The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

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.

What was the "will of the people" in regards to interracial marriage? Oh yeah...they disapproved by 70%.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The fact is that anti gay marriage laws are based purely on emotion...which is why the "arguments" (and I use that term sarcastically) keep losing in court where actual logic and reason keeps prevailing.

 

[Redfish]

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.

What was the "will of the people" in regards to interracial marriage? Oh yeah...they disapproved by 70%.

at the time 70% may have disapproved, so it should have been banned.

if a vote was taken today, a majority would have no problem with interracial marriage.

the will of the people changes over time, it should not be forced by govt mandate.

 

[Redfish]

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.

The fact is that anti gay marriage laws are based purely on emotion...which is why the "arguments" (and I use that term sarcastically) keep losing in court where actual logic and reason keeps prevailing.

the emotion is all on your side, those who think marriage is one man and one woman believe that is the way humans should live, reproduce and raise children.

Biology, history, religiion, and common sense support that belief. Your belief is based on an emotional belief that a human aberation is normal--------but its not and never will be.

But----if a majority of the citizens of any society want to condone gay marriage by voting to make it legal--then so be it. Same applies if a majority vote to not allow it----so be it.

why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

What was the "will of the people" in regards to interracial marriage? Oh yeah...they disapproved by 70%.

at the time 70% may have disapproved, so it should have been banned.

if a vote was taken today, a majority would have no problem with interracial marriage.

the will of the people changes over time, it should not be forced by govt mandate.

So you actually believe that the Constitution can be superseded by majority vote?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The fact is that anti gay marriage laws are based purely on emotion...which is why the "arguments" (and I use that term sarcastically) keep losing in court where actual logic and reason keeps prevailing.

the emotion is all on your side, those who think marriage is one man and one woman believe that is the way humans should live, reproduce and raise children.

Biology, history, religiion, and common sense support that belief. Your belief is based on an emotional belief that a human aberation is normal--------but its not and never will be.

But----if a majority of the citizens of any society want to condone gay marriage by voting to make it legal--then so be it. Same applies if a majority vote to not allow it----so be it.

why is that so hard for you to grasp?

And yet it's "my side" that keeps winning in court. (Where logic and reason, not the emotional arguments of the anti gay side, matters.)

Minority rights should never be put to majority vote.

 

[Silhouette]

Your side didn't win in the DOMA Ruling. They rejected gays pleas to have gay marriage be a constitutional right. Instead they Upheld that the choice to say either "yes" or "no" to gay marriage via a consensus is a constitutional right.

That Court is the last stop. So when future cases are tried, like those from California and other states wanting their constitutional choice on gay marriage respected, you will know in advance the dicta that the US Supreme Court will refer to.

Enjoy the good weather while it lasts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Your belief is in error.

In Windsor, the provisions of DOMA offensive to the Constitution were invalidated because they manifested a violation of the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause, where the Federal statue sought to “displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others…”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

14th Amendment jurisprudence is clear, accepted, established, and explicit: the states may not violate the Federal Constitution, regardless how popular a given state measure might be.

In Perry, the District Court held, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, by singling-out a class of persons – same-sex couples – for exclusion from marriage law absent a legitimate legislative end.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

One’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, or the ‘will of the people,’ and one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence. In our Constitutional Republic, citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 is proof of that.

Consequently, the people of California never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law, predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

This is tough to do, but I need to issue a technical correction to my previous posts and it will teach me to double check my facts.

I'd previously stated that the 9th Circuit Court had overturned the District Courts ruling. That was in error, the 9th's ruling upheld the District Court's ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. The SCOTUS vacated that ruling on standing grounds leaving the District Courts ruling as the one in place. That being Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Doesn't change anything, but I do like to be accurate.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your side didn't win in the DOMA Ruling. They rejected gays pleas to have gay marriage be a constitutional right. Instead they Upheld that the choice to say either "yes" or "no" to gay marriage via a consensus is a constitutional right.

You can keep repeating it, but that is not what the court said in the DOMA decision. What they said was that if the State said "Yes", then it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to differentiate between same-sex and different-sex legal Civil Marriages by targeting one group for unequal treatment.

What you should be very worried about is (from the DOMA decision)...

