The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[dcraelin]

However, banning marriage between anything else but a man and a woman not related by blood is perfectly acceptable because within the definition of the word "marriage" as implying "a reproductive-potential pair" is perfectly within the bounds of acceptable legislating.

Not related at all, the state would have to supply a compelling government interest which it has already done.

banning those too closely related by blood.

Not related at all, however the state would have to supply a compelling government interest for such bans to continue.
>>>>

you've head of weasel words?, "compelling government interest" is a weasel phrase.

but even if you apply this sophistic word play by courts it does not apply to these cases
as it is part of of another weasel phrase used in the law called "strict scrutiny"

"Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny."

and this is not about race

In Our Constitutional Republic The will of the people determine the government interest. The people Not the courts determine what is compelling or not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However, banning marriage between anything else but a man and a woman not related by blood is perfectly acceptable because within the definition of the word "marriage" as implying "a reproductive-potential pair" is perfectly within the bounds of acceptable legislating.

Not related at all, the state would have to supply a compelling government interest which it has already done.

banning those too closely related by blood.

Not related at all, however the state would have to supply a compelling government interest for such bans to continue.
>>>>

you've head of weasel words?, "compelling government interest" is a weasel phrase.

but even if you apply this sophistic word play by courts it does not apply to these cases
as it is part of of another weasel phrase used in the law called "strict scrutiny"

"Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny."

and this is not about race

In Our Constitutional Republic The will of the people determine the government interest. The people Not the courts determine what is compelling or not.

While the majority of the 17 legal entities (16 states + DC) have achieve Marriage Equality through legislative efforts or through the ballot, some have achieved it through the courts and examination of whether there is government interest in perpetuating such discrimination as a function of government.

From the ruling that the SCOTUS allowed to stand which determined that Prop 8 was unconstitutional:

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis,
Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less
can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by
plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary
presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of
production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8
cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents
do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships
satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents
stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity
between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.
Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.​

Personally I'd much rather see SSCM "win" at the legislative level and at the ballot box as has begun recently reflecting the change of society which has moved to more acceptance of same-sex relationships. Personally I think the Prop 8 case was a mistake, removal of Prop 8 at the ballot box which surely would have happened in 2010 or 2012 would have had huge strategic value. The Prop 8 court case was a tactical "victory" since Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that ruling allowed to stand. However a reversal at the ballot box would have had much more impact on the national issue.

JMHO of course.



>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

Not related at all, the state would have to supply a compelling government interest which it has already done.



Not related at all, however the state would have to supply a compelling government interest for such bans to continue.
>>>>

you've head of weasel words?, "compelling government interest" is a weasel phrase.

but even if you apply this sophistic word play by courts it does not apply to these cases
as it is part of of another weasel phrase used in the law called "strict scrutiny"

"Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny."

and this is not about race

In Our Constitutional Republic The will of the people determine the government interest. The people Not the courts determine what is compelling or not.

While the majority of the 17 legal entities (16 states + DC) have achieve Marriage Equality through legislative efforts or through the ballot, some have achieved it through the courts and examination of whether there is government interest in perpetuating such discrimination as a function of government.

From the ruling that the SCOTUS allowed to stand which determined that Prop 8 was unconstitutional:

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis,
Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less
can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by
plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary
presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of
production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly
tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8
cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents
do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships
satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents
stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity
between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.
Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.​

Personally I'd much rather see SSCM "win" at the legislative level and at the ballot box as has begun recently reflecting the change of society which has moved to more acceptance of same-sex relationships. Personally I think the Prop 8 case was a mistake, removal of Prop 8 at the ballot box which surely would have happened in 2010 or 2012 would have had huge strategic value. The Prop 8 court case was a tactical "victory" since Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and that ruling allowed to stand. However a reversal at the ballot box would have had much more impact on the national issue.

JMHO of course.
>>>>

Even if you accept the sophistic arguments on "strict scrutiny" , the lower federal court misapplied it.

The Supreme court never got to that issue however because they made an insane ruling on standing. And a dangerous ruling at that I might add.

Glad to see you would rather have had a win at the ballot box.

 

[Silhouette]

Even if you accept the sophistic arguments on "strict scrutiny" , the lower federal court misapplied it.

The Supreme court never got to that issue however because they made an insane ruling on standing. And a dangerous ruling at that I might add.

Glad to see you would rather have had a win at the ballot box.

I tend to disagree about the "insanity" of SCOTUS on the twin Prop 8/DOMA Case.

I think it was a stroke of genius actually.

