Windsor 2013 as Applicable Law v the Steady Progression of Sedition & Contempt

[Silhouette]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html From that thead these points deserve their own in-depth discussion. Feel free to indulge here.

The question is what is applicable law dominance while appeals are pending with SCOTUS on the issue of gay marriage being covered federally under the 14th vs locally via the referendum of the voters at the state level.

Not theoretical law. Applicable law...

Discuss:

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

Your ignorance is appalling. The law has been gutted because it violated the Constitutional protection of personal liberties to marriage. Politely, STFU

But the California constitution Article II, Section 10 (c) says no initiative may be "gutted" all or in part by anyone without the voters' permission. Period. There are no exceptions. Rogue officials in CA gutting family code that is subservient to Prop 8's "one man one woman" law is SEDITION.

Prop 8 in Windsor 2013 was found constitutionally to have been made validly by the discreet community of CA after a long deliberation & having weighed in with 7 million votes in support. & during these appeals, the default Highest/most recent finding on Prop 8 is Windsor 2013. Read pages 14-22 of the Opinion: United States v. Windsor

CA officals are in violation of Law. Any voter there could appeal to SCOTUS to restore their initiative system per CA constitution Article II Section 10 (c). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 10.
(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.

There was no permission given to state legisators to alter Prop 8 or its subservient family code laws. And yet they just did it anyway. Where I come from that's called sedition.

When a State Statutory laws are subordinate to State Constitutional law, which is also subordinate to United States Constitutional law. This relationship is defined by BOTH the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California.

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that decision to remain the operative decision in the case.

No. Wrong again. But also "right"..I'll explain..

The appeal to overturn gay judge Walker's singular act of facism in "overturning" Prop 8 [because of rumors he wanted to marry his boyfriend?] was denied on standing issues..procedural stuff. There was no constitutional finding on the Prop 8 half of the Windsor/Prop 8 Hearing. None.

However.. there was a constitutional-finding in Windsor as to a state's power to tell the fed how marriage will be defined under the question of gay marriage. That Finding was that a large swath of a given state's [because they cannot confine such a Ruling JUST to New York] discreet community weighed in "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" to define gay/not gay marriage for themselves. The finding of "State's choice" was upheld Windsor June 2013.

So...as you said so succinctly above..defance of SCOTUS even at the trickle-down level of law, even a subserviant family code law in CA, is still contempt of the US Supreme Court's constitutional Finding in Windsor June 2013. That is the default Law at all levels until appeals are heard.

You can cite 5...10..100 lower court rulings in the fed appeals system. No matter. If any of them defy the most current standing SCOTUS law..they aren't enforceable. They are in fact contempt if anyone tries in the interim. Default applicable law is Windsor 2013. Like you just so eloquently, if inadvertently, argued...

***Ignorance cannot be claimed by anyone dispensing law as to the FACT that these questions are currently on appeal to the High Court, the 3rd branch of government. The question is which law is the default law in the mean time? Or, will SCOTUS allow 20 different interpretations of law while this thing appeals so this blatant fascism can run like wildfire through communities?

 

[Silhouette]

A dry topic, I'll admit. But an important one if you care about losing the power of your vote to fascism...

 

[g5000]

Looks like some people are too thick to ever comprehend that you cannot vote away someone's rights.

 

[Silhouette]

Looks like some people are too thick to ever comprehend that you cannot vote away someone's rights.

Behaviors that perform lewd sex acts as a matter of "pride" in public where they hope kids will be don't have 14th Amendment coverage. Sorry. They are subject to local penal codes instead...

 

[Silhouette]

U.S. Supreme Court grants Utah's appeal to stay gay marriage court order


Friday, July 18, 2014 4:22 p.m. CDT


(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to a request from Utah for an emergency stay of an appeals court order that told the state to recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages performed there pending an appeal.

The appeal for a stay by Utah's attorney general had been widely expected since the 10th Circuit appeals court left intact an existing temporary stay in order to give the state time to seek a lengthier injunction from a higher court.

(Reporting by Daniel Wallis in Denver; Editing by Eric Beech) U.S. Supreme Court grants Utah's appeal to stay gay marriage court order - News - KFGO The Mighty 790AM - Fargo Moorhead, ND

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

 

[Skylar]

U.S. Supreme Court grants Utah's appeal to stay gay marriage court order


Friday, July 18, 2014 4:22 p.m. CDT


(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to a request from Utah for an emergency stay of an appeals court order that told the state to recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages performed there pending an appeal.

