The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[JoeB131]

I think what Shack and Sil are trying to do is find a legal rationalization for their homophobia.

Well, we don't hate them queers, but we don't like the way it was done.

But we've been kind of doing it that way for centuries, really. The executive and judicial branches encrouch a bit on the perogatives of the legislative branch.

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. The US Supreme Court just interpreted the Constitution to say that each sovereign state, as a right to determine their own social fabric destiny, has the unquestioned authority and right to consensus on the question of gay marriage. That consensus gives them the right to either say yes or no to gay marriage.

Not what the DOMA case did. The DOMA case was a federal case in which the SCOTUS said that if the State says "Yes" then the Fed's can't say "No". They did not address whether States could say "no" in the first place.

3. There has be NO Upholding of constitutional law that defies that choice in consensus, no determination of gays having an inaliable right to marry anywhere in the US. Any state constituitonal statute that defies a state's right on consensus, retroactive to the founding of the country no less, is null and void. California may not arbitrarily deny 7 million people of their constitutionally-protected right to consensus on gay marriage because of what they think their own constitution says something different about that consensus; [refer to item #1 herein].

You logic is faulty. By your reasoning...

"There has be NO Upholding of constitutional law that defies that choice in consensus, no determination of coloreds marrying whites as having an inaliable right to marry anywhere in the US. Any state constituitonal statute that defies a state's right on consensus, retroactive to the founding of the country no less, is null and void. California may not arbitrarily deny 7 million people of their constitutionally-protected right to consensus on interracial marriage because of what they think their own constitution says something different about that consensus; "​

The fact of the matter is that State are subject to the federal constitution found in the 14th Amendment. States cannot deny due process and equal treatment under the law. Your logic on taking a small snippet of dicta out of context does not change facts. Do date the Supreme Court has heard and issued a definative decision on states that use gender as a condition of Civil Marriage similar to what they did with race. The DOMA case was only about federal recognition of those states that said "yes", it did not address states that said "no".

Might want to take that one to your lawyer also to mull over whether or not you and your gay buddy are legally married there..

Go ahead take it to a responsible lawyer, they will confirm the faultiness of the position.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Not what the DOMA case did. The DOMA case was a federal case in which the SCOTUS said that if the State says "Yes" then the Fed's can't say "No". They did not address whether States could say "no" in the first place.


...The fact of the matter is that State are subject to the federal constitution found in the 14th Amendment. States cannot deny due process and equal treatment under the law. Your logic on taking a small snippet of dicta out of context does not change facts. Do date the Supreme Court has heard and issued a definative decision on states that use gender as a condition of Civil Marriage similar to what they did with race. The DOMA case was only about federal recognition of those states that said "yes", it did not address states that said "no".
>>>>

The 14th Addresses RACE, RELIGION, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND GENDER. It does NOT address sexual behaviors or any other behaviors outside of religions. Unless gay is a religion, and I believe that's the strongest case gays have actually since it involves a fierce evangelical edge and equally fierce dissuasion for defection from the fold [see laws banning therapy helping youngsters throw off artificially imposed homosexuality from childhood molestation] then they are dead in the water legally speaking as to the 14th.

What we find in the DOMA Decision instead is repeated Upholdings of state's sovereign right to consensus. Here is the direct quote again:

"...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 .." (page 19) Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

So in New York, a consensus on gay marriage is to be respected and allowed. In California, you argue, it is not. The Justices of the US Supreme Court aren't stupid. They're not ignorant of the english language and its meanings. Lawyers like they wield the written word like a laser sword. They did not arbitrarily choose the word "consensus". They knew and know, just as you do, that it means a choice among the many. CHOICE not a mandate. And so with gay marriage, the CHOICE is "yes" OR "no". Not JUST "yes"! Understand? Suppressing the choice of "no" of 7 million in California IS ILLEGAL and in violation of 7 million people's civil rights. It is illegal, anywhere, anytime, said so or suppressed by anyone, including the CA state legislature, Ca senator Leno, Gov Brown, AG Harris and all the rest of them currently in violation of US law. Remember, the US SUPREME Court said that the 7 million's right to consensus was retroactive to the founding of the country and in full force as of June 2013.

Let me reiterate this for you: When the fed Upheld state's sovereign rights to consensus on gay marriage, retroactive to the founding of the nation, that means also the right to say "no" to gay marriage is a constitutional right held by the people of each state.

