ANOTHER Prop 8 Challenge: By A County Clerk This Time

[Silhouette]

I'm neither evangelical or christian at all. I think religion has no part whatsoever in this debate. I do believe however that our social matrix is a very important inheritance to pass on And I've studied history and the fall of nations through time as they descend into debauchery and social chaos just prior to their predictable demise.

Destroying the California initiative system, after the gay cabal took over the American Psychological Association in the 1970s and replaced science with "politically correct diagnoses" puts us about half way along the Nazi Germany spectrum of indoctrinated and fascist insanity.

So, yeah, just a little concerned about the correlations...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you deny who you are. Don't try to make us think you are anything but what you are: a social Christian nationalist. Loving was about discrimination not race.

You, my dear, are a poseur.

 

[EriktheRed]

Very misleading guys. The Kourt in Kalifornia didn't block the ENTIRE CASE...only the preliminary injuction seeking to halt gay marriages while it proceeds...

And nobody on the Prop 8/CA intitiative system side of the fence is dying from shock that this oligarchy continues to slam its iron fist from the bench...lol..

The case is made and tailored to go before the US Supreme Court. It is precisely because of the swiftness of denial, gay judges ripping the Will of 7 million away, and judicial activism in that state that any true justice anyomore can only be had outside of it.

Stay tuned. For this is FAR from over..

Nope.

Fag-bashers lost.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The County Clerk of San Diego HAS standing to defend Prop 8. Just because they found one group didnt' have standing to defend public law in CA, doesn't mean that has instantly nullified any person stepping up to the plate who DOES have standing.

The County Clerk of San Diego, an elected public servant, has standing to ask for clarity and a definitive ruling on the Supreme Court of the US's ruling vs the lower court ruling. The Higher Ruling tells the clerk "your state was perfectly within its constitutional rights to say "no" to gay marriage". The lower ruling says "your state was not within its constitutional rights to say "no" to gay marriage". The clerk so finding himself in a pickle, has AMPLE STANDING and cause to bring the suit. He took an oath to uphold the CA AND the US Constitution. Which interpretation do you suppose will prevail when one diametrically opposed ruling faces off with the other?

..lol..

OK, he has standing.

That still doesn’t make any difference.

The California Supreme Court will dismiss his petition pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Proposition 8 is un-Constitutional. If the clerk appeals the California Supreme Court’s decision to the appropriate Federal district court, that court will reject the claim per Perry. And if he appeals the district court’s decision to the Ninth, that Federal appeals court will reject the petition because there are no new issues to be addressed.

Unlike the US Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Proposition 8 on Constitutional grounds, not technical.

 

[bodecea]

I'm neither evangelical or christian at all. I think religion has no part whatsoever in this debate. I do believe however that our social matrix is a very important inheritance to pass on And I've studied history and the fall of nations through time as they descend into debauchery and social chaos just prior to their predictable demise.

Destroying the California initiative system, after the gay cabal took over the American Psychological Association in the 1970s and replaced science with "politically correct diagnoses" puts us about half way along the Nazi Germany spectrum of indoctrinated and fascist insanity.

So, yeah, just a little concerned about the correlations...

"The gay cabal".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette bases her concept of some sort of system. She denies that it is Christian but has some sort of social matrix. She sounds like Margaret Sanger. Silhouette is a right wing progressive statist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The court last week rejected a similar request for a temporary hold on same-sex marriages from the sponsors of Proposition 8, who have made arguments similar to Dronenburg’s about the scope of the trial court’s injunction. Lawyers for Proposition 8’s backers also have argued that because the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule directly on the measure’s constitutionality, state officials are bound by state law to enforce it.

Nonsense.

When the Supreme Court rejects to hear or rule on a case the lower court’s ruling remains in effect, usually at the Federal circuit court of appeals level.

Proposition 8 is invalidated, there is no state ‘law’ to ‘enforce.’

 

[J.E.D]

Stay tuned. For this is FAR from over..

 

[J.E.D]

/thread

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette bases her concept of some sort of system. She denies that it is Christian but has some sort of social matrix. She sounds like Margaret Sanger. Silhouette is a right wing progressive statist.

Are you attempting to change the subject Jake? Judge the content of the lawsuit, not me.

 

[Silhouette]

OK, he has standing.

That still doesn’t make any difference.

The California Supreme Court will dismiss his petition pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Proposition 8 is un-Constitutional. If the clerk appeals the California Supreme Court’s decision to the appropriate Federal district court, that court will reject the claim per Perry. And if he appeals the district court’s decision to the Ninth, that Federal appeals court will reject the petition because there are no new issues to be addressed.