The appeal for a stay by Utah's attorney general had been widely expected since the 10th Circuit appeals court left intact an existing temporary stay in order to give the state time to seek a lengthier injunction from a higher court.

(Reporting by Daniel Wallis in Denver; Editing by Eric Beech) U.S. Supreme Court grants Utah's appeal to stay gay marriage court order - News - KFGO The Mighty 790AM - Fargo Moorhead, ND

Not heard a PEEP about this in the MSM.

Um....chicken little? You're citing a Reuter's article. That's the MSM.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil lost two more today but she has faith, and that's all, on her side...

"Ted Olson and David Boies, who argued against Proposition 8 before the U.S. Supreme Court, represented the Virginia couples in court, along with Tom Shuttleworth of Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock. According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen ruled in February that all laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying in Virginia are unconstitutionaland recognized that they single out gay and lesbian Virginians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”

“Each and every milestone in this fight for marriage equality brings Tony and me one step closer to making our dream of being married a reality,” said plaintiff Bostic in a statement. “Our victory today reminds us why we filed this lawsuit — to fight for respect and full equality not only for us, but for all Virginians.”

“The Circuit Court’s decision reminds me of how proud I am to be a Virginian,” said Plaintiff Carol Schall in a statement. “Mary and I have lived here for over 40 years, have been in a wonderful relationship for nearly thirty, and have raised a beautiful daughter here in our home state. We could not be more thrilled with the judges’ decision.”

The 4th Circuit Court in Richmond, Virginia has jurisdiction over Virginia, Maryland (which already has marriage equality), West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. This case, or one from the 10th Circuit regarding Utah or Oklahoma's marriage bans, are considered lead contenders to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court."
http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...s-rule-virginia-marriage-ban-unconstitutional

 

[Bush92]

The people of California had spoken...and the gay Marxist silenced their voice. Total bullshit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The people of California had spoken...and the gay Marxist silenced their voice. Total bullshit.

The people never had a right to speak in the first place. Sorry...

 

[Plasmaball]

you must be a bot

 

[Skylar]

The appeal to overturn gay judge Walker's singular act of facism in "overturning" Prop 8 [because of rumors he wanted to marry his boyfriend?] was denied on standing issues..procedural stuff. There was no constitutional finding on the Prop 8 half of the Windsor/Prop 8 Hearing. None.

Simply labeling the Walker decision 'fascist' doesn't actually make it any less authoritative. As you don't have the slightest clue what facism means. Nor 'sedition'. They are just meaningless pejoratives to you.

Worse for you, the authority to rule on issues of constitutional significance are granted to the federal judiciary in the Constitution. The Walker court is part of the federal judiciary. Thus, its authoritative on the issue of Prop 8.

You simply don't like the Walker ruling, so imagine that its invalid. Its quite valid, and Prop 8 is illegal to enforce anywhere in CA because of it.

However.. there was a constitutional-finding in Windsor as to a state's power to tell the fed how marriage will be defined under the question of gay marriage. That Finding was that a large swath of a given state's [because they cannot confine such a Ruling JUST to New York] discreet community weighed in "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" to define gay/not gay marriage for themselves. The finding of "State's choice" was upheld Windsor June 2013.

The Windsor case was on the applicability of DOMA. Not on the validity of State bans on gay marriage. The constitutionality of such bans at the State level were never addressed. In Windsor, the state recognized gay marriage, but the Feds didn't. The USSC found that the DOMA was unconstitutional and illegally infringed on rights.

Prop 8 was the exact opposite. The Walker decision found that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it violated rights. In both the Windsor and Walker decision, the courts found that restrictions on gay marriage were unconstitutional.

The USSC never addressed nor even discussed the constitutionality of gay marriage bans on the State level. Only the Federal level. And ruled that at the federal level, such bans violated the constitution. The Walker decision explicitly addressed the constitutionality of gay marriage bans at the State level. Specifically, Prop 8 in California. And found proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.

The Walker decision was appealed to the USSC, with the USSC allowing the Walker decision to stand. Ending Prop 8. There are no appeals. Prop 8 was adjudicated.

Prop 8 remains illegal in the State of California, with the Walker decision explicit in its ruling that the State gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. California is in the process of removing the unenforcible wording of Prop 8 from our laws to bring them into accordance with an authoritative federal ruling.

So...as you said so succinctly above..defance of SCOTUS even at the trickle-down level of law, even a subserviant family code law in CA, is still contempt of the US Supreme Court's constitutional Finding in Windsor June 2013. That is the default Law at all levels until appeals are heard.