1. Combining the two cases was a way of legally...ahem *snicker* "marrying" their merits together. Search your mind for when the Supreme Court has done this before? I can't remember ever. They didn't do it arbitrarily either or to "save time", else they'd to it all the time. There's you sign...

2. The pass SCOTUS appeared to give the lower court's ruling leaving it "standing" as it was is ingenious. To avoid a public backlash and gays throwing themselves off the Golden Gate Bridge because they can't ..ahem...insert their agenda into core cultural values via marriage without the consent of the penetrated [society's majority consensus], SCOTUS cleverly put in a time delay of .."oh, wait a minute"... in DOMA..

3. Because the two cases were merged, essentially, and heard at the same sitting, the lower court ruling is "left standing" as "null and void by expression" of its twin case: DOMA. Since you cannot have two diametrically contrasting constitutional positions on one issue [gay marriage] A. That gay marriage cannot be denied by a vote and B. That gay marriage must be approved by a consensus in each state....then the Supreme Court is the one to consult and not the lower one for the ref's call on what's legal and what isn't.

4. 1, 2 & 3 all combined add up to a wide open door for future challenges to be weighed in. Any person in any state at this point can petition the Supreme Court to change the laws of gay marriage in their state if it was not arrived at by consensus. Every person in every state has the right to weigh in on gay marriage as this weird and new concept stands poised to unravel the social structure in a way that each person may or may not find favorable.

5. Gay marriage is not protected in the Constitution. Homosexuality is not a protected class because homosexuality is a behavior. Just because a few ordinances and misguided people believe they are a protected class, does not a protected class make when push comes to shove [SCOTUS challenge]. Nowhere in either Prop 8 or DOMA did the Supreme Court cite the upholding of gay marriage as a constitutional right. They did in DOMA however, uphold that the right to say either yes or no to gay marriage IS a constitutional right.

6. And finally...because California said 'NO' to gay marriage via a constitutionally-protected consensus on each state's right to define marriage outside race, [for homosexuals are not a race nor a gender, but a behavior], Prop 8 is a fully legal, fully binding law, duly enacted in that state and anyone in violation of it is guilty of the suppression or removal of civil rights from the citizens of the Golden State...about 7 million of them have been stripped of their constitutional rights and are being...ahem...hogtied and penetrated with gay values at their core, without their permission, while AG Harris, Senator Leno and Gov Brown hold them down so they can't squirm while this is going on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I tend to disagree about the "insanity" of SCOTUS on the twin Prop 8/DOMA Case.

They weren't "twin" cases as they arrose under fundamentally different questions:

DOMA = Can the federal government discriminate by gender in the recognition of valid Civil Marriage under state law?

Prop 8 = Can a state remove a right once exercised by the people? (The SCOTUS dodged the question with it's ruling based on standing.)​

1. Combining the two cases was a way of legally...

You should review Supreme Court procedures, you don't seem to understand what it means to say the SCOTUS "Combined" or "Merged" cases.

Combined or merged cases will be done by the SCOTUS, usually when they get conflicting decisions from lower court jurisdictions on the same fundamental questions.

They will then schedule one session of oral arguments and issues one decision.

The decision in it's write-up will note that multiple cases were combined.

That didn't happen with DOMA and Prop 8, the cases were heard at different times and the court issued two decisions. One striking a discriminatory federal law and one dismissing a case for standing but with allowing the District Court ruling of "unconstitutional" to remain in place.

2. The pass SCOTUS appeared to give the lower court's ruling leaving it "standing" as it was is ingenious. To avoid a public backlash and gays throwing themselves off the Golden Gate Bridge because they can't ..ahem...insert their agenda into core cultural values via marriage without the consent of the penetrated [society's majority consensus], SCOTUS cleverly put in a time delay of .."oh, wait a minute"... in DOMA..

#1 Drama queen much? I mean really "throw themselves off the Golden Gate Bridge"?

#2 The SCOTUS didn't "appear" to leave the lower courts ruling of "unconstitutional", they did leave it in place.

3. Because the two cases were merged,...

You should review Supreme Court procedures, you don't seem to understand what it means to say the SCOTUS "Combined" or "Merged" cases.

Combined or merged cases will be done by the SCOTUS, usually when they get conflicting decisions from lower court jurisdictions on the same fundamental questions.

They will then schedule one session of oral arguments and issues one decision.

The decision in it's write-up will note that multiple cases were combined.

That didn't happen with DOMA and Prop 8, the cases were heard at different times and the court issued two decisions. One striking a discriminatory federal law and one dismissing a case for standing but with allowing the District Court ruling of "unconstitutional" to remain in place.

