The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Silhouette]

More than that, 7 million conferred in a constitutional-consensus to define marriage for their state and their rogue officials refuse to follow the law they made with no basis to do so. A lower, staler court ruling CANNOT dominate a fresher superior court ruling it is in direct conflict with.

The AG Harris and the former AG Jerry Brown know better. They are knowingly promoting active sedition in their state. Unforgivable.

 

[Seawytch]

Another try...another fail.
The California Supreme Court denied Wednesday a request by supporters of Proposition 8 proponents to stop same-sex marriages in California. [...]

With little comment, a unanimous state Supreme Court allowed gay marriages to continue.

Prop 8: California Supreme Court Halts Foes of Gay Marriage

But in other news...

Gay Spouses of Members of Military Get Benefits

 

[mudwhistle]

This is all just a political football being played by the Democrats. Obama was against same-sex marriage only a year ago. Now he's for it and so is Hillary. Yet they're only saying they are to drive a wedge between those who are pro and con. The truth is there are just as many Democrats against it as are for it. Prop 8 proves that.

 

[Seawytch]

This is all just a political football being played by the Democrats. Obama was against same-sex marriage only a year ago. Now he's for it and so is Hillary. Yet they're only saying they are to drive a wedge between those who are pro and con. The truth is there are just as many Democrats against it as are for it. Prop 8 proves that.

Prop H8 was almost five years ago. A lot has changed since then, especially the polls regarding gay marriage. Catch up.

The poll found that 58% of the state's registered voters believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared with 36% against, a margin of 22 points. When the same pollsters asked that question three years ago, 52% favored gay marriage and 40% opposed it, a 12-point spread.

Most national polls this year have found majority support, but only one of those surveys reported it as high as 58%. The average was roughly 51% in favor of gay marriage. As in the rest of the country, more women (63%) than men (52%) in California favor same-sex marriage.

Younger California voters also support gay marriage by larger margins than older voters, the poll found. Whereas 76% of voters ages 18 to 29 support legalizing the unions, only 52% of those ages 50 to 64 agree.

Poll shows Californians favor legalizing same-sex marriage

 

[mudwhistle]

This is all just a political football being played by the Democrats. Obama was against same-sex marriage only a year ago. Now he's for it and so is Hillary. Yet they're only saying they are to drive a wedge between those who are pro and con. The truth is there are just as many Democrats against it as are for it. Prop 8 proves that.

Prop H8 was almost five years ago. A lot has changed since then, especially the polls regarding gay marriage. Catch up.

The poll found that 58% of the state's registered voters believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared with 36% against, a margin of 22 points. When the same pollsters asked that question three years ago, 52% favored gay marriage and 40% opposed it, a 12-point spread.

Most national polls this year have found majority support, but only one of those surveys reported it as high as 58%. The average was roughly 51% in favor of gay marriage. As in the rest of the country, more women (63%) than men (52%) in California favor same-sex marriage.

Younger California voters also support gay marriage by larger margins than older voters, the poll found. Whereas 76% of voters ages 18 to 29 support legalizing the unions, only 52% of those ages 50 to 64 agree.

Poll shows Californians favor legalizing same-sex marriage

I'm not arguing that things haven't changed a bit. However my statement stands. If 51% are for it then that means nearly that number are against it, and many of those who are against it are Democrats.

This isn't a political issue. Never was.

 

[Seawytch]

This is all just a political football being played by the Democrats. Obama was against same-sex marriage only a year ago. Now he's for it and so is Hillary. Yet they're only saying they are to drive a wedge between those who are pro and con. The truth is there are just as many Democrats against it as are for it. Prop 8 proves that.

Prop H8 was almost five years ago. A lot has changed since then, especially the polls regarding gay marriage. Catch up.

The poll found that 58% of the state's registered voters believe same-sex marriage should be legal, compared with 36% against, a margin of 22 points. When the same pollsters asked that question three years ago, 52% favored gay marriage and 40% opposed it, a 12-point spread.

Most national polls this year have found majority support, but only one of those surveys reported it as high as 58%. The average was roughly 51% in favor of gay marriage. As in the rest of the country, more women (63%) than men (52%) in California favor same-sex marriage.

Younger California voters also support gay marriage by larger margins than older voters, the poll found. Whereas 76% of voters ages 18 to 29 support legalizing the unions, only 52% of those ages 50 to 64 agree.

Poll shows Californians favor legalizing same-sex marriage

I'm not arguing that things haven't changed a bit. However my statement stands. If 51% are for it then that means nearly that number are against it, and many of those who are against it are Democrats.