Perhaps this is why no one yet has been so bold in the rogue officials in California to change the wording of its constitution. They know better than to carry their sedition and contempt for the CA Constitution and the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution that far. Have a look here at the wording still present on the internet to this very minute:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Go ahead. Visit the link. I dare you to rewrite the California Constitution without the permission of the People there and in full contempt of their constitutionally-upheld right to say "no" to gay marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Funny, I don't see race or religion specified.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The 14th Addresses RACE, RELIGION, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND GENDER. It does NOT address sexual behaviors or any other behaviors outside of religions.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

You should read it, the 14th Amendment does not list race, religion, country of origin, and gender as limiting factors. As a matter of fact it says ALL PERSONS and CITIZENS.

The 14th Addresses RACE, RELIGION, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND GENDER. It does NOT address sexual behaviors or any other behaviors outside of religions.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you...

From Romer v . Evans...

"The trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction was sustained by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. On remand, the trial court found that the Amendment failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. It enjoined Amendment 2's enforcement, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14. "

<<SNIP>>

(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. Pp. 9-14.

882 P. 2d 1335, affirmed.​

So in New York, a consensus on gay marriage is to be respected and allowed. In California, you argue, it is not.

Not what I'm saying at all. You are trying to use the DOMA decision which was about federal recognition of State marriages when they had said "yes". It does not address the issue of whether states can say "no" in the first place. The SCOTUS dodged that question and in fact left the ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional inplace, hence SSCM is again legal in California.

The Justices of the US Supreme Court aren't stupid. They're not ignorant of the english language and its meanings. Lawyers like they wield the written word like a laser sword.

And yet the SCOTUS allowed Prop 8 to remain unconstitutional because they did not vacate the trial courts ruling.

Let me reiterate this for you: When the fed Upheld state's sovereign rights to consensus on gay marriage, retroactive to the founding of the nation, that means also the right to say "no" to gay marriage is a constitutional right held by the people of each state.

Let me reiterate this for you. The DOMA case was not about States that said "No". The DOMA case was about States that said "Yes" only. The SCOTUS did not address the "No" component at all. In fact, the fact they did not vacate the Prop 8 ruling leaving it as unconstitutional should make you very worried as to the outcome of future cases once they feel the time is ripe to accept a case with national implications.

Go ahead. Visit the link. I dare you to rewrite the California Constitution without the permission of the People there and in full contempt of their constitutionally-upheld right to say "no" to gay marriage.

I've been to the link many times. It lists a currently unconstitutional provision that is not active in the state. Just like when the SCOTUS overturned anti-miscegenation articles in State constitutions. They were still written there but didn't matter.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

By Upholding each state's sovereign right to consensus on the question of gay marriage in the DOMA case's Opinion, they allowed each state, retroactive to the founding of the country, the choice of 'yes' or 'no' on gay marriage. Allowing it to be a choice by specifically using the word "consensus" instead of "mandate", means the US Supreme Court's most recent decision says that gay marriage is most definitely not interpreted through the Constitution as a right. If states are allowed a choice on it, it is not by definition a right. Please direct me to specific language where the Court said "gay marriage is an inaliable right'.

You can't. Because if you could, right after that it would say '...and so is polygamy, minor marriage, marriage between parent and child, marriage between siblings and any other conceivable pairing in marriage of human beings'.

You can't be arbitrary when you're strapping dynamite to "between a man and a woman" only. No, what you find instead in the language of the DOMA Opinion is long windy diatribes about how each state has a vested interest in determining the parameters of their own social fabric and mores regarding marriage. You find many references to how marriage isn't merely a sterile contract but rather an institution more lofty and important than that. And as such, each state's consensus is necessary to determine it's own collective social destiny.

Another quote from DOMA Opinion:

page 13-14.
"When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right. After waiting some years, in 2007 they traveled to Ontario to be married there. It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight. Accordingly some States concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other. The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion."

Now then, in that dialogue, where did you see instead of just "New York and certain other States", the words "all 50 states"? You didn't. And that dilenation is carefully laid again and again in DOMA. It reiterates that the Court does not consider gay marriage a fundamental right enforceable across the 50 states. And it further narrows how that decision is arrived at in each state as "by consensus", not a dictate or a mandate. It discusses at great length how each state has a vested interest in its social destiny and whether or not gay marriage is "allowed" [they used that word too, sorry] is a matter for the whole state to get in on and have a say in consensus.