4. 1, 2 & 3 all combined add up to...

...an indication that some people don't understand the legal system.

5. Gay marriage is not protected in the Constitution.

Unknown at this time. The SCOTUS has not ruled on the subject.

6. And finally...because California said 'NO' to gay marriage via a constitutionally-protected consensus on each state's right to define marriage...

Prop 8 wasn't constitutionally protected, as a matter of fact it was overturned as unconstitutional and the decision allowed to remain in effect.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I tend to disagree about the "insanity" of SCOTUS on the twin Prop 8/DOMA Case.

They weren't "twin" cases as they arrose under fundamentally different questions:

Hmm...

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that for the first time it will tackle the issue of same-sex marriage. Defying most expectations, the justices said they will examine two cases, presenting the possibility that the court could decide all the basic issues surrounding same-sex marriage in one fell swoop... Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex-Marriage Cases : NPR

When were the other times SCOTUS heard two cases at the same time?

Guess what they decided in these two cases at the same Sitting? That gay marriage is not a right but that consensus to "yes" or "no" on it IS a protected constitutional right.

I guess they did decide the Prop 8 case after all. It just needs to be announced soon.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I tend to disagree about the "insanity" of SCOTUS on the twin Prop 8/DOMA Case.

They weren't "twin" cases as they arrose under fundamentally different questions:

Hmm...

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that for the first time it will tackle the issue of same-sex marriage. Defying most expectations, the justices said they will examine two cases, presenting the possibility that the court could decide all the basic issues surrounding same-sex marriage in one fell swoop... Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex-Marriage Cases : NPR

When were the other times SCOTUS heard two cases at the same time?

The cases were heard on two separate occasions (i.e. different days, those dates were previously provided to you in this thread - feel free to go look them up) and the court issued two separate opinions. When the SCOTUS "combines" or "merges" cases they issue one decision.

A fairly famous one is Brown v. Board of Education which was actually the consolidation of multiple cases into one at the SCOTUS level.

"[p*486] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. [n1][p487]

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. "​

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0347_0483_ZO.html


Note the court indicates this is a "consolodated opinion" where multiple cases were combined to render a single decision on multiple cases presenting the same question. The DOMA and Prop 8 cases do not meet that criteria because they didn't present the same question. In the DOMA case the question was about federal discrimination by recognizing some legal Civil Marriages but not other based on State law and in the Prop 8 case it was about the removal of a right already exercised by the people (i.e. the removal of SSCM after it had already started). Two very different questions.

Guess what they decided in these two cases at the same Sitting?

They decided them during the same term, not the same sitting and issued separate opinions.

That gay marriage is not a right but that consensus to "yes" or "no" on it IS a protected constitutional right.

No they didn't. In the DOMA case they ruled that when a State says "Yes" for Civil Marriage based on gender the Federal government cannot choose to discriminate and treat some Civil Marriages as valid and some as invalid.

They did not address at all if a State can say "No".

I guess they did decide the Prop 8 case after all. It just needs to be announced soon.

Wrong on two counts. First they did decide on the Prop 8 case, they ruled the proponents had no federal standing and allowed the District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand. This then allowed Same-sex Civil Marriages to resume in California.

Your second error is that you think they are going to come out with some second decision in addition to the first one six months ago. Sorry that is wrong. Prop 8 was overturned and there will be no further action on it in the courts. The California Supreme Court has dismissed further challenges and the SCOTUS dismissed further challenges. Prop 8 is dead.


>>>>

 

[Qball]

Prop 8 wasn't constitutionally protected, as a matter of fact it was overturned as unconstitutional and the decision allowed to remain in effect.

The fact that this doesn't bother more people is the most troubling part. After Prop 8 passed, narrowly but decisively, they pushed it into district court where a gay judge decided it was unconstitutional, in part, based on how it made the plaintiffs feel. This dude is not only gay, but in a long-term relationship who lives in San Francisco. He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case. After he struck it down, he stepped down from the bench, and then actively colluded with the plaintiffs when the case went to the Supreme Court....and they let his ruling stand because they didn't have standing to appeal since CA refused to defend the law.

I mean, for something that's supposed to be inevitable, there sure is a lot of bullshit isn't there? Why beat us over the heads with what the polls say and how "young people" feel about gay marriage when it's plainly clear that when gay marriage loses, the system will just legalize it anyway?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Prop 8 wasn't constitutionally protected, as a matter of fact it was overturned as unconstitutional and the decision allowed to remain in effect.

