32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[Silhouette]

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

Ask WorldWatcher if you don't understand.

Ah, but that was then and this is now. Times have changed. And so apparently has the demeanor of SCOTUS towards the individual voters of Utah. It acted to protect their rights to self-rule in the interim. Their right to self-rule is unquestioned and can never be questioned unless Loving applies. Which it hasn't yet to "gay marriage". Or if it has, granting Utah the stay is SCOTUS de facto overruling of that finding by a lower court in favor of self-rule.

Back to California now. Since that stay was granted in Utah, all 50 states voters have the right to appeal for clarity on whether or not their vote on defining marriage in their state counts as well. And that's a rhetorical question because you and I both know about the equal application of civil rights across the 50 states. No favoritism.

So in short, SCOTUS' granting the stay to Utah is the same as them granting the stay in all 50 states because of the civil rights of voters. Those can NEVER be disenfranchised or given special bias state to state ...even for 5 minutes, 5 weeks, 5 months or 5 years...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now is what counts, and your standing argument has lost.

WorldWatcher will be your mentor if you ask humbly.

 

[Silhouette]

Now is what counts, and your standing argument has lost.

WorldWatcher will be your mentor if you ask humbly.

I'm not looking for a mentor. But if he asks me humbly I might guide him as to logical debate.

You cannot logically have an inequity of constitutional right to self-rule from state to state. The Utah stay is a stay for all 50. All it would take is one lawsuit from one voter from any of the currently disenfranchised voters.

There cannot be a status of inequity between the states as to civil rights. Not for 5 minutes, 5 days, 5 weeks or 5 years...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argument is specious.

The court ruled; it is over.

 

[Silhouette]

Your argument is specious.

The court ruled; it is over.

Are you talking about the more recent ruling, granting Utah their stay? Or a much older one where the Court simply punted on deciding on Prop 8? If memory serves, the more recent ruling is the one you always go by. Unless you're privy to some statute that says older, lower court rulings dominate more recent SCOTUS ones?

And since we know the Utah ruling is the most recent one, we know that citizens of all 50 states now enjoy the ability to self-rule when it comes to the question of gay marriage in their discreet communities/state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Blab all you want, you can't get around that standing as you suggest does not exist. The CA clerk had no standing. He is a mere employee, not a judge.

 

[Silhouette]

Blab all you want, you can't get around that standing as you suggest does not exist. The CA clerk had no standing. He is a mere employee, not a judge.

But an individual citizen's civil right is what's at issue here. In Utah, individual citizens gained, via the stay on gay marriage, the civil right protection to have their vote count in the interim with regard to that question. In California, ostensibly, an individual citizen stands disenfranchised from that right in the interim.

But then we have the constitutional statutes that say no citizen of any state may be treated differently from any other as to civil rights.

I know you know this. You're sounding panicky with your attempts at playing it down...

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is only your mindless chipmunk chattering going on here.

The issue has been decided: what you think is immaterial.

 

[Silhouette]

There is only your mindless chipmunk chattering going on here.

The issue has been decided: what you think is immaterial.

Oh, it isn't what I think. It's what we both know.

We both know the stay was granted in Utah from the argument that not to do so would harm Utah's democratic rule and self-governance [the voters who enacted their marriage laws]. We both know that Decision is more recent than the Prop 8 punt. We both know that voters in one state may not get preferential treatment in their right to self-govern, even for 5 minutes, than another state.

So these aren't things we "think". These are things we know. So knowing, we then extrapolate that any voter being left out of what Utah's voters are currently enjoying [the right of their twin to Prop 8 being fully enforceable law], has standing to appeal for equal treatment of their civil right to have their vote count. There's even a statute in CA's constitution that says "every voter has a right to have their vote count". Here it is:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance
with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

Right there is your lawsuit. The only way Prop 8 can be deactivated is by a new referendum or by the latest SCOTUS ruling. The latest SCOTUS ruling says that Utah's twin to Prop 8 is valid in the interim. And there cannot be an inequal treatment of the states by the fed. So bingo. There's a voter's standing and a voter's WIN in a lawsuit in CA/9th Circuit/SCOTUS. That lawsuit would be for violation of a voter's civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The court decided, and you are unhappy.

We all realize that.

Your political philosophy is yours and not mandatory on anyone.

 

[Silhouette]

The court decided, and you are unhappy.

We all realize that.

Your political philosophy is yours and not mandatory on anyone.

According to the CA constitution, complete with link, every voter in California, like Utah, on the question of gay marriage currently has the right to have that vote count and be enforceable law. This isn't a philosophy. It's in the CA constitution. Right there in black and white.

 

[WorldWatcher]

According to the CA constitution, complete with link, every voter in California, like Utah, on the question of gay marriage currently has the right to have that vote count and be enforceable law. This isn't a philosophy. It's in the CA constitution. Right there in black and white.

Facts:

The people of Alabama voted to amend their State Constitution to bar interracial marriage.

In 1967 such provisions were ruled unconstitutional (BTW - Prop 8 was also ruled unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that decision to stand).