This isn't a political issue. Never was.

You do realize that in the post just prior, you said it was all political football. Is it or isn't it "all politics" as you claimed just moments before?

 

[Silhouette]

This is all just a political football being played by the Democrats. Obama was against same-sex marriage only a year ago. Now he's for it and so is Hillary. Yet they're only saying they are to drive a wedge between those who are pro and con. The truth is there are just as many Democrats against it as are for it. Prop 8 proves that.

Apparently the democrats failed at elementary school math. The elections have been getting very dicey. We have an important 2014 Congressional race next year. Things could go either way.

The gays are flat out lying about the numbers they say support their agenda. You have to understand that before you can do the math. They predicted a landslide defeat of Prop 8 and instead it won by a sound margin. They predicted people would recoil from the Chic Fil A restaurant. Instead, lines wrapped around the block in support of its CEO's opinions on gay marriage. Brave souls in Hollywood and in the media are taking tentative pot shots at the gay in general. They're tired of the ceaseless whining and "in your face" attitude gays carry around like a chip on their shoulders.

The math is simple: Prop 8 passed and is law in CA in spite of that state being flaunted as "gay mecca". Bearing this in mind, you just extrapolate that across the country.

The democrats are really in a pickle on this one. Long ago I warned them that they should've scraped the gay barnacles off their hull. Now they are laden and sinking.

 

[Seawytch]

This is all just a political football being played by the Democrats. Obama was against same-sex marriage only a year ago. Now he's for it and so is Hillary. Yet they're only saying they are to drive a wedge between those who are pro and con. The truth is there are just as many Democrats against it as are for it. Prop 8 proves that.

Apparently the democrats failed at elementary school math. The elections have been getting very dicey. We have an important 2014 Congressional race next year. Things could go either way.

The gays are flat out lying about the numbers they say support their agenda. You have to understand that before you can do the math. They predicted a landslide defeat of Prop 8 and instead it won by a sound margin. They predicted people would recoil from the Chic Fil A restaurant. Instead, lines wrapped around the block in support of its CEO's opinions on gay marriage. Brave souls in Hollywood and in the media are taking tentative pot shots at the gay in general. They're tired of the ceaseless whining and "in your face" attitude gays carry around like a chip on their shoulders.

The math is simple: Prop 8 passed and is law in CA in spite of that state being flaunted as "gay mecca". Bearing this in mind, you just extrapolate that across the country.

The democrats are really in a pickle on this one. Long ago I warned them that they should've scraped the gay barnacles off their hull. Now they are laden and sinking.

The nail was put in the Prop 8 coffin. It's dead, done, gone. Gays will continue to be legally married in the most populous state in the union and support for marriage equality is only going to climb.

 

[Silhouette]

The nail was put in the Prop 8 coffin. It's dead, done, gone. Gays will continue to be legally married in the most populous state in the union and support for marriage equality is only going to climb.

And then you woke up to the appeal process and the language in DOMA protecting each state's right to consensus on gay marriage. If you think 7 million democrats in CA are going to take this lightly without any ramifications for their party, think again.

You keep hoping Prop 8 is "dead" and I'll keep having faith that the initiative system in CA is still intact. We'll see upon appeal to SCOTUS, which one of us is right.

 

[Seawytch]

The nail was put in the Prop 8 coffin. It's dead, done, gone. Gays will continue to be legally married in the most populous state in the union and support for marriage equality is only going to climb.

And then you woke up to the appeal process and the language in DOMA protecting each state's right to consensus on gay marriage. If you think 7 million democrats in CA are going to take this lightly without any ramifications for their party, think again.

You keep hoping Prop 8 is "dead" and I'll keep having faith that the initiative system in CA is still intact. We'll see upon appeal to SCOTUS, which one of us is right.

It is. The CA Supreme Court killed the appeal for good.

What are these imaginary ramifications?

We have to wait for another anti gay law to reach the SCOTUS. Don't worry, it will be soon.

 

[Silhouette]

That's impossible to kill an appeal for good. That would be taking away a person's rights to due process. There are many statutes preventing that. Unless you're suggesting California has totally become an autocratic dictatorship?

 

[Silhouette]

Any California voter could cite Article II and III of the CA constitution and bring a case for voter disenfranchisement. It seems to be in vogue actually. Several cases are making their way to the Supreme Court for just that thing.

 

[Seawytch]

That's impossible to kill an appeal for good. That would be taking away a person's rights to due process. There are many statutes preventing that. Unless you're suggesting California has totally become an autocratic dictatorship?