Unlike the US Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Proposition 8 on Constitutional grounds, not technical.

The California Supreme Court will have to cite the Ninth Circuit's Ruling's specific language declaring Prop 8 "unconstitutional". That language will be in direct conflict with language in the recent DOMA Opinion/Ruling that is superior and more recent to it. Thereby, the clerk, with proper standing, can and will appeal to the Ninth.

There ARE new issues before the 9th to be addressed because of the recent DOMA Ruling/Opinion that holds that each state can decide on gay marriage: that it is their longstanding and traditional right. That gay marriage in that Opinion was Held as an oddball, equivalent to 13 year olds or blood relatives marrying. That each state has a sovereign right to include or exclude gay marriage at their choosing. And how that cannot exclude California. The 9th will then be faced with a conundrum and will have to place in writing how it plans to defy the DOMA Ruling and not allow JUST California to choose on gay marriage; in trying to re-affirm its wrong ruling on Prop 8. Also new before it is a clerk who can face actual harm to his public career and his oath of office from his knowledge that the previous 9th Rulings on Prop 8 are in fact illegal and wrong.

From there, when the gay-promotional 9th attempts to shut him down, he can appeal to the Supreme Court itself and hold out how singling out California is a violation of the constitution and a violation of the spirit of the DOMA Ruling so recent in June. If all states can choose on gay marriage, then so can California. And if so, Proposition 8 is still and always has been the Law there. And as such, the clerk will be in violation of his public duty to not uphold that law as was the Will of 7 million through the intiative vote.

Also "new" to the courts will be the question of the power of the initiative law and its dilution with wrong lower court rulings. A single judge or a lower court cannot rule to dilute the power of California voters in violation of the Supreme Court that has just affirmed that power to choose.

Something's gonna give and the laws and rulings will be tested against the constitution and the recent Ruling in DOMA. There is standing. There are new issues. And at question is the foundation of how laws are made and upheld in both California and at the Supreme Court level. I'd say this isn't going to "go away" as easily as you hope..

 

[Silhouette]

Unlike the US Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Proposition 8 on Constitutional grounds, not technical.

Please state what those Constitutional grounds are. I'm looking for an excerpt from the actual text of the Ruling there. Thanks. Oh, and a date for that ruling too...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette bases her concept of some sort of system. She denies that it is Christian but has some sort of social matrix. She sounds like Margaret Sanger. Silhouette is a right wing progressive statist.

Are you attempting to change the subject Jake? Judge the content of the lawsuit, not me.

Your ideology influences your interpretation of the lawsuit. That's on you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette, the words will be something to the extent of "in accordance with our earlier findings, SCOTUS has returned the case to our jurisdiction, and we reaffirm our earlier findings."

 

[Seawytch]

Unlike the US Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Proposition 8 on Constitutional grounds, not technical.

Please state what those Constitutional grounds are. I'm looking for an excerpt from the actual text of the Ruling there. Thanks. Oh, and a date for that ruling too...

On the merits, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court. The court held the Proposition unconstitutional under the rationale of our decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996). 671 F. 3d, at 1076, 1095. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, Romer stands for the proposition that “the Equal Protection Clause requires the state to have a legit- imate reason for withdrawing a right or benefit from one group but not others, whether or not it was required to confer that right or benefit in the first place.” 671 F. 3d, at 1083–1084. The Ninth Circuit concluded that “taking away the official designation” of “marriage” from same-sex couples, while continuing to afford those couples all the rights and obligations of marriage, did not further any legitimate interest of the State. Id., at 1095. Proposition 8, in the court’s view, violated the Equal Protection Clause because it served no purpose “but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships.” Ibid.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2013/06/26/10-16696_supreme_court_opinion.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is over and done in the sense that Prop 8 is over forever in being unable to be overruled.

 

[NLT]

Yes. Crushing the California Intitiative System and the power of individual voters through it by the Rainbow Bootheel is a bit much.

CA's initiative system needs to be crushed.

"Hey, let's vote for ponies that fart glitter!"
"Okay"

"Hey, we need to pay for these fucking farting unicorns"

"No way"

Homophobe

 

[NLT]

Crush the ability of voters to vot and put the state under gay dictatorship.

..................its amazing how retarded you people can be.
somedays i wish i could send people like you back to real dictatorships.

Current POTUS

Well at least he is doing his best to rule like one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, he is not, neither did Bush.

Stupid comment.

 

[g5000]

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough. Get over it.

Then the religious rights of others will have to be protected. The people will be taking direct action themselves, but that's as it should be.

Please explain which of your rights, religious or otherwise, are being violated when a same sex married couple files a joint federal tax return.