Notice too the descriptions of how implausible, weird, odd and new-faddish the Court considers gay marriage to be. Their attitude isn't "an idea whose time is welcomed, finally here!". It's VERY conservative, noting that traditional marriage has been the mainstay for "centuries" and "throughout the history of civilization".

No, the US Supreme Court upheld Prop 8's right to consensus of the 7 million who said "no" to gay marraige in California. And don't forget, to this day the California Constitution website publicizes this as CA's official legal stance on gay marriage:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Go ahead and contact officals there and dare them to change it. They won't. And that's because they know what they're doing there is in contempt of the US Supreme Court, the CA constitution and of democracy itself.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, the US Supreme Court upheld Prop 8's right to consensus of the 7 million who said "no" to gay marraige in California.

This statement shows a complete misinterpretation and twisting of what happened with the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

The Supreme Court didn't uphold Prop 8, they allowed the District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand, thereby allowing legal Same-sex Civil Marriages to restart.

If what you say is true, they would have vacated the District Court's decision. They didn't though. They didn't uphold the consensus of a State that said "No", they allowed Prop 8 to be overturned.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

This statement shows a complete misinterpretation and twisting of what happened with the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

The Supreme Court didn't uphold Prop 8, they allowed the District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand, thereby allowing legal Same-sex Civil Marriages to restart.

If what you say is true, they would have vacated the District Court's decision. They didn't though. They didn't uphold the consensus of a State that said "No", they allowed Prop 8 to be overturned.
>>>>

No, they "punted" on the lower court decision. That doesn't mean their own Decision didn't overrule it. You understand overrule, right? If a higher court says "x" is allowed and a lower court says "x" is not allowed. "x" is allowed. Case closed.

In Ruling that each state has a constitutional right to consensus [a choice of the multitude of "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage, retroactive to the founding of the country, and by expressly reiterating over and over that gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states", the Court ruled that Prop 8 is valid and the law. California cannot be the one exception of the 50 states to this Constitutional Determination. Equal application amongst the 50. You remember high school poli-sci, right? And wouldn't you know, the CA constitution as of this date reflects that Holding:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Go to the link. That is the current advertised state of the CA constitution today, this very moment that you read this.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, they "punted" on the lower court decision. That doesn't mean their own Decision didn't overrule it. You understand overrule, right? If a higher court says "x" is allowed and a lower court says "x" is not allowed. "x" is allowed. Case closed.

I agree they punted on the core issue. But they did not vacate the courts ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, they allowed it to stand.

Hence SSCM being legal in California again.

In Ruling that each state has a constitutional right to consensus [a choice of the multitude of "yes" or "no"] on gay marriage,

That is not what the ruling was, that's want you want it to be, but that is not reality.

The DOMA case was a Federal case and had nothing to do with States that said "No". The DOMA case was about States that said "Yes" and whether the Federal government could discriminate. The ruling was no, the Federal government could not discriminate.

What you should be very afraid of is the indicator that the preception of the court is that denying recognition of Civil Marriage to parties of the same gender is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

"What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. 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."​

If it is discriminatory and a violation of the Due Process provisions of the Constitution (Federal application via the 5th Amendment and applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment) for the Federal government actions to be deemed unconstitutional, then it will only be a matter of time before the issue "ripens" to the point where the SCOTUS takes a case to answer the question of the States power to deprive "All Persons" and "Citizens" of the respective states full access to the privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection of the law.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I agree they punted on the core issue. But they did not vacate the courts ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, they allowed it to stand.

Hence SSCM being legal in California again.

That is not what the ruling was, that's want you want it to be, but that is not reality.

The DOMA case was a Federal case and had nothing to do with States that said "No". The DOMA case was about States that said "Yes" and whether the Federal government could discriminate. The ruling was no, the Federal government could not discriminate.