"This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adar and Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."​

If the Federal government's attempt to single out homosexuals for unequal treatment is unconstitutional, the that speaks to the view that - under the 14th Due Process and Equal Protection clauses - the same principal applies to the States. Again the DOMA ruling was not a ruling on the constitutionality of SSCM, the ruling was that the Federal government can't deny equal treatment of legally married couples. A very different question.

The passage above though clearly indicates that such discriminatory laws would be considered unconstitutional.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Your side didn't win in the DOMA Ruling. They rejected gays pleas to have gay marriage be a constitutional right. Instead they Upheld that the choice to say either "yes" or "no" to gay marriage via a consensus is a constitutional right.

You can keep repeating it, but that is not what the court said in the DOMA decision. What they said was that if the State said "Yes", then it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to differentiate between same-sex and different-sex legal Civil Marriages by targeting one group for unequal treatment.

What you should be very worried about is (from the DOMA decision)...

"This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adar and Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."​

If the Federal government's attempt to single out homosexuals for unequal treatment is unconstitutional, the that speaks to the view that - under the 14th Due Process and Equal Protection clauses - the same principal applies to the States. Again the DOMA ruling was not a ruling on the constitutionality of SSCM, the ruling was that the Federal government can't deny equal treatment of legally married couples. A very different question.

The passage above though clearly indicates that such discriminatory laws would be considered unconstitutional.



>>>>

Which is why Scalia didn't want to hear Prop 8...

 

[dcraelin]

I think Scalia may very well have wanted to hear the Prop8 case because it gave him a chance to stab Democracy in the back. The prop8 case was never going to accomplish much, gays already had full-benefit civil unions in California.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Incorrect.

One’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, or the ‘will of the people,’ and one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence. In our Constitutional Republic, citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 is proof of that.

Consequently, the people of California never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law, predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals.

bullshit---the constitution was adopted by majority vote, leaders are elected by majority vote, local bond issues are passed by majority vote. The declaration of independence was signed after a majority of the states authorized their representatives to sign it.

what your local homeowners association does is decided by majority vote.

minority rights are established by majority vote.

innocence or guilt in a court of law is decided by majority vote.

thats they way a representative democracy works, we don't have a monarchy or a dictatorship, we vote and the majority decides how the society will operate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

What was the "will of the people" in regards to interracial marriage? Oh yeah...they disapproved by 70%.

at the time 70% may have disapproved, so it should have been banned.

if a vote was taken today, a majority would have no problem with interracial marriage.

the will of the people changes over time, it should not be forced by govt mandate.

Redfish believes that democracy, not the constitution of a republic, should rule.

 

[Seawytch]

What was the "will of the people" in regards to interracial marriage? Oh yeah...they disapproved by 70%.

at the time 70% may have disapproved, so it should have been banned.

if a vote was taken today, a majority would have no problem with interracial marriage.

the will of the people changes over time, it should not be forced by govt mandate.

Redfish believes that democracy, not the constitution of a republic, should rule.

Wanna bet that if the people of CA voted, by initiative, to ban guns or Christians from legal marriage, Fishy would be singing a different tune.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . . Biology, history, religiion, and common sense support that belief. Your belief is based on an emotional belief that a human aberation is normal--------but its not and never will be.

But----if a majority of the citizens of any society want to condone gay marriage by voting to make it legal--then so be it. Same applies if a majority vote to not allow it----so be it.

why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Biology and history support polygamy as the norm: only since Christianity has the norm for part of the human race to practice one man and one woman marriage. A good portion of the world still recognizes one man and more than one wife as normal.

Redfish, you are emotional on this issue, and your common sense has failed you.

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule cannot eviscerates constitutional protection of minorities that you have happen to dislike.

Only the Constitution will protect the evangelical and fundamental minorities in the future, not the American majority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are a representative republic, Redfish: a majority cannot overrule the 14th Amendment, ever.

You can amend the Constitution if you wish to get rid of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

at the time 70% may have disapproved, so it should have been banned.

if a vote was taken today, a majority would have no problem with interracial marriage.

the will of the people changes over time, it should not be forced by govt mandate.

Redfish believes that democracy, not the constitution of a republic, should rule.

Wanna bet that if the people of CA voted, by initiative, to ban guns or Christians from legal marriage, Fishy would be singing a different tune.

He would in an un-American heart beat.