ANOTHER Prop 8 Challenge: By A County Clerk This Time

[JakeStarkey]

No one's civil or religious liberties are violated by gay marriage.

 

[g5000]

I posted on another thread somewhere katzndogz that every time a nation embraces homosexuality is right before its fall and death.

Please cite actual historical examples.

The Romans embraced homosexuality right out of the gate, they even had gay emperors, and they lasted for over a thousand years.

 

[g5000]

I say again...

Whoopie! Back to the SCOTUS! I hope they find the Clerk has standing.

What will their defense of the law be? What "reasonable person standard" will they use in denying gay and lesbian couples equal access to legal, civil marriage? What's gonna convince the court? Sin? Ickyness? Your inability to talk to your children?

Come on, what will the San Diego Clerk's Argument be (in front of the SCOTUS) that can support violating tax paying American citizen's 14th Amendment right to equal protection?

They have always had equal protection, they want special privilege, there's a difference.

Gays have not been able to file a joint tax return, or collect Social Security survivor benefits, or be taxed at survivor tax rates. So you are, quite frankly, dead wrong.

The only ones demanding special privileges are those who are already receiving those benefits who don't want gays to have those privileges.

 

[g5000]

They have always had equal protection, they want special privilege, there's a difference.

Really? What special privilege? Isn't it you who believes you have the special privilege and you don't want gay couples to have it?

Nope, I have the right, as every man does to marry any woman I chose assuming she is willing, gays have that same right and they always have and often do. Now as you progressives often do, you want me to have to subsidize and accept your unnatural behavior. Tell ya what, you let me deduct my cats as dependents on my taxes as my children, adopted of course and I'll allow you take your gay lover as a deduction. One makes as much sense as the other.

You need a course in Logic. Seriously. Not kidding.

 

[g5000]

Neither does gay marriage, you're starting to get it. Men and women are designed like a puzzle, they got parts that are designed to fit together, you start mixing puzzles and the pieces don't make sense.

sure it makes sense. Your argument is childish and backwards. We are a nation where people are equal. You want special rights for men and women. That doesnt fly here in America. You can not legally vote away a persons right.

You are on the wrong side of history and the argument. You will loose and that will be that. You can go kicking and screaming if you want, but it will be the norm here in America.

Your bigotry will only get you so far with this issue. Your Icky factor want wash legally, and your its not natural is a lie. You have nothing.

Fuck your childish and backwards bullshit. It's biology, it's nature, I thought you commies were all about science. If you want to satisfy your hedonistic desires by engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same sex, fucking go for it, I don't care, but don't insist on teaching children that it is in any way natural because it is NOT.

And there it is again.

Like I keep saying. Once you strip away all the illogic and bogus arguments used against gay marriage, deep down inside every anti-gay bigot is a Westboro Baptist member holding a God Hates Fags sign.

What needs to be taught to our children is that being gay is not a choice, and it is not wrong.

Abnormal =/= wrong.

 

[g5000]

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

Then get The People to assent. Don't jam it down our throats by decree of tyrants in black robes.

DOMA was jammed down our throats. The courts unjammed it.

 

[g5000]

Prop 8 remains the law in CA, just as immigration laws remain in the US. Just because you have an executive or AG that refuse to uphold their oath and enforce them does not alter the fact that they remain the law. SCOTUS said gay marriage should be decided in the states, CA has decided, in the form of prop 8.

That is incorrect. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court. Since the SCOTUS chose not to rule, it leaves the lower court's ruling as the final adjudication.

Link please, evidently this county clerk didn't get the memo.

That's right. He didn't get the memo. Apparently you did not, either. The clerk is an idiot and should be fired for not understanding the law he is supposed to execute.

The 9th Circuit Court struck down Prop 8. Since the Supreme Court of the US decided the petitioners who appealed that ruling did not have standing, the 9th Circuit Court ruling stands. Gay marriage is legal in CA.

 

[g5000]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm opposed to government being in any marriage, period.

However, a better law suit would be one in which people who support science in school are required to teach to our children that same sex attractions in nature are evolutionary blind alleys and dead ends. That nature considers same sex attractions as a threat to survival and will allow the aberrant behavior to die out.

And yet is has not occurred to you that after all this time homosexuality has not died out. I guess you don't have a good grasp of science, after all.

 

[g5000]

That's a strawman but I agree Darkwind. Instead of teaching kids that sodomy is cool, resulting in an alarming increase of new HIV cases in boys ages 13-29 in just the same last 7 years as gay becoming the new "cool fad" for youngsters, we teach them that having sex with the lower digestive tract is a deadly dangerous game. We teach them at the earliest of ages: don't put anything EVER in your ears, eyes, nose or butt.

Just common sense lifesaving stuff...

I guess you never heard of the millions of heteros who were driven insane and killed by syphilis and gonorrhea for centuries before a cure was found, eh?

Don't put anything EVER in your vagina!!

 

[g5000]

The clerk has withdrawn his petition. He's letting some anti-gay God-hates-fags group carry the ball.

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/cd3e28...2013.07.11_Petition_FINAL_WITH_SIGNATURES.pdf

 

[Seawytch]

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.