What you should be very afraid of is the indicator that the preception of the court is that denying recognition of Civil Marriage to parties of the same gender is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

"What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. 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."​

If it is discriminatory and a violation of the Due Process provisions of the Constitution (Federal application via the 5th Amendment and applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment) for the Federal government actions to be deemed unconstitutional, then it will only be a matter of time before the issue "ripens" to the point where the SCOTUS takes a case to answer the question of the States power to deprive "All Persons" and "Citizens" of the respective states full access to the privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection of the law.
>>>>

That depends on the science coming out on how homosexuality is gotten. Right now, with all we know about training sexual orientations across all mammal species, a trained affect is not a "minority". It's a behavior.

What YOU need to be "very afraid of" is that the Court will consider equality. How so? Because if it makes one set of behaviors that people claim they cannot change [and create laws to prevent kids from being able to change even if they want to from an artificially-imposed orientation from having been sexually molested as a child], then all other people with behaviors "they cannot change" can use the very powerful precedent to claim all manner of priveleges themselves, according to their behavior.

It may very well be that the Court "ripens" to the opposite conclusion. And there are excellent reasons it should. Can you imagine turning all the penal and civil codes on their head in every state by kicking the barn door open to behaviors getting special status and "protection from discrimination due to the type of behavior they practice? That would DESTROY american law. Then all manner of behaviors could force the court to "ripen" to mainstream their activities. All anyone would have to say is "this person is being mean to me because of a behavior I've always felt a compulsion to do, so it feels inborn to me at this point..." Try to use that excuse as a criminal defense now. Wouldn't wash. 20 years after the Court might "ripen" to setting this new amazingly destructive precedent and it just might be a criminal defense.

Marriage is a venue that is being "assaulted" in this very way. Since marriage has to do with shacking up with someone you're having sex with, naturally this deviant sexual behavior wants to lay claim to it. Will bulimics next lay claim to restaurants, insisting vomit urns be placed near each table so their "eating orientation" can be accomodated? Why should they be required to sneak off to the "closet" of a restroom to practice what has seemed natural to them since their childhood? Who are they hurting outside themselves? Should those cleptomaniacs who enjoy joyriding be deprived of taking someone else's car and driving about, as long as they fill it up with gas and leave money for mileage/damage on the front seat when they are done? After all, these cleptos have felt that urge since their earliest memories. We cannot deprive them of their right to liberty and free expression, can we?

Setting a behavior as a special class outside religion is a very dangerous path to start down. Behaviors have taken men to very dark places one invisible step at a time. Just because those steps are invisible to those who practice them, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot see the stark and damaging future just on the horizon.

The sharp rise in HIV cases in young men and boys ages 13-29 just in the same years this big gay marriage push started is but one very deadly example I can give of "monkey see, monkey do".

And BTW, the court did address state's rights on consensus to gay marriage a constitutional protection in the DOMA Opinion, leaving it up to each state to decide. That OVERRULES any lower decision, left to stand, punted, whatever. No lower court decisions that stand in direct conflict with a higher court decision, most particularly when it comes to the declaration in DOMA that each state has a constitutional right, retroactive to the founding of the country, to consensus since the founding of the country are valid. They are null and void.

Same sex marriage IS NOT legal in California. It never has been. Gay marriage is not a protected right and gays are not a protected class. Behaviors cannot be unless they are a federally recognized religion. Apply for equality based on your behaviors as a religion. They imminently qualify. You all evangelize in radio ads, TV ads & programs aimed at youth. You lobby for laws keeping kids who were molested and imprinted with homosexuality from getting therapy to revert to their normal birth orientations: hetero. You lash out at "defectors", assigning a derogatory name of "Anne Heche" to anyone who dares to go straight. You deny that closet heteros are in your ranks when it's pointed out that in nearly every gay couple there is a butch and a femme. One of them is attracted secretly to the opposite gender. A religion really is the closest thing to describing how you would qualify as a special class.

There is nothing truly physically permanent about any given gay that aligns him or her with the rest of the pack, nothing innate except the impression that they were "born that way". The science stands in defiance of that perception. We can train any animal to become sexully oriented, automatically excited without cognitive involvement at any object, same gender or whatever situation we choose to expose them to at a crucial age in their development. Homo sapiens cannot be the one exception. Just as California cannot be the one exception to the other states having a protected constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. Consensus being the right of the many to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage.

California said no. Their constitution reflects that decision. Gay marriage is ILLEGAL in California. Anyone getting married there should have their attorney go to the CA constitution website and ask the webmasters why the language of the constitution has not been changed from "marriage is only between a man and a woman"?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That depends on the science coming out on how homosexuality is gotten.