The fact that this doesn't bother more people is the most troubling part. After Prop 8 passed, narrowly but decisively, they pushed it into district court where a gay judge decided it was unconstitutional, in part, based on how it made the plaintiffs feel. This dude is not only gay, but in a long-term relationship who lives in San Francisco. He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case. After he struck it down, he stepped down from the bench, and then actively colluded with the plaintiffs when the case went to the Supreme Court....and they let his ruling stand because they didn't have standing to appeal since CA refused to defend the law.

I mean, for something that's supposed to be inevitable, there sure is a lot of bullshit isn't there? Why beat us over the heads with what the polls say and how "young people" feel about gay marriage when it's plainly clear that when gay marriage loses, the system will just legalize it anyway?

#1 "Narrowly but decisively" is kind of an oxymoron, kind of like "jumbo shrimp". The fact is that a mere 2.5% change in the vote would have changed the outcome 5 years ago. The fact is that polling right before the election showed it was a toss-up when you factor the "fors", the "against", and the "undecided" in terms of the margin of error (which IIRC was about 4%).

Times have changes and polling now shows that Prop 8 would be defeated today as social views have continued to shift has they had between Prop 22 (California anti-Same Sex Civil Marriage law that passed in 2000 with a 23% margin of victory). At the rate opinions shifted between 2000 to 2008 and with the continued shift Prop 8 would have failed on a ballot in 2012 and this time polling is solidly against as the results remain the same even if all the "undecided" were to brake into the pro-ban crowd.

***********************

#2 The Judges sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. I followed the case (via the media to the greatest extent possible), read most of the transcripts when they came available and read the decision, what Judge Walker did was allow the opponents and proponents of Prop 8 to present their case in open court and on the record. The proponents presented their case and it was very weak, Olson and and Boies then presented counter arguments. Judge Walker then wrote a decision that took each of the proponents attempts to justify discrimination and shredded them with logic and precedent.

Are you saying a Judge should be removed from a case about sexual orientation because they have a sexual orientation? (In other words no judge [heterosexual or homosexual] could hear a case, a judge would have to somehow prove they were "asexual"?)

Should minority judges be removed from cases that involve minorities?

Should female judges be removed from cases involving women?

Should religious judges be removed from cases involving religion?


***********************

#3 "He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case."

I remember two reasons is pre-trial decisions were overturned, maybe you could remind us of the third?

A. Prop 8 proponents were working to change the law and functioning of government. If these actions were taken by the legislature, such source documents would have been admissible under FIOA laws. The opponents requested access to communications by the proponents of Prop 8 to demonstrate animosity and bias against homosexuals was the reason way they worked for Prop 8's passage. IIRC Judge Walker ruled such communications were discoverable, an appeal to the 9th overturned that decision. The horror, proponent's own motivations would have been presented in open court.

B. Under a program established not by Judge Walker but by the 9th Circuit Court the trial proceedings were to be televised and viewable by the public. Proponents were afraid to have their case actually be watched by the public. (And given the weak case actually presented at trial, with good reason.)

C. As I said, I don't remember a third, so please share.​

***********************

#4 IMHO it was shameful that the State did not defend the law. Prop 8 was passed and amended California Constitution. The California Supreme Court had ruled that Prop 8 was valid, the Governor and Attorney General SHOULD have defended the law in court. If they choose not to support the law personally is irrelevant, they should have either resigned to let the next person in line defend it or appointed a State endorsed counsel to defend it - one that would have had standing.

Of course given the DOMA decision where the SCOTUS ruled federal law (DOMA, Section 3) was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional, it might be a good thing. If the defenders of Prop 8 had had "standing" in federal court the case would have not been dismissed for that reason. The SCOTUS then would have had to rule on the merits of the case and since the DOMA decision acknowledged the federal law was discriminatory with no compelling interest, the likelihood is that they would have ruled the Prop 8 was discriminatory with no compelling interest. Such a decision would then have had national impact. But by side-stepping the core question and ruling on "standing" only, the SCOTUS allowed Prop 8 to be overturned but in a manner that applied only to California - limiting the scope of the impact. For now.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Prop 8 wasn't constitutionally protected, as a matter of fact it was overturned as unconstitutional and the decision allowed to remain in effect.

The fact that this doesn't bother more people is the most troubling part. After Prop 8 passed, narrowly but decisively, they pushed it into district court where a gay judge decided it was unconstitutional, in part, based on how it made the plaintiffs feel. This dude is not only gay, but in a long-term relationship who lives in San Francisco. He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case. After he struck it down, he stepped down from the bench, and then actively colluded with the plaintiffs when the case went to the Supreme Court....and they let his ruling stand because they didn't have standing to appeal since CA refused to defend the law.