She, like so many others, confuse marriage equality and public accommodation laws.

 

[Silhouette]

g5000, where is your link for the document filed with the court where Dronenburg has allegedly withdrawn his lawsuit? Not the injunction, he has conceded to the court's ruling. The actual lawsuit that still pends before the CA Supreme Court? You know the difference between a plea for injunction and an actual lawsuit, right?

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

I could just as easily claim the same thing about you as to your interpretation of it. Either California gets to join the other 49 states in deciding yes or no on gay marriage or they don't. You don't need any ideology to ask the question if that's fair or not. What you do need though is the US Constitution and the recent DOMA Opinion that says all 50 states have a constitional right to choose:

Page 19 from the DOMA Opinion:

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 their own 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 respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

As was constitutionally supported above, California formed a consensus an had that consensus ripped away. Why is New York more special than California? That's a constitutional question to ask yourself. And it will be asked of the Supreme Court ultimately in this clarity lawsuit...

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Silhouette has no legal ground upon which to appeal now.

Prop 8 is mere history.

 

[Seawytch]

g5000, where is your link for the document filed with the court where Dronenburg has allegedly withdrawn his lawsuit? Not the injunction, he has conceded to the court's ruling. The actual lawsuit that still pends before the CA Supreme Court? You know the difference between a plea for injunction and an actual lawsuit, right?

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

I could just as easily claim the same thing about you as to your interpretation of it. Either California gets to join the other 49 states in deciding yes or no on gay marriage or they don't. You don't need any ideology to ask the question if that's fair or not. What you do need though is the US Constitution and the recent DOMA Opinion that says all 50 states have a constitional right to choose:

Page 19 from the DOMA Opinion:

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 their own 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 respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

As was constitutionally supported above, California formed a consensus an had that consensus ripped away. Why is New York more special than California? That's a constitutional question to ask yourself. And it will be asked of the Supreme Court ultimately in this clarity lawsuit...

Consensus that does NOT violate the US Constitution. Prop 8 did.

 

[Silhouette]

Then how come dozens of other states with the same exact law are not in violation of the constitution by having them? Can't single out California. If all states get to choose, so does California. They chose. Gay marriage is not legal there, along with polygamy and minors excluded by "marriage is between a man and a woman".

 

[bodecea]

Then how come dozens of other states with the same exact law are not in violation of the constitution by having them? Can't single out California. If all states get to choose, so does California. They chose. Gay marriage is not legal there, along with polygamy and minors excluded by "marriage is between a man and a woman".

Because they are NOT exactly the same...nor do they all have the same state constitution as California....nor did they all HAVE legal gay marriage and then take it away as did California.

 

[Seawytch]

Then how come dozens of other states with the same exact law are not in violation of the constitution by having them? Can't single out California. If all states get to choose, so does California. They chose. Gay marriage is not legal there, along with polygamy and minors excluded by "marriage is between a man and a woman".

Because they are NOT exactly the same...nor do they all have the same state constitution as California....nor did they all HAVE legal gay marriage and then take it away as did California.

Plus...they haven't been challenged...YET.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Then get The People to assent. Don't jam it down our throats by decree of tyrants in black robes.

The people lack the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

When the people act in a manner offensive to the Constitution – such as Proposition 8 or DOMA – such acts must be invalidated by the courts.

Of course, there’s a simple way to avoid ‘tyrants in black robes,’ the states need only obey the Constitution, and acknowledge same-sex couples’ equal protection rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

g5000, where is your link for the document filed with the court where Dronenburg has allegedly withdrawn his lawsuit? Not the injunction, he has conceded to the court's ruling. The actual lawsuit that still pends before the CA Supreme Court? You know the difference between a plea for injunction and an actual lawsuit, right?

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

I could just as easily claim the same thing about you as to your interpretation of it. Either California gets to join the other 49 states in deciding yes or no on gay marriage or they don't. You don't need any ideology to ask the question if that's fair or not. What you do need though is the US Constitution and the recent DOMA Opinion that says all 50 states have a constitional right to choose:

Page 19 from the DOMA Opinion:

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 their own 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 respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

As was constitutionally supported above, California formed a consensus an had that consensus ripped away. Why is New York more special than California? That's a constitutional question to ask yourself. And it will be asked of the Supreme Court ultimately in this clarity lawsuit...

It isn’t.

But New York acted in a manner consistent with the Constitution, by acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, unlike California.

The states are indeed allowed to form a consensus, provided that consensus conforms to Constitutional case law. And a fundamental tenet of 14th Amendment jurisprudence is that no state may deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

 

[Silhouette]

New York acted in a manner consistent with the Constitution, by acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, unlike California.

Then why, Mr. Jones, was gay marraige banned in states with identical laws to California's Prop 8 allowed to stand while just California pretends it is legal there in spite of the consensus that said it was not? Please direct me to quotes from either the Prop 8 or DOMA Opinions where the Court said "gay marriage may not be banned in any of the 50 states"? Where in either of those Opinions did the Court say that gay marriage was a constitutional right never to be denied by any state? Or did they leave that up to each sovereign state to decide on their own? And as we know that is the case, how can California be the only exception?