No it doesn’t in the least. The “source” of homosexuality is irrelevant to legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Colorado found this out when they tried to target homosexuals for legislation for a public referendum and that law was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. The “source” of homosexuality was irrelevant, it was the targeting as a group that mattered. (See Romer v. Evans).

The rest then is blah…

Same sex marriage IS NOT legal in California.

Sure it is…

The United States Supreme Court said it was when they decided not to overturn the ruling by the District Judge and allowed the decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand.

The California Supreme Court said it was when they denied further challenges to Prop 8 to be heard after the SCOTUS decision.

The Federal Government says they are because they are now fully recognized under Federal tax law and for other consideration by the Federal government (inheritance, immigration, social security, and other benefit programs).

The State of California does in that they recognize those Civil Marriage performed in 2008 and have resumed Civil Marriages after the stay was lifted and the ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

I think the only one that doesn’t think they are valid is the person who wrote the OP.

Anyone getting married there should have their attorney go to the CA constitution website and ask the webmasters why the language of the constitution has not been changed from "marriage is only betweenn a man and a woman"?

Anyone is welcome to take $300-$500 and piss it down the toilet or to go to a responsible lawyer and have them explain it to them, but the outcome doesn’t change – Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal again in California.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].

Let me provide you with a couple of examples:

1. In 2003 the SCOTUS ruled that Sodomy laws were unconstitutional when applied to consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. Many State still have such laws on the books, they are however unenforceable because the law is unconstitutional. They remain on the books until such time as the legislature chooses to re-write the code. This also applies to the Federal law, private consensual Sodomy is legal – however Congress has yet to update the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Title 10 of the United States Code § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy) to remove it from the books. The Military doesn’t enforce it though because they know it has been ruled unconstitutional. (10 USC § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute)

2. A second example. In 1967 the United States Supreme court ruled that statutory laws and State constitutional amendments that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. Those words may remain on paper in terms of what is written on paper, but they are not functional. Even though the decision was in 1967 it wasn’t until the year 2000 that Alabama decided to actually follow through and amend their constitution to remove the ban. So even though the words existed on paper, for the period 1967-2000, the were unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The sad part is that when the amendment to vote on removing the language went to the ballot, 40% of the voters still voted in support the banning language. (Alabama Interracial Marriage, Amendment 2 (2000) - Ballotpedia​

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The Feds have stopped charging me the additional Health Care tax. Evidence of DOMA working in CA.

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone is welcome to take $300-$500 and piss it down the toilet or to go to a responsible lawyer and have them explain it to them, but the outcome doesn&#8217;t change &#8211; Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal again in California.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].
>>>>

When the act of changing the Will of the People in CA via the initiative system outside the lawful process is paraded around as "legitimate", Superior Law takes effect. And that law protects Prop 8 as a constitutional right, not to be alienated from the 7 million who lawfully enacted it.

Leaving the choice of gay marriage up to each state in consensus was SCOTUS' thumb's down on approving the lower court's determination that to deny gays to marry is "unconstitutional". Denying them is IN FACT, constitutional. States can deny gay or polygamy marriage as they see fit. They can also set standards for ages and closeness in blood relation. All these exceptions to "one man and one woman not related" are up to each state to decide upon. The California constitution subjegates itself to the US Constitution.....You have been Overruled.

And in fact that's why nobody of all the rogue officials in California currently in contempt of the US Supreme Court, the US Constitution, the CA constution, and the civil rights of the 7 million who enacted Prop 8; as well as being guilty of a host of other seditious crimes, like ordering lower clerks to issue illegal marriage "licenses", has had the balls to try to tamper with the wording of law in CA's constitution.

Here it is again as it appears today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Silhouette...wake me up when this gets back to the SCOTUS won't you? In the meantime...I'm enjoying the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal civil marriage (on a state and FEDERAL level). Our family is thriving!

 

[WorldWatcher]

When the act of changing the Will of the People in CA via the initiative system outside the lawful process is paraded around as "legitimate", Superior Law takes effect. And that law protects Prop 8 as a constitutional right, not to be alienated from the 7 million who lawfully enacted it.