There's no 'defiance', as the Windsor ruling overturned federal law. Not State law. The USSC ruled that DOMA was illegal. And said nothing to the validity of gay marriage bans at the state level. The Walker decision did. And it found Prop 8 explicitly unconstitutional.

Both the Windsor and Walker decision struck down gay marriage bans. With the State of California removing wording banning gay marriage from its laws in accordance with rulings of the federal judiciary.

You can cite 5...10..100 lower court rulings in the fed appeals system. No matter. If any of them defy the most current standing SCOTUS law..they aren't enforceable.

There's no current SCOTUS ruling that has anything to say about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. There is a federal ruling on the constitutionality of prop 8: its unconstitutional.

Ending Prop 8 in California.

 

[Skylar]

The people of California had spoken...and the gay Marxist silenced their voice. Total bullshit.

The people don't have the authority to vote away a minority's rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The people of California had spoken...and the gay Marxist silenced their voice. Total bullshit.

The people don't have the authority to vote away a minority's rights.

Don't tell Sil that, she doesn't understand why not, and neither does he. To them Mob Rule is the way to go...

 

[Silhouette]

The people of California had spoken...and the gay Marxist silenced their voice. Total bullshit.

The people don't have the authority to vote away a minority's rights.

Don't tell Sil that, she doesn't understand why not, and neither does he. To them Mob Rule is the way to go...

Agreed: The most sacred civil right of a person's vote to count cannot be "voted" away by anyone or even a gay judge. Put the two questions of rights up on a scale and ask SCOTUS to pick which one is more valid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The people don't have the authority to vote away a minority's rights.

Don't tell Sil that, she doesn't understand why not, and neither does he. To them Mob Rule is the way to go...

Agreed: The most sacred civil right of a person's vote to count cannot be "voted" away by anyone or even a gay judge. Put the two questions of rights up on a scale and ask SCOTUS to pick which one is more valid.

When you vote for what is Unconstitutional, it doesn't count. The SC is well aware of that. Kicks out the votes of Congress all the damn time so why would they respect yours? Answer, they wouldn't...

 

[Silhouette]

Don't tell Sil that, she doesn't understand why not, and neither does he. To them Mob Rule is the way to go...

Agreed: The most sacred civil right of a person's vote to count cannot be "voted" away by anyone or even a gay judge. Put the two questions of rights up on a scale and ask SCOTUS to pick which one is more valid.

When you vote for what is Unconstitutional, it doesn't count. The SC is well aware of that. Kicks out the votes of Congress all the damn time so why would they respect yours? Answer, they wouldn't...

The only constitutional finding on Prop 8 was Windsor 2013 which left the choice of gay marriage up to the States. It said that when states discreet communities decide on that question, the fed has to abide by it.

It reaffirmed that in the stay it just granted Utah when Utah pled that its voters' rights were being suppressed, citing Windsor.

You may want to read Windsor when you get a spare minute. Especially the Opinion's pages 14-24: United States v. Windsor

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've read it and your reasoning is for not. You don't get to vote to say *******, or Liberals, or fisherman, are no longer Americans. It makes them unequal, which isn't allowed here unless there is a compelling state interest for such a thing and the courts can find no reason why gays shouldn't be equal before the law, regardless of what the majority has to say. it's why the majority does not count in this case.

You lost two fights just yesterday. Get with reality and give it up, it's over, you lost.

 

[Silhouette]

I've read it and your reasoning is for not. You don't get to vote to say *******, or Liberals, or fisherman, are no longer Americans. It makes them unequal, which isn't allowed here unless there is a compelling state interest for such a thing and the courts can find no reason why gays shouldn't be equal before the law, regardless of what the majority has to say. it's why the majority does not count in this case.

You lost two fights just yesterday. Get with reality and give it up, it's over, you lost.

My "loss" can only be counted when SCOTUS weighs in. Oh, and what do you know...they did.. They granted Utah a stay when Utah pled that its voters might be disenfranchised.

If SCOTUS was going to rule based on how many lower courts couldn't understand the Ruling last year in Windsor's "states' choice" Opinion, they wouldn't have granted the stay. And that means the Final Word is leaning towards its own Opinion last year in spite of the plethora of judges lining up to be impeached when these little battles cost all those middle votes this Fall.

