32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[WorldWatcher]

>


The SCOTUS issued it's list of accepted cases from the conference of the 29th. Same-sex Marriage wasn't on the list.


They may reconsider the petitions at a later conference or reject them, but they didn't jump on them at the first conference. They may want more time with the current cases, they may delay making any decision to accept/reject until after the 6th & 5th Circuit Court rulings are entered (which might create a split Circuit court situation), or the orders of rejection could be in the works to be issued Monday (not likely).


U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Utah 8217 s same-sex marriage appeal at least not yet fox13now.com


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>


The SCOTUS issued it's list of accepted cases from the conference of the 29th. Same-sex Marriage wasn't on the list.


They may reconsider the petitions at a later conference or reject them, but they didn't jump on them at the first conference. They may want more time with the current cases, they may delay making any decision to accept/reject until after the 6th & 5th Circuit Court rulings are entered (which might create a split Circuit court situation), or the orders of rejection could be in the works to be issued Monday (not likely).


U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Utah 8217 s same-sex marriage appeal at least not yet fox13now.com


>>>>

They are politically deciding to wait until after the midterm elections. That is no mystery. And it should be noted to the demise of our country that politics has entered the hallowed chambers of SCOTUS yet again to the demise in this case of democracy itself. The point of that being that Utah enjoys protection of its democratic process while California does not in this little cesspool of legal-limbo-for-politics that SCOTUS is actively fostering against their sworn duties and Oaths to serve..

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is clearly mentally ill. She has provided enough clues as to why she feels so about hetero fascism.

That is her problem, and no one else has any obligation to help her own it.

She has to get over it herself.

What the fuck does that have to do with Utah claiming a right to preserve its democratic process with regards to regulating for polygamy and gay marriage vs California not being able to have that right in the interim as SCOTUS plays "run out the clock" on democracy and the very statutes of the constitution they're sworn to protect that each and every single state gets equal democracy to its neighbor?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil keeps want to ignore the fact that heteros and homos alike groom children for sexual perversion.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil keeps want to ignore the fact that heteros and homos alike groom children for sexual perversion.

So true. But with heteros this behavior is discouraged and the perps thrown in jail. With the LGBT culture it's done on main street as a matter of "pride" that reflects the LGBT cultural value system....

But in the mean time, want to answer how it's legally possible for SCOTUS to allow a halt on gay marriages in Utah in order to preserve its democracy there.....while in California that request was denied? How is it legally possible for just one state to enjoy the protection of its democratic process with respect to gay marriage while other states do not enjoy that status?

 

[WorldWatcher]

But in the mean time, want to answer how it's legally possible for SCOTUS to allow a halt on gay marriages in Utah in order to preserve its democracy there.....while in California that request was denied?

Utah - Those with standing choose to appeal the District Court ruling.

California - Those with standing chose not to appeal the District Court ruling.

California DID NOT request a stay, California DID NOT appeal the decision.



There is your answer, which I know you don't like (your liking or not isn't actually relevant to the legal proceedings) as to "how it's legally possible".


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

"So true. But with heteros this behavior is discouraged and the perps thrown in jail" as are homos. And we know the pride that heteros take in grooming children for abuse.

 

[Silhouette]

Utah - Those with standing choose to appeal the District Court ruling.

California - Those with standing chose not to appeal the District Court ruling.

California DID NOT request a stay, California DID NOT appeal the decision.

County clerk Dronenburg of California requested and was denied a clarification and stay on gay marriage pending appeal. His job relies on an Oath to the People to uphold duly-enacted initiative law regarding who may and may not marry. He had standing but was denied. Natually LGBTers are witch-hunting his job as result of his "insolence" for appealing California's right to self-rule.

County clerk Ernest Dronenburg remains a target for those who wish to unseat him for petitioning the state supreme court to reconsider their decision to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, also known as Prop 8.
#Dronenburg's challenge sparked outrage from supporters of marriage equality. That spark seems to have caught fire.
#On Tuesday, January 28, LGBT leaders in San Diego will call for Dronenburg's resignation amid revelations of abuse of power. New allegations against San Diego county clerk San Diego Reader#

Dronenburg was threatened from the top down as well:

Dronenburg’s petition argues that his plea for a stay is different because he is directly affected by state Registrar Tony Agurto’s June 28 order to the 58 county clerks to license gay marriages.
The San Diego County clerk said he is in a “legal limbo” because he believes the licenses should not be issued, but state Attorney General Kamala Harris has threatened to take action against clerks who refuse to allow the nuptials.
“Navigating this landmine of uncertainty on a daily basis is an ongoing and ever-present injury” that justifies an immediate stay, Dronenburg argued in the lawsuit. San Diego County Clerk Seeks End To Gay Marriages CBS San Francisco

 

[WorldWatcher]

Utah - Those with standing choose to appeal the District Court ruling.