Not the first time that State actions have been found unconstitutional. Some state votes to put bans on interracial marriage into their State Constitution, those were found unconstitutional also.

Then you have Colorado's anti-gay initiative that was struck down in Romer v. Evens.

Leaving the choice of gay marriage up to each state in consensus was SCOTUS' thumb's down on approving the lower court's determination that to deny gays to marry is "unconstitutional".

No it wasn't the SCOTUS let the Prop 8 ruling that it was unconstitutional stand, they choose not to vacate the District Court Judges decision.

Leaving the choice of gay marriage up to each state in consensus was SCOTUS' thumb's down on approving the lower court's determination that to deny gays to marry is "unconstitutional".

That was not the effect of the DOMA decision, you are trying to take dicta and make stare decisis. The SCOTUS did not rule that states had ultimate power to enact discriminatory laws against homosexuals, the ruling was about if the State said "Yes" could the federal government say "No". Their rulings was it could not.

The ruling had nothing to do with states that said "No".

And in fact that's why nobody of all the rogue officials in California currently in contempt of the US Supreme Court, the US Constitution, the CA constution, and the civil rights of the 7 million who enacted Prop 8; as well as being guilty of a host of other seditious crimes, like ordering lower clerks to issue illegal marriage "licenses", has had the balls to try to tamper with the wording of law in CA's constitution.

Here it is again as it appears today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

So let me make sure I understand your position, because there has not been a vote in California to remove the language for an unconstitutional provision from the State Constitution (such action being required to change the text) - that that provision is still in force. (Silly logic to begin with right there.)

But with that said then your opinion (if you are going to be consistent) must be that interracial marriages remained illegal in Alabama even though the SCOTUS rules such bans were unconstitutional yet the Alabama Constitution wasn't amended until 2000. So from 1967 to 2000 interracial marriage remained illegal in Alabama because the text was still in the Constitution.

Ya, good luck with that.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone is welcome to take $300-$500 and piss it down the toilet or to go to a responsible lawyer and have them explain it to them, but the outcome doesn’t change – Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal again in California.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].
>>>>

When the act of changing the Will of the People in CA via the initiative system outside the lawful process is paraded around as "legitimate", Superior Law takes effect. And that law protects Prop 8 as a constitutional right, not to be alienated from the 7 million who lawfully enacted it.

Leaving the choice of gay marriage up to each state in consensus was SCOTUS' thumb's down on approving the lower court's determination that to deny gays to marry is "unconstitutional". Denying them is IN FACT, constitutional. States can deny gay or polygamy marriage as they see fit. They can also set standards for ages and closeness in blood relation. All these exceptions to "one man and one woman not related" are up to each state to decide upon. The California constitution subjegates itself to the US Constitution.....You have been Overruled.

And in fact that's why nobody of all the rogue officials in California currently in contempt of the US Supreme Court, the US Constitution, the CA constution, and the civil rights of the 7 million who enacted Prop 8; as well as being guilty of a host of other seditious crimes, like ordering lower clerks to issue illegal marriage "licenses", has had the balls to try to tamper with the wording of law in CA's constitution.

Here it is again as it appears today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Clearly you don’t understand.

There are scores of state laws still on the books and provisions and amendments in state constitutions which have been invalidated by the courts over the decades.

That a given amendment, provision, or measure is ruled un-Constitutional doesn’t mean such an amendment, provision, or measure, must be repealed or rewritten, it only means the measure can’t be enforced.

For example, South Carolina didn’t amend its state constitution to remove the prohibition of interracial marriage until 1998, although the provision was invalid and un-Constitutional since 1967.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey Silhouette...wake me up when this gets back to the SCOTUS won't you? In the meantime...I'm enjoying the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal civil marriage (on a state and FEDERAL level). Our family is thriving!

If you live in and were "married" in California, in order for your statement to be correct, American law as we know it has to be dissolved. Proposition 8 was and is California's legal and constitutionally-Upheld right to consensus on gay marriage. This determination was most recently made by the US Supreme Court. All other lower opinions in conflict are null and void. 7 million people in CA cannot have their civil rights simultaneously violated. See DOMA Opinion for details.