I mean, for something that's supposed to be inevitable, there sure is a lot of bullshit isn't there? Why beat us over the heads with what the polls say and how "young people" feel about gay marriage when it's plainly clear that when gay marriage loses, the system will just legalize it anyway?

What he said!

 

[Silhouette]

#1 "Narrowly but decisively" is kind of an oxymoron, kind of like "jumbo shrimp". The fact is that a mere 2.5% change in the vote would have changed the outcome 5 years ago. The fact is that polling right before the election showed it was a toss-up when you factor the "fors", the "against", and the "undecided" in terms of the margin of error (which IIRC was about 4%).

Times have changes and polling now shows that Prop 8 would be defeated today as social views have continued to shift has they had between Prop 22 (California anti-Same Sex Civil Marriage law that passed in 2000 with a 23% margin of victory). At the rate opinions shifted between 2000 to 2008 and with the continued shift Prop 8 would have failed on a ballot in 2012 and this time polling is solidly against as the results remain the same even if all the "undecided" were to brake into the pro-ban crowd.
>

Nice try worldwatcher. You know the polls predicted a hearty defeat of Prop 8 but it won decisively instead. Go ahead and put gay marriage on the ballot in CA. And when you do, conservatives will roll out Harvey Milk's full bio, not the one sanitized so his sexuality can be forced-celebrated by kids in elementary schools. If you want to promote gay to the center of our country's value system, we're going to do a full vetting of those values and who the gay cultural icons are BEFORE that happens, not after.

Go ahead and put gay marriage on the ballot in CA. I guarantee you it will lose, again, for the third time. And you know what they say, "three strikes and you're out!". [It's the reason gays are afraid to put it on the ballot].

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Prop 8 wasn't constitutionally protected, as a matter of fact it was overturned as unconstitutional and the decision allowed to remain in effect.

The fact that this doesn't bother more people is the most troubling part. After Prop 8 passed, narrowly but decisively, they pushed it into district court where a gay judge decided it was unconstitutional, in part, based on how it made the plaintiffs feel. This dude is not only gay, but in a long-term relationship who lives in San Francisco. He got dinged three times on procedural grounds during the case. After he struck it down, he stepped down from the bench, and then actively colluded with the plaintiffs when the case went to the Supreme Court....and they let his ruling stand because they didn't have standing to appeal since CA refused to defend the law.

I mean, for something that's supposed to be inevitable, there sure is a lot of bullshit isn't there? Why beat us over the heads with what the polls say and how "young people" feel about gay marriage when it's plainly clear that when gay marriage loses, the system will just legalize it anyway?

What he said!

…is incorrect.

See post #809.

What should be bothering people is the specter of voters seeking to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.

Although that such hate still exists in the United States should not be surprising, it should certainly be subject to condemnation by a majority of citizens regardless the jurisdiction. That it is not is troubling, and exists as further evidence that we remain very much in need of the Constitution and its case law to protect all citizens from that hate and ignorance, where fearful reactionaries seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

However, banning marriage between anything else but a man and a woman not related by blood is perfectly acceptable because within the definition of the word "marriage" as implying "a reproductive-potential pair" is perfectly within the bounds of acceptable legislating.

Not related at all, the state would have to supply a compelling government interest which it has already done.

banning those too closely related by blood.

Not related at all, however the state would have to supply a compelling government interest for such bans to continue.
>>>>

you've head of weasel words?, "compelling government interest" is a weasel phrase.

but even if you apply this sophistic word play by courts it does not apply to these cases
as it is part of of another weasel phrase used in the law called "strict scrutiny"

"Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny."

and this is not about race

In Our Constitutional Republic The will of the people determine the government interest. The people Not the courts determine what is compelling or not.

Nonsense.

It’s a sound and appropriate judicial doctrine that places the burden of proof upon government to deny a citizen his fundamental rights; and absent a compelling governmental interest the state is disallowed to indeed deny one his rights.

It is not incumbent upon same-sex couples to ‘prove’ they have equal protection rights concerning access to marriage law – those rights currently exist for same-sex couples, they have since before the advent of the Constitution and the Republic. The issue is: is the state’s interest to deny them that right compelling, is it rationally based, is it predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does it pursue a legitimate legislative end – and the courts have correctly and prudently determined the answer to each criterion is ‘no.’

In Our Constitutional Republic, the will of the people is subject to the Constitution and its case law, as indeed the will of the people is subject to the rule of law. And when the people act in a manner that is offensive to the Constitution, such as Proposition 8, it is the responsibility of the courts to invalidate those measures, as the people do not possess the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties.