In 2000 Alabama voted to finally remove the language from their constitution.​

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

Question:

Between 1967 and 2000 did the Alabama Constitution ban remain active as it pertained to banning interracial marriages in that state?​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Question:

Between 1967 and 2000 did the Alabama Constitution ban remain active as it pertained to banning interracial marriages in that state?​

>>>>

Problem: First you have to establish a legal connection between race and compulsive sexual behaviors, then if you do that hurdle, you can ask me your question. Otherwise it's a nonsequitor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The court decided, and you are unhappy.

We all realize that.

Your political philosophy is yours and not mandatory on anyone.

According to the CA constitution, complete with link, every voter in California, like Utah, on the question of gay marriage currently has the right to have that vote count and be enforceable law. This isn't a philosophy. It's in the CA constitution. Right there in black and white.

Merely your interp, which the courts have dismissed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"establish a legal connection between race and compulsive sexual behaviors"

fact: no court and no person have to do any such thing

 

[WorldWatcher]

Question:

Between 1967 and 2000 did the Alabama Constitution ban remain active as it pertained to banning interracial marriages in that state?​

>>>>

Problem: First you have to establish a legal connection between race and compulsive sexual behaviors, then if you do that hurdle, you can ask me your question. Otherwise it's a nonsequitor.

Gee you wouldn't answer the question. Surprise? No.

Race has nothing to do with the question. YOU claim simply because California has not removed unconstitutional language from it's constitution that it is still active. I give you another case where unconstitutional language was left in the State Constitution for 33-years after it was ruled unconstitutional and asked whether it reamined active.

Race has nothing to do with the question.

Colorado passed Amendment 2 in 1992 attempting to remove legal protections from homosexuals, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1996. The language of Amendment 2 remains in the Colorado Constitution as Article II Section 30b.

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
Colorado Constitution


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

During the 33-years where Alabama's interracial marriage ban remained written in their State Constitution, was it operable?

During the 18-years where Colorado's discriminatory law against homosexuals has remained in their State Constitution has it remained operable?


Care to try again?



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

sil has no viable position on this

 

[Silhouette]

Gee you wouldn't answer the question. Surprise? No.

Race has nothing to do with the question. YOU claim simply because California has not removed unconstitutional language from it's constitution that it is still active. I give you another case where unconstitutional language was left in the State Constitution for 33-years after it was ruled unconstitutional and asked whether it reamined active.

Race has nothing to do with the question...

1. You're right. Race has nothing to do with LGBT behaviors.

2. I wasn't talking just about California's constitution. I was also talking about Utah's constitution, which has a law nearly identical to California's forbidding anyone but one man and one woman marrying. That law was upheld in the interim by SCOTUS, July 2014 when they granted a stay on gay marriages pending appeal.

3. Therefore, Utah's voters enjoy the civil right to self-rule on the question of marriage definition that excludes gays. And California does not.

4. Since there cannot be inequal application of civil rights, in this case the civil right to have one's vote count and referendum laws be enforceable, the stay granted to Utah is the same as stays granted to every single state who voted to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Utah cannot get preferential treatment as to civil rights to democratic rule.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Utah cannot get preferential treatment as to civil rights to democratic rule", and nor can any other state who does that, unless they violate the civil rights of individuals, which hetero fascism does in marriage law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

According to the CA constitution, complete with link, every voter in California, like Utah, on the question of gay marriage currently has the right to have that vote count and be enforceable law. This isn't a philosophy. It's in the CA constitution. Right there in black and white.

Facts:

The people of Alabama voted to amend their State Constitution to bar interracial marriage.

In 1967 such provisions were ruled unconstitutional (BTW - Prop 8 was also ruled unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that decision to stand).

In 2000 Alabama voted to finally remove the language from their constitution.​

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

Question:

Between 1967 and 2000 did the Alabama Constitution ban remain active as it pertained to banning interracial marriages in that state?​

>>>>

Problem: First you have to establish a legal connection between race and compulsive sexual behaviors, then if you do that hurdle, you can ask me your question. Otherwise it's a nonsequitor.

Gee you wouldn't answer the question. Surprise? No.

Race has nothing to do with the question. YOU claim simply because California has not removed unconstitutional language from it's constitution that it is still active. I give you another case where unconstitutional language was left in the State Constitution for 33-years after it was ruled unconstitutional and asked whether it reamined active.

Race has nothing to do with the question.

Colorado passed Amendment 2 in 1992 attempting to remove legal protections from homosexuals, it was ruled unconstitutional in 1996. The language of Amendment 2 remains in the Colorado Constitution as Article II Section 30b.

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
Colorado Constitution


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

During the 33-years where Alabama's interracial marriage ban remained written in their State Constitution, was it operable?

During the 18-years where Colorado's discriminatory law against homosexuals has remained in their State Constitution has it remained operable?


Care to try again?



>>>>

2. I wasn't talking just about California's constitution.

Horse hockey.

See the posts above which show the train of responses.

I specifically responded to what you said (that was incorrect BTW) about the California Constitution and the idea that when something is ruled unconstitutional it is still operative until it is removed through a future amenemdent.

You were wrong.


Now care to answer the questions about Alabama and Colorado?


>>>>