ANOTHER Prop 8 Challenge: By A County Clerk This Time

[Seawytch]

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?

No state's anti gay marriage law has been ruled on by the SCOTUS as of yet. Why don't you understand that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I appreciate the generally thoughtful tone here.

Nothing new to rehash. Outta here.

 

[Silhouette]

No state's anti gay marriage law has been ruled on by the SCOTUS as of yet. Why don't you understand that?

Actually, it has. All of them have. In DOMA, the Court made it implicity clear that each state has a sovereign right to consensus on the question of gay marriage:

Page 19:

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

Pay very close attention to what I'm going to say: "Consensus" means the gathering of the many to deliberate and then choose. It doesn't mean "all must say yes to gay marriage". If that was the case it would be called a "mandate", not a "consensus". In any choice, the options to approve or deny are implied.

The Supreme Court did not just mistakenly uphold as constitutional, each state's sovereign right to choose by consensus on gay marriage. They said and wrote it that way on purpose. Ergo, they already DID hear all 50 state's potential appeals on whether or not that state may choose on gay marriage.

Whenever you see that phrase in bold in the quote above, pay attention. That is the Supreme Court's final rendition on the matter. That is the essence of their Decision and the Interpretation of constitutionality.

 

[Seawytch]

No state's anti gay marriage law has been ruled on by the SCOTUS as of yet. Why don't you understand that?

Actually, it has. All of them have. In DOMA, the Court made it implicity clear that each state has a sovereign right to consensus on the question of gay marriage:

Page 19:

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

Pay very close attention to what I'm going to say: "Consensus" means the gathering of the many to deliberate and then choose. It doesn't mean "all must say yes to gay marriage". If that was the case it would be called a "mandate", not a "consensus". In any choice, the options to approve or deny are implied.

The Supreme Court did not just mistakenly uphold as constitutional, each state's sovereign right to choose by consensus on gay marriage. They said and wrote it that way on purpose. Ergo, they already DID hear all 50 state's potential appeals on whether or not that state may choose on gay marriage.

Whenever you see that phrase in bold in the quote above, pay attention. That is the Supreme Court's final rendition on the matter. That is the essence of their Decision and the Interpretation of constitutionality.

You're misunderstanding the DOMA ruling. Marriage equality states, okay. Anti marriage equality states. No case heard before the SCOTUS.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the constitutional interpretation in DOMA was that each sovereign state gets to decide via consensus on gay marriage and that whatever that decision is, the fed [including courts] has to abide by that choice. With ample opportunity to define gay marriage as a "constitutional right", the Court declined to do so: leaving the legality of gay marriage up to each sovereign state.

Sorry. Read the Opinion thoroughly, top to bottom and see if you can find a different conclusion. Be prepared to provide quotes and citations to support your conclusion.

 

[Seawytch]

No, the constitutional interpretation in DOMA was that each sovereign state gets to decide via consensus on gay marriage and that whatever that decision is, the fed [including courts] has to abide by that choice. With ample opportunity to define gay marriage as a "constitutional right", the Court declined to do so: leaving the legality of gay marriage up to each sovereign state.

Sorry. Read the Opinion thoroughly, top to bottom and see if you can find a different conclusion. Be prepared to provide quotes and citations to support your conclusion.

You're wrong, but you won't believe it until the next case hits the SCOTUS.

 

[Silhouette]

You mean Gutierrez et al v Brown et al?

Hey Seawytch, which 12 states are the ones cited in the DOMA Opinion page 14 where SCOTUS says are the only states with gay marriage legal? Didn't they forget one? California? A typo?

What do you think?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the constitutional interpretation in DOMA was that each sovereign state gets to decide via consensus on gay marriage and that whatever that decision is, the fed [including courts] has to abide by that choice. With ample opportunity to define gay marriage as a "constitutional right", the Court declined to do so: leaving the legality of gay marriage up to each sovereign state.

Sorry. Read the Opinion thoroughly, top to bottom and see if you can find a different conclusion. Be prepared to provide quotes and citations to support your conclusion.

You are indeed wrong.

You may have read Windsor but you obviously didn’t understand it, nor the issue overall.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ consequently no one is claiming it as a ‘Constitutional right.’

The issue concerns the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access a given state’s marriage law, in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

In Windsor the Court held that the Federal government may not treat marriage law differently, where same-sex marriages are placed at a disadvantage per DOMA.