The people must determine what is a compelling governmental interest, and when they realize no such interests exist, they must refrain from taking any further action regarding denying a citizen his civil liberties. And when the people ignore the fact that there is no compelling governmental interest, and enact legislation lacking a legitimate legislative end, those injured may seek relief in the Federal courts, and have un-Constitutional laws invalidated accordingly.

Last, with regard to race, as already correctly noted, the provisions of the 14th Amendment do not solely address race, as the Amendment concerns itself with ‘all persons,’ which means any class of persons is entitled to the protections afforded them by the Amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

Nonsense.

It’s a sound and appropriate judicial doctrine that places the burden of proof upon government to deny a citizen his fundamental rights; and absent a compelling governmental interest the state is disallowed to indeed deny one his rights.

It is not incumbent upon same-sex couples to ‘prove’ they have equal protection rights concerning access to marriage law – those rights currently exist for same-sex couples, they have since before the advent of the Constitution and the Republic. The issue is: is the state’s interest to deny them that right compelling, is it rationally based, is it predicated on objective, documented facts and evidence, and does it pursue a legitimate legislative end – and the courts have correctly and prudently determined the answer to each criterion is ‘no.’..

..Last, with regard to race, as already correctly noted, the provisions of the 14th Amendment do not solely address race, as the Amendment concerns itself with ‘all persons,’ which means any class of persons is entitled to the protections afforded them by the Amendment.

Except the premise you're relying on, that "gays are a protected class" does not exist. And the reason it does not and cannot exist is because it excludes all other deviant sexual behaviors arbitrarily. One the one hand gays argue for special class status based on their sexual behaviors being different from hetero monogamous. On the other hand they argue that polygamists are excluded because, paraphrased "they are weird and different from a standard marriage of two".

This is the snag. This is the problem. Also a problem, excluding all other behaviors that randomly and incompletely amass themselves into a virulent political group to promote themselves as a "special class". For where do we draw the line? Perhaps bulimics want special class status to have vomit urns placed at tables in every public restaurant? [is bulimia not their eating-orientation?] Perhaps cleptomaniacs want access to joyride your car if you're not using it for awhile, as long as they return it intact with a full tank of gas? [Is the uncontrollable urge to steal not their "property-ownership" orientation?] Perhaps...etc.....

Behaviors are not a protected class at all unless they qualify as a religion. So, unless "LGBT" [But not "P"/etc.] declare themselves a religion, [to which they imminently qualify IMHO] they're out of luck.

This is why SCOTUS in the twin/prop 8/DOMA cases declared in DOMA that gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states". That's a vote of no confidence for a protected class. Sorry to have to be the one to point out the obvious.

And, in addition to that vote of no-confidence on protected class for the gay behaviors, SCOTUS declared that the right to say 'NO' to gay marriage via consensus is a constitutionally-protected right extended to all the citizens of each separate state. Ergo [and again to point out the painfully obvious to the willfully-blind], Prop 8 was declared viable and the law. No matter what the written opinion on prop 8 was, DOMA's decision trumped any lower court standing that conflicts with it.

Another painfully obvious observation: lower federal court decisions in direct conflict with higher ones are null and void without a single word written or expressed as such.

 

[WorldWatcher]

#1 "Narrowly but decisively" is kind of an oxymoron, kind of like "jumbo shrimp". The fact is that a mere 2.5% change in the vote would have changed the outcome 5 years ago. The fact is that polling right before the election showed it was a toss-up when you factor the "fors", the "against", and the "undecided" in terms of the margin of error (which IIRC was about 4%).

Times have changes and polling now shows that Prop 8 would be defeated today as social views have continued to shift has they had between Prop 22 (California anti-Same Sex Civil Marriage law that passed in 2000 with a 23% margin of victory). At the rate opinions shifted between 2000 to 2008 and with the continued shift Prop 8 would have failed on a ballot in 2012 and this time polling is solidly against as the results remain the same even if all the "undecided" were to brake into the pro-ban crowd.
>

Nice try worldwatcher. You know the polls predicted a hearty defeat of Prop 8 but it won decisively instead.

Bull, the late polling showed that it was going to be a narrow victory at best, you have to learn to not just look at the "for" and "against" which is what some in the media was doing - you have to look at the undecideds and the margin of error as factors also.

Calling a win where a change of 2.5% would have changed the outcome is something that one would expect from our fellow citizens on the other side of the aisle (i.e. liberals), which I assume you are not.

