, even in violation of their constitutional rights to consensus, sky's the limit really.

What's going on in California needs the attention of the rest of the nation. Because this industrious social movement is now trying to overrule public sentiments in other states. Comes to mind here New Mexico. But trust me, their laundry list of fascism doesn't end there.

If anyone is concerned, yes they should consult a lawyer, but the DOMA decision didn't impact the Prop 8 Case.

If you concerned about the Prop 8 case take the Prop 8 decision(s) to a lawyer and have them explain it do you.

• Prop 8 District Court Opinion (Prop 8 unconstitutional)
• 9th Circuit Court Opinion (Prop 8 constitutional)
• Untied States Supreme Court (9th's decision vacated, District Court allowed to stand)
• Appeals to continue the stay on Same-sex Civil Marriage to the California Supreme Court (denied)
• Appeal to continue the stay on Same-sex Civil Marriage to the United States Supreme Court (denied)

Then if you are of a mind, go get married in California, the gender composition of the couple makes no difference.


>>>>

 

[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.

Not really a national recognition of different-sex marriage** as in saying "these are the only ones allowed to exist" as even under the Federal DOMA states could and did pass same-sex Civil Marriage.

But thank you. Not I get it.



** "different-sex" and "same-sex" being the more technically correct terms than "traditional" marriage since traditionally polygamy has been and is still practiced in many places around the world, in which case "traditional" marriage would also include polygamy.



>>>>

I don't agree in your interpretation that "traditional marriage" includes polygamy. Early in this nation's founding marriage was performed under a religious institution and polygamy was not morally acceptable.

With respect to DOMA, it simply stated that marriage was recognized as a union between one man and one woman, that the Federal Government does not recognize same sex couples in terms of marriage. The Obama administration has taken the position not to defend that interpretation in court.

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Not really a national recognition of different-sex marriage** as in saying "these are the only ones allowed to exist" as even under the Federal DOMA states could and did pass same-sex Civil Marriage.

But thank you. Not I get it.



** "different-sex" and "same-sex" being the more technically correct terms than "traditional" marriage since traditionally polygamy has been and is still practiced in many places around the world, in which case "traditional" marriage would also include polygamy.



>>>>

I don't agree in your interpretation that "traditional marriage" includes polygamy. Early in this nation's founding marriage was performed under a religious institution and polygamy was not morally acceptable.

With respect to DOMA, it simply stated that marriage was recognized as a union between one man and one woman, that the Federal Government does not recognize same sex couples in terms of marriage. The Obama administration has taken the position not to defend that interpretation in court.

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

exactly, its something called the will of the people, something that was overruled twice in CA.

 

[Redfish]

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

Clear example fishy is losing.

go away snake, I have never lost a debate with you or wytchey. Because you both are wrong on just about every topic that ever comes up.

I post facts, I use logic and common sense. you and wytchey use feeeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooootion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

false analogy----------race is not comparable to sex when it comes to marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not really a national recognition of different-sex marriage** as in saying "these are the only ones allowed to exist" as even under the Federal DOMA states could and did pass same-sex Civil Marriage.

But thank you. Not I get it.



** "different-sex" and "same-sex" being the more technically correct terms than "traditional" marriage since traditionally polygamy has been and is still practiced in many places around the world, in which case "traditional" marriage would also include polygamy.



>>>>

I don't agree in your interpretation that "traditional marriage" includes polygamy. Early in this nation's founding marriage was performed under a religious institution and polygamy was not morally acceptable.

With respect to DOMA, it simply stated that marriage was recognized as a union between one man and one woman, that the Federal Government does not recognize same sex couples in terms of marriage. The Obama administration has taken the position not to defend that interpretation in court.

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

exactly, its something called the will of the people, something that was overruled twice in CA.

So when the Alabama Constitution was amended to exclude interracial marriage and was voted on by the people, then that should not have been overruled by the SCOTUS even though it violated the 14th Amendment?

Would you accept "as the will of the people" of California if they voted to ban firearms from private ownership?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

false analogy----------race is not comparable to sex when it comes to marriage.

Race is biological.

Gender is biological.


How are laws that limit marriage based on race different then laws that limit based on gender different?


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Clear example fishy is losing.

go away snake, I have never lost a debate with you or wytchey. Because you both are wrong on just about every topic that ever comes up.

I post facts, I use logic and common sense. you and wytchey use feeeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooootion.

Redfish, I doubt you have ever defeated Seawytch, and your certainly are on the losing end with me and other intelligent non-reactionaries. You do not use common sense, because you are ideology prevents its. Your type of thinking is what the GOP leadership is minimalizing in the party decision and policy making.

The 14th Amendment trumps all your concerns about marriage and race.

 

[Seawytch]

In the 90s Hawaii looked like it might pass a marriage equality bill. The anti-gay of America panicked and we got DOMA which said, in a nutshell, that only marriages between a man and a woman would receive Federal recognition (Section 2) and that gay marriages in one state do not have to abide by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. (Section 3)

Section 2 was found unconstitutional. Congress violated the Constitution when they carved out their exception from recognition. Section 3 still remains in effect.

Understand?

Just a technical correction, you got your sections backward.



>>>>

Obliged!

 

[Seawytch]

[

With respect to DOMA, it simply stated that marriage was recognized as a union between one man and one woman, that the Federal Government does not recognize same sex couples in terms of marriage.

That's what was found unconstitutional.

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue,

Should it have been for interracial marriage?

however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

Which will also end up being found to violate the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Clear example fishy is losing.

go away snake, I have never lost a debate with you or wytchey. Because you both are wrong on just about every topic that ever comes up.

I post facts, I use logic and common sense. you and wytchey use feeeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooootion.

When did you post verifiable facts? Can you point to them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Clear example fishy is losing.

go away snake, I have never lost a debate with you or wytchey. Because you both are wrong on just about every topic that ever comes up.

I post facts, I use logic and common sense. you and wytchey use feeeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooootion.

When did you post verifiable facts? Can you point to them?

He will count opinion pieces as facts, I bet.

 

[Redfish]

go away snake, I have never lost a debate with you or wytchey. Because you both are wrong on just about every topic that ever comes up.

I post facts, I use logic and common sense. you and wytchey use feeeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooootion.

When did you post verifiable facts? Can you point to them?

He will count opinion pieces as facts, I bet.

you and wytch need to grasp the reality of the gay marriage thing. People take the positions they take because that is what they believe is right or wrong.

The final determination of right or wrong in a civil society is the will of a majority of the people----not some lawyer games with words in latin.

If a majority of our society wants gay marriage, then so be it. If a majority does not want it, then so be it. Thats the way a free society works, if you want a dictatorship move to north korea.

 

[Redfish]

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

Clear example fishy is losing.

go away snake, I have never lost a debate with you or wytchey. Because you both are wrong on just about every topic that ever comes up.

I post facts, I use logic and common sense. you and wytchey use feeeeeeeeeeeeelings and emoooooooootion.

Redfish, I doubt you have ever defeated Seawytch, and your certainly are on the losing end with me and other intelligent non-reactionaries. You do not use common sense, because you are ideology prevents its. Your type of thinking is what the GOP leadership is minimalizing in the party decision and policy making.

The 14th Amendment trumps all your concerns about marriage and race.

wrong again snake. my opinions are based on my beliefs, my experiences, history, and the constitution of the USA.

You and wytch deal in emotional ideas and feel-good opinions, which is fine, but you will never win in a debate that is based on facts, logic, and common sense.