And while you're sluething out information, ask officials in CA why their Constitution states that marriage is "only between a man and a woman" on their website.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you live in and were "married" in California, in order for your statement to be correct, American law as we know it has to be dissolved. Proposition 8 was and is California's legal and constitutionally-Upheld right to consensus on gay marriage. This determination was most recently made by the US Supreme Court. All other lower opinions in conflict are null and void. 7 million people in CA cannot have their civil rights simultaneously violated.

Incorrect, the SCOTUS made no such decision. The case you are trying to cite concerned whether the Federal government was required to accept Same-sex Civil Marriages for States that said "Yes".

The case did not address nor provide any precedent upon States that have said "No". That will be a different case in the future.

See DOMA Opinion for details.

Since you are talking about the Prop 8 case I notice that you leave out that the SCOTUS allowed the District Court Judges ruling (i.e. Prop 8 was unconsitutitonal) to stand. They did not vacate the ruling.

And while you're sluething out information, ask officials in CA why their Constitution states that marriage is "only between a man and a woman" on their website.

No "sluething" is necessary on her part because the answer is understood by most regular people. However you are welcome to consult a lawyer (make sure they are respectable and not someone that will just take your $300-500 for the consult and tell you what you want to hear) and have them explain it to you.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].

Let me provide you with a couple of examples:

1. In 2003 the SCOTUS ruled that Sodomy laws were unconstitutional when applied to consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. Many State still have such laws on the books, they are however unenforceable because the law is unconstitutional. They remain on the books until such time as the legislature chooses to re-write the code. This also applies to the Federal law, private consensual Sodomy is legal – however Congress has yet to update the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Title 10 of the United States Code § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy) to remove it from the books. The Military doesn’t enforce it though because they know it has been ruled unconstitutional. (10 USC § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute)

2. A second example. In 1967 the United States Supreme court ruled that statutory laws and State constitutional amendments that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. Those words may remain on paper in terms of what is written on paper, but they are not functional. Even though the decision was in 1967 it wasn’t until the year 2000 that Alabama decided to actually follow through and amend their constitution to remove the ban. So even though the words existed on paper, for the period 1967-2000, the were unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The sad part is that when the amendment to vote on removing the language went to the ballot, 40% of the voters still voted in support the banning language. (Alabama Interracial Marriage, Amendment 2 (2000) - Ballotpedia




>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Since you are talking about the Prop 8 case I notice that you leave out that the SCOTUS allowed the District Court Judges ruling (i.e. Prop 8 was unconsitutitonal) to stand. They did not vacate the ruling.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].


>>>>

By Upholding in DOMA, the twin to Prop 8 [remember, "oddly" SCOTUS opted to hear both cases at the same technical "Sitting", thereby binding them legally...this was not a random choice or mistake...] that each sovereign state has the "unquestioned authority" to define via consensus the parameters of marriage "as the framers of the constitution intended" retroactive to the founding of the country, SCOTUS did in fact vacate and overrule the lower court ruling that said California could not act to ban gays and polygamists from marrying.

Please also answer this: Why is the language of the current writing and internet listing of the CA constitution stating that only a marriage between a man and a woman is lawful there? Why has that not been legislatively rewritten yet?

That's a rhetorical question. Because even though AG Harris and Gov Brown have the brass nugs to be in full contempt of the DOMA ruling, 7 million of their own people and the CA state intitiative system, they don't quite have the balls to attempt to rewrite the CA constitution in violation of standing state and federal law. Even they know that sedition would be pushing it beyond the envelope..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since you are talking about the Prop 8 case I notice that you leave out that the SCOTUS allowed the District Court Judges ruling (i.e. Prop 8 was unconsitutitonal) to stand. They did not vacate the ruling.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].


>>>>

By Upholding in DOMA, the twin to Prop 8 [remember, "oddly" SCOTUS opted to hear both cases at the same technical "Sitting", thereby binding them legally...this was not a random choice or mistake...]

They did no such thing. They accepted them on appeal as separate cases (DOMA & Prop 8), they heard them on different days, and they issued them as separate decisions.

They did not join the cases, the kept them separate.

that each sovereign state has the "unquestioned authority" to define via consensus the parameters of marriage "as the framers of the constitution intended" retroactive to the founding of the country, SCOTUS did in fact vacate and overrule the lower court ruling that said California could not act to ban gays and polygamists from marrying.