Survey USA Poll, October 29-31, Last before the Election
For Prop 8 = 47%
Against Prop 8 = 50%
Undecided = 3%
Margin of Error = +/- 4%
SurveyUSA Election Poll #14761

The Field Poll
For Prop 8 = 44%
Against Prop 8 = 49%
Undecided = 7%
Margin of Error = +/- 3%
Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows - SFGate​

Go ahead and put gay marriage on the ballot in CA. I guarantee you it will lose, again, for the third time.

Recent Los Angles Times Poll
For Marriage Equality = 58%
Against Marriage Equality = 36%
Undecided = 6%
New University of Southern California Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll - GQR

I don't make guarantees, but you will notice that now, unlike 2008 - even if ALL the undecided went to the "Against" category AND applying a high margin of error of 5% that the total possible outcome against is raised to 47%. It would still mean that Marriage Equality would succeed, unlike 2008 when the polls were much closer.

So ya, bring it on.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

About that effort and one's since. There's been a lot of money poured in. There's even mention of a cabalesque group that bankrolls the machine:

Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort - SFGate
A handful of the nation's wealthiest gay men pumped more than $4.5 million into the campaign against Prop. 8, part of a flood of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender money that accounted for more than half the $38 million raised in the unsuccessful effort to block the same-sex marriage ban in California...

...Much of that money came from individuals and groups that make no secret of their orientation.

"It's tremendously important for gays and lesbians to be out when they make political contributions," said Michael Fleming, who advises David Bohnett, a Beverly Hills technology entrepreneur.

Bohnett, who gave $1.2 million to the effort to block Prop. 8, is one of a group of wealthy gay men who Time magazine recently suggested were seen as "a kind of secret Super Friends, a homosexual justice league" that moves around the nation spending millions of dollars to support gay and lesbian causes and back candidates who back their views.

While people close to the group collectively winced at the magazine's description of a shadowy group of gay activists styling themselves as "the Cabinet," political finance records show that wealthy gays and their foundations are taking an increasingly public role in the fight for marriage equality and other gay and lesbian issues.

Tim Gill, for example, is a Denver man who founded Quark Inc., a pioneer in the desktop publishing world. Gill, along with his Gill Action Fund, put $720,000 into the No on Prop. 8 campaign. In 2000, Gill gave $250,000 to defeat California's Prop. 22, which banned same-sex marriages in the state until it was overturned by the state Supreme Court in May....

...In 2006, the Gill Action Fund also spent $3.7 million in nine states in an unsuccessful effort to block same-sex marriage bans. His foundation also has given $120 million to a variety of nonprofit groups, many of them with links to the gay and lesbian community.

Big-name donors

Jon Stryker, heir to a Kalamazoo, Mich., medical implements fortune, gave more than $1 million to the attempt to defeat Prop. 8. Since 2000, his Arcus Foundation has given more than $50 million to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender causes.

San Francisco philanthropist James Hormel, heir to the meatpacking fortune, gave $300,000 to the fight against Prop. 8. He's also given hundreds of thousands to Democratic Party causes and put money into state and congressional races across the country....

...
Among the largest contributions from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community were:

David Bohnett

-- Home: Beverly Hills

-- Background:

co-founder of Geo-Cities Internet company

-- Contribution:

$1.2 million

Jon Stryker

-- Home: Kalamazoo, Mich.

-- Background: heir to hospital equipment

company

-- Contribution:

$1.05 million

Bruce Bastian

-- Home: Orem, Utah

-- Background:

co-founder of WordPerfect software

-- Contribution:

$1 million

Tim Gill

-- Home: Denver

-- Background: founder

of Quark Inc., which makes desktop publishing software

-- Contribution: $710,000

James Hormel

-- Home:

San Francisco

-- Background: heir to meatpacking fortune

-- Contribution: $300,000

Fred Eychaner

-- Home: Chicago

-- Background: owner, Newsweb Corp.

-- Contribution: $250,000

 

[Silhouette]

[

Bull, the late polling showed that it was going to be a narrow victory at best, you have to learn to not just look at the "for" and "against" which is what some in the media was doing - you have to look at the undecideds and the margin of error as factors also.

There's another factor in support for gay marriage that is the most crucial of all, that you have left out: Vehemance of support.

Turns out most folks in the middle block are rather lukewarm in their support of gay marriage. Since, you know, AIDS, the weird pitch to children, the Harvey Milk thing are all whispers that have reached their ears or, in the case of the pitch to children, is paraded before their eyes every day they turn on the boob tube.