Judicial activism ist verboten. And it is so precisely because without impartial judges who are capable of reading the logic and intent of law, who stand in defiance of Rulings like Windsor, we have no actual judicial system. We have instead a system of whores who are turning tricks for blackmail or money or special interests. Whores don't make good judges.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've read it and your reasoning is for not. You don't get to vote to say *******, or Liberals, or fisherman, are no longer Americans. It makes them unequal, which isn't allowed here unless there is a compelling state interest for such a thing and the courts can find no reason why gays shouldn't be equal before the law, regardless of what the majority has to say. it's why the majority does not count in this case.

You lost two fights just yesterday. Get with reality and give it up, it's over, you lost.

My "loss" can only be counted when SCOTUS weighs in. Oh, and what do you know...they did.. They granted Utah a stay when Utah pled that its voters might be disenfranchised.

If SCOTUS was going to rule based on how many lower courts couldn't understand the Ruling last year in Windsor's "states' choice" Opinion, they wouldn't have granted the stay. And that means the Final Word is leaning towards its own Opinion last year in spite of the plethora of judges lining up to be impeached when these little battles cost all those middle votes this Fall.

Judicial activism ist verboten. And it is so precisely because without impartial judges who are capable of reading the logic and intent of law, who stand in defiance of Rulings like Windsor, we have no actual judicial system. We have instead a system of whores who are turning tricks for blackmail or money or special interests. Whores don't make good judges.

They granted a stay because the Utah AG has standing. They didn't when no one in CA did. See how that works?

And there are no whores here, just judges ruling on what is and isn't Constitutional. So far you've lost time and again. That won't be changing, ever. It's a done deal, all but for the paperwork, and almost everyone but you knows it.

 

[Skylar]

Agreed: The most sacred civil right of a person's vote to count cannot be "voted" away by anyone or even a gay judge.

When what the people voted voted for abrogates rights, um yes.....they can be overruled. As the courts ruling on every law that has been overruled for because it abrogates rights demonstrates.

And Prop 8 was found unconstitutional by the federal judiciary, in a ruling that went all the way to the USSC. That you don't like the judge or the ruling has no relevance whatsoever on the authority of the ruling. As agreement with you is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the Federal judicial power.

The only constitutional finding on Prop 8 was Windsor 2013 which left the choice of gay marriage up to the States.

Nonsense. Windsor was about the constitutionality of Federal law. Not State law. . The Windsor ruling struck down DOMA provisions preventing a woman from receiving federal tax breaks reserved for married couples.

The Windsor ruling neither rules on nor even mentions whether or not a ban on gay marriage at the State level is constitutional. Rendering your claim that Windsor makes Prop 8 legal by affirming the constitutionality of such bans a steaming pile of wanton delusion.

The issues you say Windsor resolves.....Windsor never even mentions.

The federal ruling of Perry v. Brown however does explicitly address the constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the State of California. Such bans were found to be explicitly unconstitutional, unenforceble and illegal. The USSC allowed this ruling to stand.

Meaning that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, unenforceable and illegal in the State of California. There are no appeals for that ruling. There are no standing petitions for a stay of implementation of gay marriage in California. The issue went all the way to the USSC, and has been fully adjudicated.

You just ignore all of this. And we don't base our law on your willful ignorance anymore than we do your imagination.

It reaffirmed that in the stay it just granted Utah when Utah pled that its voters' rights were being suppressed, citing Windsor.

The stay does not apply to any other state or any other petition. It applies only to Utah. Worse, there is no standing petition for a stay of implementation from the State of California on gay marriage. The AG has submitted nothing of the sort. So even if the granting of one petition magically applied to all States with such petitions (which it doesn't)...

.....California has no such petition.

You completely ignored this. Completely ignored the fact that the US petition applies only to Utah. And completely ignored the fact that there is no standing petition by California to stay gay marriage in the State.

Once again, your willful ignorance doesn't magically make our laws change. And the Utah stay doesn't apply to California, any other stay, or any other state. And certainly doesn't apply to petitions for stays that *don't exist* and have never been submitted to the court.

You may want to read Windsor when you get a spare minute. Especially the Opinion's pages 14-24:

You're the one indicating that Windsor ruled that gay marriage bans by the State are constitutional. Show us Windsor saying this. Cut and paste the quote from pages 14-24 that say what you claim Windsor is saying.

You can't, as Windsor says no such thing. It doesn't even mention the constitutionality of State bans on gay marriage. You've imagined it all. So you're insinuating an argument you can't factually support. All while ignoring the Walker decision, which explicitly and undeniably found that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Once again, your imagination is not legally binding, nor creates any issues of jurisdiction or binding precedent. You simply don't know what you're talking about.