The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

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

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

So what are you whining about?

I might want to move to Utah someday.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

So what are you whining about?

I might want to move to Utah someday.

You might want to move to Saudi Arabia too, where they really appreciate that sort of thing.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Sorry..

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

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

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

I was married prior to the passage of Prop 8...not that it would matter. Marriages performed after the SCOTUS sent it back to the lower court are valid as well.

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

No. Minority rights should not be subject to majority vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

I was married prior to the passage of Prop 8...not that it would matter. Marriages performed after the SCOTUS sent it back to the lower court are valid as well.

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

No. Minority rights should not be subject to majority vote.

Nothing to do with rights. You have exactly the same rights as any other female. Sorry.

 

[Geaux4it]

IDK- If fags want to get it on, so be it. However, there are limits. Say, some dude wants to marry a chicken. I got no problem with that unless they want the benefits that come with marriage. I mean, we have to draw the line somewhere.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

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

I was married prior to the passage of Prop 8...not that it would matter. Marriages performed after the SCOTUS sent it back to the lower court are valid as well.

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

No. Minority rights should not be subject to majority vote.

Nothing to do with rights. You have exactly the same rights as any other female. Sorry.

I do in 13 states.

 

[Antares]

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

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

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

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

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

Your anecdotal evidence or....

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

I'll go with the Times.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

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

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

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

Your anecdotal evidence or....

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

I'll go with the Times.

Transparent attempt to polarize.

Stop Blaming California's Black Voters for Prop 8

 

[Plasmaball]

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

hey a race baiter

 

[Yurt]

i bet you hate loving v. virginia

 

[Antares]

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

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

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

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

Your anecdotal evidence or....

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

I'll go with the Times.

Transparent attempt to polarize.

Stop Blaming California's Black Voters for Prop 8

You aren't very bright are you?

Stating the facts is no way an attempt at polarization....now you DO realize your HuffPo piece substantiates the Times numbers don't you?

 

[Antares]

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

hey a race baiter

Stating the facts is "race baiting"...got it.

Another ill educated moron.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..

In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.

They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.

Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, 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 respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.

In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.

The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:

Page 14 same link as above:
New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry

A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.

Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was rationally based?

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was predicated on objective, documented facts justifying denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights?

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was not solely predicated on animus toward homosexuals?

The evidence in support of Proposition 8 was reviewed by two Federal courts, neither court found compelling evidence in support of the measure, and Proposition 8 was invalidated accordingly.

Nothing in this post brings ‘new evidence’ in support of Proposition 8.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

No one ever said they did.

Equal protection of the law means equal access to the law, including marriage law, the exact same law accessed by opposite-sex couples.

To contrive some ‘separate but “equal”’ marriage ‘law’ for same-sex couples only is just as un-Constitutional as denying them access to current marriage law.

 

[Silhouette]

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was rationally based?
Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was predicated on objective, documented facts justifying denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights?

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was not solely predicated on animus toward homosexuals?

The evidence in support of Proposition 8 was reviewed by two Federal courts, neither court found compelling evidence in support of the measure, and Proposition 8 was invalidated accordingly.

Nothing in this post brings ‘new evidence’ in support of Proposition 8.

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was rationally based?

"rationally based"? That is such a subjective term that I cannot even properly address it. I can only conclude you introduced the topic to sideline the main topic. For instance, my perpsective is that people who attempt to reproduce with the same gender are in no way shape or form "rational". Your perspective undoubtedly is the polar opposite. I'd argue that allowing gay marriage sets a terrible example of what society holds as normal to kids [see the latest rapid rise in new HIV cases in young men and boys ages 13-29 as an example of icons, fads and their results]. You would argue that gays marrying is the perfect example to kids... and so on..

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was predicated on objective, documented facts justifying denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights?

It doesn't have to be. All any gay marriage laws in any state have to be is the result of consensus. I'm sure 50 year old men could make an argument that they should be able to marry 13 year olds because it's allowed in New Hampshire. Would we listen to them? Probably not. Unfortunately for gays, there was no mention of their having any constitutional right to marriage in either Prop 8 or DOMA. There was specific mention however of each sovereign state's constitutional right to consensus to decide on gay marriage.

Where is the evidence that Proposition 8 was not solely predicated on animus toward homosexuals?