Something's not 100% right with these folks in the middle on gay marriage. On the surface, they want everyone to be happy and just get out of their face about it. But underneath there's a suspicion that all this gay stuff may be getting a little out of hand. Upon the moment hard facts of the seedy nature of what this gay cabal is up to [see previous post], this "super friends" of massive money pushing this agenda to the fore and all the various scores of other puzzle pieces that aren't fitting just right and you'll see a sudden and massive cooling trend in the "lukewarms".. Add in that legally, polygamy cannot arbitrarily be denied once homosexuals have dismantled the binding agent of the description of marriage [why is more than two "weird" your honor, when a man can now be a "wife" and we already have complex custody and probate upon dissolution?] and you'll see not just a cooling trend but a chilling trend in support.

..That is the reason gays don't put stuff on the ballot. They know their superfriends might be outspent by an ad on Harvey Milk or forced sharing of bathrooms with opposite genders in schools, or forced homosexuality where minor kids who were even molested and imprinted with unwanted homosexual compulsions cannot get therapy until they're 18 [and hopelessly entrenched in their compulsions by then]. Stuff like that will chill the support and end this rainbow reicht right in its tracks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

[

Bull, the late polling showed that it was going to be a narrow victory at best, you have to learn to not just look at the "for" and "against" which is what some in the media was doing - you have to look at the undecideds and the margin of error as factors also.

There's another factor in support for gay marriage that is the most crucial of all, that you have left out: Vehemance of support.

Turns out most folks in the middle block are rather lukewarm in their support of gay marriage. Since, you know, AIDS, the weird pitch to children, the Harvey Milk thing are all whispers that have reached their ears or, in the case of the pitch to children, is paraded before their eyes every day they turn on the boob tube.

Something's not 100% right with these folks in the middle on gay marriage. On the surface, they want everyone to be happy and just get out of their face about it. But underneath there's a suspicion that all this gay stuff may be getting a little out of hand. Upon the moment hard facts of the seedy nature of what this gay cabal is up to [see previous post], this "super friends" of massive money pushing this agenda to the fore and all the various scores of other puzzle pieces that aren't fitting just right and you'll see a sudden and massive cooling trend in the "lukewarms".. Add in that legally, polygamy cannot arbitrarily be denied once homosexuals have dismantled the binding agent of the description of marriage [why is more than two "weird" your honor, when a man can now be a "wife" and we already have complex custody and probate upon dissolution?] and you'll see not just a cooling trend but a chilling trend in support.

..That is the reason gays don't put stuff on the ballot. They know their superfriends might be outspent by an ad on Harvey Milk or forced sharing of bathrooms with opposite genders in schools, or forced homosexuality where minor kids who were even molested and imprinted with unwanted homosexual compulsions cannot get therapy until they're 18 [and hopelessly entrenched in their compulsions by then]. Stuff like that will chill the support and end this rainbow reicht right in its tracks.

"That is the reason gays don't put stuff on the ballot."


It may have escaped you, but in 2012 SSCM was on the ballot in 4 states during the last general election. The voting results were positive toward SSCM.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

"That is the reason gays don't put stuff on the ballot."


It may have escaped you, but in 2012 SSCM was on the ballot in 4 states during the last general election. The voting results were positive toward SSCM.


>>>>

Yes, the lukewarms will vote in support of gay marriage until a chill comes their way. Look for that in the news as the 2014 elections approach. Well, to be honest, you're already feeling little breezes of that waft up against your cheek already, right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

"That is the reason gays don't put stuff on the ballot."


It may have escaped you, but in 2012 SSCM was on the ballot in 4 states during the last general election. The voting results were positive toward SSCM.


>>>>

Yes, the lukewarms will vote in support of gay marriage until a chill comes their way. Look for that in the news as the 2014 elections approach. Well, to be honest, you're already feeling little breezes of that waft up against your cheek already, right?

Not in the least. Last year SSCM won at the ballot in all for general election states.

Other states are likely to join the passed by ballot group in 2014 including Oregon, Michigan, and Colorado. Remember it doesn't take (in the grand scheme of things) that many signatures to get something on the ballot - in Colorado it's only 86,105. Laws that were passed based on a 50%+1 majority can be repealed based on a 50%+1 majority.

Look at Maine 2009 rejected SSCM, 2012 repealed it and now it's legal.



http://www.statesmanjournal.com/art...ther-enough-signatures-2014-ballot-initiative
Grand Rapids group wants gay marriage proposal on Michigan's 2014 ballot | MLive.com
Colorado Same-Sex Marriage Amendment (2014) - Ballotpedia
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2013-2014/43Final.pdf


>>>>