California - Those with standing chose not to appeal the District Court ruling.

California DID NOT request a stay, California DID NOT appeal the decision.

County clerk Dronenburg of California requested and was denied a clarification and stay on gay marriage pending appeal.

In California he didn't have standing to appeal because of the state structure (that can vary from state-to-state as in Virginia the clerk does have standing to appeal).

No "clarification" was needed, the discriminatory law was ruled unconstitutional and gender composition was no longer applicable - pretty easy really.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

The clerk had no standing by state law.

End of story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What the fuck does that have to do with Utah claiming a right to preserve its democratic process with regards to regulating for polygamy and gay marriage vs California not being able to have that right in the interim as SCOTUS plays "run out the clock" on democracy and the very statutes of the constitution they're sworn to protect that each and every single state gets equal democracy to its neighbor?[/QUOTE]

Because the issue is about marriage equality and not polygamy.

Because SCOTUS said CA has the right to regulate appeal as long as it does not impair Constitutional protections.

 

[Silhouette]

When the US Supreme Court ordered the stay on gay marriage in Utah when the AG there pled to not do so would irreparably harm Utah's self-governance, the SCOTUS created standing for any voter in any state where laws are passed by referendum or initiative to plea for their constitutional civil right to self-govern. Ergo, ANY citizen in California has standing to begin a lawsuit and take it straight to the top. To deny their standing would create an atmosphere of distrust around SCOTUS and force their hand on the "which is more important in the interim....voters rights or gay marriage" cards. It would be a HUGE embarassment for the High Court which is walking a thinning tightrope on lack of clarity and bias towards certain states vs others with respect to granting stays based on self-rule trumping gay marriage....but then remaining conspicuously quiet about how this is inequal treatment for other states who seem to enjoy no similar protection.

One person speaking up would call this to a head.

Just one.

And oh what a gain for the GOP votes if that spectacle was made right now and CA looney dems came out en masse on one of their classic LGBT witch hunts against pro-traditional people right on the eve of an election...

...hmmm.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

WErgo, ANY citizen in California has standing to begin a lawsuit and take it straight to the top.

And yet the SCOTUS dismissed the Hollingsworth v. Perry specifically because the ones that appealed the case didn't have standing before the court.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

The major falsehood in your statement: "the SCOTUS created standing for any voter in any state where laws are passed by referendum or initiative to plea for their constitutional civil right to self-govern." It did no such thing.

 

[Silhouette]

The major falsehood in your statement: "the SCOTUS created standing for any voter in any state where laws are passed by referendum or initiative to plea for their constitutional civil right to self-govern." It did no such thing.

Oh, but it did. And that fact could easily be called out by a lawsuit by just one Californian claiming their constitutional civil right to self-govern is being suppressed by CA officials.

As you know, voters in Utah may not enjoy full protection of their constitutional rights, even interim-ones, to self-govern while voters in other states are denied that right. C'mon Jake, that's a playing-dumb act even you can't pull off.

Just one. Just one dude. Could be a baker, a school teacher, a mechanic, prep cook....anyone. Literally any person could sue for suppression of civil rights at this point and the federal court system would immediately be put in an uproar. It would be gigantic headaches all around for the democratic wingnut-left fascists in my party.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>>>>

Yes, and anyone could become informed about the equal treatment of states and individual's constitutional civil rights to self-govern. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is flatly wrong on "standing." She knows it. End of story.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is flatly wrong on "standing." She knows it. End of story.

I guess a trial of the facts would put which one of us is right or wrong to the test, wouldn't it? I mean logic dictates this. Given:

1. All voters have the constitutional protection of their civil right for their vote be cast and counted in order to self-rule.

2. Utah's voters had recently affirmed the interim-right for #1 to apply.

3. No states citizens may enjoy civil rights and constitutional protections while other states do not [equal treatment of states]

4. 1 + 2 + 3 = Any California voter now, right now...today...has standing to appeal their vote on prop 8 to be counted and for Prop 8 ergo to be binding law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The trial of facts is that you know the system has already ruled against such standing.

Ask WorldWatcher if you don't understand.