In the text of the law, beautifully enough. The law reads that marriage in CA is "between a man and a woman". There is no text in the law directing animus at any specific group. It was CA's constitutionally-protected definition of marriage for itself. It also excludes polygamists ["a" man & "a" woman] and minors ["man" & "woman"]... It directed no animus, it did not single out gays.

The evidence in support of Proposition 8 was reviewed by two Federal courts, neither court found compelling evidence in support of the measure, and Proposition 8 was invalidated accordingly.

Actually, the evidence in support of Proposition8 was reviewed by the US Supreme Court though its examination of New York's law and process of arriving at "legal gay marriage". In the DOMA Ruling, the Court found that each sovereign state has a retroactively potent and constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. In so finding, it wasn't finding that JUST for New York. And hence in the language it said "each" sovereign state. That includes all 50. So in Ruling that in DOMA they also ruled it for California. And so Saying California had and has the constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage, the Court de facto Upheld Prop 8. It simply, merely, completely and totally meets the guidelines of public consensus!

Califorinia cannot be excluded from the constitutional protection for consensus on gay marriage in each state as found in DOMA! You cannot legally exclude one state from a constitutional protection that applies to the other 49.

There's your evidence mounting, strong, sound, viable and very potent. It will be tried and found true. I have a right to that opinion because it makes logical sense and follows every known precedent in law and the supremacy of the courts.

You can cite lower courts' findings until the cows come home, but if they are in direct conflit with the latest, greatest finding from SCOTUS on each state's constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage, they are NULL AND VOID by definition and heirarchy of the courts.

 

[Silhouette]

Equal protection of the law means equal access to the law, including marriage law, the exact same law accessed by opposite-sex couples.

To contrive some ‘separate but “equal”’ marriage ‘law’ for same-sex couples only is just as un-Constitutional as denying them access to current marriage law.

No, it isn't. And in the DOMA decision the examples of 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire and some states lawfully objecting to first cousins marrying were given as other oddball marriages unique only to a couple of states. They didn't find [nor ever will I hope, at least until the NAMBLA operatives working strategy through their other gay/queer friends accomplish it], that all 13 year olds in every state must not be denied access to marriage. Nor did they find that the states banning first cousins marrying had to allow them either.

You might try reading the whole DOMA Opinion word by word, sentence by sentence, top to bottom; bearing in mind it is all written in the context of the question of gay marriage being legally recognized or not. It's not what you're thinking it is. In fact, it's quite the opposite...

 

[Silhouette]

This is a test post to test which forum this registers in. I'm not finding it in the headings indicated.
OK, there, it just showed up. I'd just posted but couldn't find it there on the first two pages. Odd? I'll have to check regularly to be sure there isn't a glitch.

 

[Silhouette]

From the National Catholic Register:

SAN FRANCISCO — Proposition 8 backers have filed a legal brief saying that the ballot measure defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman still has legal force in California, alleging that state officials acted incorrectly in response to the recent Supreme Court decision on it.

“The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and the district court’s injunction does not apply statewide; therefore, county clerks should abide by the state Constitution,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, on July 15.

The group said that the registrar does not have the authority to make such orders to county clerks and California Attorney General Kamala Harris was therefore wrong to threaten legal action against clerks who decline to follow the order.

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit against Prop. 8, Hollingsworth v. Perry, on the grounds that defenders of the voter-approved initiative did not have legal standing to challenge the 2010 ruling of U.S. district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, which declared the ballot measure unconstitutional.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s legal petition to the California Supreme Court argues that the Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry vacated the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision that declared Prop. 8 to be unconstitutional. This means that the constitutionality of Prop. 8 has not been sufficiently determined.Read more: Proposition 8 Still Applies in California, Backers Say | Daily News | NCRegister.com

Well, actually, it has....

Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

"In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, 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 respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other"

 

[Silhouette]

I'm still trying to figure out the legal significance of both Prop 8 & DOMA cases being heard at the same time. In my view, that was the Court combining them in a legal sense on purpose. Some argue that it was arbitrary. But I don't think it was.

Does anyone have any other examples where the Supreme Court did this and what it meant from a legal standpoint?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why not just allow people to marry who they wish? No hair off my ass.