In closed session, the state supreme court "rejected arguments by ProtectMarriage, Proposition 8's sponsors, that only an appellate court could overturn a statewide law," the L.A. Times reported.

Proposition 8 backers are now out of legal challenges.​

Prop 8 is DEAD

 

[Silhouette]

In closed session, the state supreme court "rejected arguments by ProtectMarriage, Proposition 8's sponsors, that only an appellate court could overturn a statewide law," the L.A. Times reported.

Proposition 8 backers are now out of legal challenges.​

Prop 8 is DEAD

No, a voter in the State of California whose vote has been disenfrachised illegally and in violation of their constitutional right on consensus particularly on marriage, has plenty of avenues to appeal. LA Weekly is not the final word in law on the matter.

 

[Seawytch]

In closed session, the state supreme court "rejected arguments by ProtectMarriage, Proposition 8's sponsors, that only an appellate court could overturn a statewide law," the L.A. Times reported.

Proposition 8 backers are now out of legal challenges.​

Prop 8 is DEAD

No, a voter in the State of California whose vote has been disenfrachised illegally and in violation of their constitutional right on consensus particularly on marriage, has plenty of avenues to appeal. LA Weekly is not the final word in law on the matter.

How about I don't hold my breath. Prop 8 is dead and gays are marrying.

 

[Silhouette]

How about I don't hold my breath. Prop 8 is dead and gays are marrying.

Here's an interesting legal question: "Says who"? [with authority to say so, and no, not you]

 

[Silhouette]

How about I don't hold my breath. Prop 8 is dead and gays are marrying.

Here's an interesting legal question: "Says who"? [with authority to say so, and no, not you]

You see, the problem with admitting SCOTUS Upheld states' constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage, while saying this doesn't apply to California are these little passages here, and others like them throughout the DOMA Opinion:

Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
[page 17 of the Opinion]

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens....

...[page 18]...

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice)....

[page 19]

...it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

...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 theirown 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...

...North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid

. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”).

The US Supreme Court Ruled in June that the states have a constitutional right, RETROACTIVE TO THE NATION'S FOUNDING, to decide on gay marriage via consensus.

Last time I checked, Proposition 8 was enacted through California's guaranteed initiative system, via a CONSENSUS, which is and was constitutionally-guaranteed to them, despite what anyone in a lower court erroneously determined. This correct and constitutional consensus is legal retroactively. There is no basis in law as we understand law in the US to deny California citizens their recently-Upheld/Reaffirmed right to consensus in Proposition 8.

Rogue officials in CA are in violation of state law and in contempt of the US Supreme Court. I would go one step further and suggest they are guilty of willful sedition because the two main culprits, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris are both former or current Attorneys General. Being attorneys, they know the full force and effect of the Supreme Court's declaration on state's rights to decide gay marriage as retroactive. They know it and they are flipping it the middle finger and are dictating to a 7 million majority "how it's going to be".

 

[Silhouette]

The retroactive nature of the recent DOMA Ruling of each state's constitutional sovereign right to consensus on gay marriage means it overrules any past rulings of any lower court in conflict with that since the founding of the country in the 1700s.

Prop 8 is protected therefore by the Highest federal Ruling. Anyone in violation of it is in contempt of the US Supreme Court. This becomes particularly disturbing when it is public officials in a state openly thumbing their noses and flipping the middle finger to the US Supreme Court. It not only protects Prop 8 but also I think it's #22 before that. Any so called "gay marriage" in California is not real by legal standards therefore. None of them. Not one!

So if you were married "gay" in California, you might want to hop over to one of the 12 states SCOTUS only recognized as having legal gay marriage as of the DOMA Ruling in June 2013. For California, the 13th, is not one of those 12. And it never has been, according to the Constitutional finding in DOMA.

 

[Seawytch]

You lost CA, but you could probably hold on to Mississippi or Alabama for a while.

 

[Silhouette]

You lost CA, but you could probably hold on to Mississippi or Alabama for a while.

You need to describe how Proposition 8 was made illegal, given that it merely was California's consensus [after the founding of our nation] on gay marriage [and polygamy and minors marrying]. Please cite in either the DOMA or the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision where gay marriage was Upheld as an inaliable "right" that is mandated in California. Bear in mind that any lower court ruling, opinion etc. that predates June 2013's Findings that each sovereign state has had since the time of the founding of our country, the constitutional right to consensus on marriage, that is in direct conflict with that constitutional right, is null and void.