There was nothing in Windsor concerning the constitutionality of a given state refusing to acknowledge the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access its marriage law; as already correctly noted, that question has yet to come before the Court.

 

[PredFan]

Man I hate being on the same side as the left wing douchebags here, but being a libertarian and a constitutionalist, I have to protest against the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is the worst form of government. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

A majority of people in the State of California should not be allowed to stomp on the liberties of a minority. This counntry was designed to be governed by rule of law and not rule of man. The government should not play favorites and that means no religion should be forced to wed gays either.

A majority of the people whether its of a state or of the whole nation, has NO RIGHT to deny the rights or liberties of another.

 

[Silhouette]

I understand that the issue boiled down to who gets to declare gay marriage legal and who doesn't. That was each sovereign state and not the fed. The issue was resolved where each sovereign state has a constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and whatever they decide, the fed, including federal courts, has to abide by that consensus. Apparently you don't understand that.

On page 14 of the DOMA Opinion Clayton [or anyone else here] is a list of just 12 and not 13 states the supreme court recognized as having legal gay marriage as of June 2013. Can you name them? And explain why California was left out? A typo perhaps?

 

[Seawytch]

I understand that the issue boiled down to who gets to declare gay marriage legal and who doesn't. That was each sovereign state and not the fed. The issue was resolved where each sovereign state has a constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and whatever they decide, the fed, including federal courts, has to abide by that consensus. Apparently you don't understand that.

On page 14 of the DOMA Opinion Clayton [or anyone else here] is a list of just 12 and not 13 states the supreme court recognized as having legal gay marriage as of June 2013. Can you name them? And explain why California was left out? A typo perhaps?

When DOMA was ruled on, the lower court's stay was in place. It was lifted when the SCOTUS punted the case back to them.

 

[Silhouette]

You think the Supreme Court released both Opinions within 5 minutes of each other, from the same Sitting back in March and purposefully left CA out of the DOMA Opinion's list of 12 states? If the US Supreme Court had in mind that CA had legal gay marriage as of that 5 minute period, they would've included language to address that in DOMA. They, as lawyers themselves, had to know this sent a legal "message" to the world: "We do not as of this writing consider gay marriage legal in California. We heard both cases at the same time for a reason. We didn't even address California becoming legal within 5 minutes of releasing the DOMA Opinion on purpose, not by accident." Or put another way, the US Supreme Court cannot in the same Opinion Uphold the constitutionality of each state to decide on the legality of gay marriage and at the same time say "oh, except California"... That's why they only included 12 and not 13 states. They knew that constitutionally also, they cannot dictate just to California how the laws on gay marriage will be. And that includes any mandate from a lower federal court. Once they decided states get to decide, all federal entities cannot force any state to abide by their definition of the legality of gay marriage.

And then of course backing that up, on page 19 in DOMA you have them affirming the constitutionality of each sovereign state's right to consensus on gay marriage...and nowhere is there an Affirmation of gay marriage being an undeniable right across the 50 states.

Do you think all that was by accident? Typos? Oversight? Or on purpose for future legal challenge by attorneys who simply know how to read?

 

[Seawytch]

You think the Supreme Court released both Opinions within 5 minutes of each other, from the same Sitting back in March and purposefully left CA out of the DOMA Opinion's list of 12 states? If the US Supreme Court had in mind that CA had legal gay marriage as of that 5 minute period, they would've included language to address that in DOMA. They, as lawyers themselves, had to know this sent a legal "message" to the world: "We do not as of this writing consider gay marriage legal in California. We heard both cases at the same time for a reason. We didn't even address California becoming legal within 5 minutes of releasing the DOMA Opinion on purpose, not by accident." Or put another way, the US Supreme Court cannot in the same Opinion Uphold the constitutionality of each state to decide on the legality of gay marriage and at the same time say "oh, except California"... That's why they only included 12 and not 13 states. They knew that constitutionally also, they cannot dictate just to California how the laws on gay marriage will be. And that includes any mandate from a lower federal court. Once they decided states get to decide, all federal entities cannot force any state to abide by their definition of the legality of gay marriage.

And then of course backing that up, on page 19 in DOMA you have them affirming the constitutionality of each sovereign state's right to consensus on gay marriage...and nowhere is there an Affirmation of gay marriage being an undeniable right across the 50 states.

Do you think all that was by accident? Typos? Oversight? Or on purpose for future legal challenge by attorneys who simply know how to read?

Read Scalia's dissent...and be patient. The SCOTUS will rule.