Your out of context snipped is not was the decision said. When you actually read it, the out of context snippet you

For those reading the thread here it is in context:

&#8220;In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding &#8220;to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.&#8221; 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 fed- eral system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitu-tion 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&#8217; 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 &#8220;but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.&#8221; 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&#8217;s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.&#8221;
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute​

#1 &#8211; The first paragraph is talking about the relationship between the State and the Federal government and that when the State says &#8220;Yes&#8221; to the recognition of certain rights, in this case Civil Marriage, it is not within the power of the Federal government to say &#8220;No&#8221;. This does not address whether a State can say &#8220;No&#8221; or not. It address that when a State says &#8220;Yes&#8221; and the follow on Federal Treatment of citizens.
#2 &#8211; In the second paragraph the court notes that while the States regulate and define marriage, they can only do so within the scope of Constitutional gurarentees. We already know that States cannot make unconstitutional laws barring interracial marriage even though that would fall into &#8220;define and regulate&#8221;.
#3 &#8211; Then the court goes on to note: &#8220;Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form &#8220;but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.&#8221; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003)&#8221;. That sentence right their should make opponents of equal treatment of same-sex couples very nervious. It signals that the court, when it decides to accept, will view

Please also answer this: Why is the language of the current writing and internet listing of the CA constitution stating that only a marriage between a man and a woman is lawful there? Why has that not been legislatively rewritten yet?

That's a rhetorical question. Because even though AG Harris and Gov Brown have the brass nugs to be in full contempt of the DOMA ruling, 7 million of their own people and the CA state intitiative system, they don't quite have the balls to attempt to rewrite the CA constitution in violation of standing state and federal law. Even they know that sedition would be pushing it beyond the envelope..

It&#8217;s not even a good rhetorical question as the answer was provided in the post you quoted, let me repeat:

&#8220;No "sluething" is necessary on her part because the answer is understood by most regular people. However you are welcome to consult a lawyer (make sure they are respectable and not someone that will just take your $300-500 for the consult and tell you what you want to hear) and have them explain it to you.

What the lawyer will explain is that just because the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the words on paper in a given state are automatically re-written. The changing of the text requires either (a) legislative action [in the case of statutory laws], or (b) the amendment process be followed [in the case of State constitutions].

Let me provide you with a couple of examples:

1. In 2003 the SCOTUS ruled that Sodomy laws were unconstitutional when applied to consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. Many State still have such laws on the books, they are however unenforceable because the law is unconstitutional. They remain on the books until such time as the legislature chooses to re-write the code. This also applies to the Federal law, private consensual Sodomy is legal &#8211; however Congress has yet to update the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Title 10 of the United States Code § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy) to remove it from the books. The Military doesn&#8217;t enforce it though because they know it has been ruled unconstitutional. (10 USC § 925 - Art. 125. Sodomy | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute)

2. A second example. In 1967 the United States Supreme court ruled that statutory laws and State constitutional amendments that banned interracial marriages were unconstitutional. Those words may remain on paper in terms of what is written on paper, but they are not functional. Even though the decision was in 1967 it wasn&#8217;t until the year 2000 that Alabama decided to actually follow through and amend their constitution to remove the ban. So even though the words existed on paper, for the period 1967-2000, the were unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The sad part is that when the amendment to vote on removing the language went to the ballot, 40% of the voters still voted in support the banning language. (Alabama Interracial Marriage, Amendment 2 (2000) - Ballotpedia​

Because even though AG Harris and Gov Brown have the brass nugs to be in full contempt of the DOMA ruling, 7 million of their own people and the CA state intitiative system, they don't quite have the balls to attempt to rewrite the CA constitution in violation of standing state and federal law. Even they know that sedition would be pushing it beyond the envelope..

No.

There are no provisions under California Constitution for the Governor or the AG to haphazardly remove text from the Constitution. It has nothing to do with &#8220;brass nugs&#8221; it has to do with CA now needing to follow the prescribed process to remove the language.

So now answer us a question. Loving V. Virginia was a 1967 case where the SCOTUS ruled ban on marriage based on race were unconstitutional. Alabama retained the language of the ban in its State Constitution until the repeal process was followed in 2000. So from 1967 to 2000 bans were unconstuttoinal, but the language remained.

Does that mean that Civil Marriages between interracial couples, during the period 1967-2000, in Alabama were illegally performed and therefore are not valid?



>>>>