Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[AmericanFirst]

Which "traditional marriage description" would that be?

Is that the one which is a union of two people of the same race?

Nice try but way wrong as usual. Traditional marriage as defined by God man and woman. Anything else is an abomination and unnatural.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AmericanFirst, your "god" is not the Constitution of America.

I don't even think your "god" is the Christian God.

 

[Silhouette]

AmericanFirst, your "god" is not the Constitution of America.

I don't even think your "god" is the Christian God.

And so far the constitution is an open question where gay marriage is concerned. Kind of. But not really. States have always had the say. And since gay isn't a race or a gender or a religion [well, yes it is really] or a country of origin, not sure how the SCOTUS is going to tease out "LGBT" from all the other "????s"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Um, not really, Sil. The last 21 or 22 court decisions, including SCOTUS, might give you a hint your cult of the hetero-fascist is setting. It's not about LGBT at all, merely marriage equality. If Utah does not appeal the latest ruling by Friday, marriage equality in action becomes the law here in Utah.

 

[Silhouette]

Well Jake....that just happened...

Utah asks Supreme Court for emergency stay in gay marriage case

The Denver Post

Posted: 07/16/2014 05:32:18 PM MDT17

Utah's attorney general on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a federal appeals court's decision last month striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriages....

...The 10th Circuit already had stayed its decision in Kitchen vs. Herbert pending action by the Supreme Court. But in a separate decision in May, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball gave Utah until July 21 to appeal his decision ordering Utah to recognize marriage licenses already issued and allow other gay couples to wed.

"Both the district court and a divided 10th Circuit have denied Applicants' requests for a full stay pending appeal, although the 10th Circuit has granted a temporary stay that will expire at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Monday," the Utah motion filed Wednesday says.

The emergency application was directed to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the same justice who stayed the earlier decision tossing Utah's gay-marriage ban....

...Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes also is asking Sotomayor to stay the order by Kimball.

"Absent a final decision by an appellate court of last resort declaring Utah's marriage laws unconstitutional, the democratically produced decisions of Utah's citizens should not be overturned based on the discretion of a single federal district judge unchecked by subsequent appellate review," the motion says.

Utah's filing indicates it soon will appeal the 10th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"That petition will give this Court an opportunity to determine whether the 14th Amendment prohibits the people of a state from defining marriage as between one man and one woman," the motion says. At that point, Utah will honor whichever decision the high court makes, Reyes' motion states.

Attorney General John Suthers has asked the Colorado Supreme Court to prohibit county clerks across the state from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples pending a final resolution of the 10th Circuit decision. Utah asks Supreme Court for emergency stay in gay marriage case - The Denver Post

 

[Silhouette]

Um, not really, Sil. The last 21 or 22 court decisions, including SCOTUS, might give you a hint your cult of the hetero-fascist is setting. It's not about LGBT at all, merely marriage equality. If Utah does not appeal the latest ruling by Friday, marriage equality in action becomes the law here in Utah.

Then whats all this appeals-to-SCOTUS talk I've been hearing?

 

[Skylar]

The legislature has every night to eviscerate law that SCOTUS has overruled.

Children of all marriages are legitimate, period.

10th says that SCOTUS had ten days to issue a stay, or marriage equality is a fact in Utah.

The hetero-fascists fail and fail and fail.

SCOTUS NEVER overruled Prop 8. What rogue officials in CA have done is sedition:

Proposition 8: Supreme Court Ruling Explained

June 26, 2013

By ARIANE DE VOGUE, TERRY MORAN and JOSH HAFENBRACK

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 today that bans gay marriage, and instead dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The court held that supporters of the ballot initiative—who stepped in to defend Prop 8 when California officials refused to do so—did not have the legal right to be in court Prop. 8: Supreme Court Ruling Explained - ABC News

They vacated the appeal to overturn gay judge Walker's kangaroo court that forced gay marriage upon that state.

'Kangaroo Court'? You simply don't like the outcome of the case. Just because you don't like the outcome of a case doesn't mean that the process to reach that outcome was invalid.

The federal judiciary has ruled on the Prop 8, and found it to be unconstitutional. A ruling that remains authoritative to this day.

It may interest you to know that SCOTUS is now ordering a rehearing of these types of vacated cases with respect to the new Hobby Lobby Ruling. And of course, CA rogue officials already know this and pre-emptively acted in contempt of SCOTUS and the initiative law system [democracy itself] in CA.

'Contempt of SCOTUS'? What SCOTUS ruling are they acting in 'contempt' of? Why none at all. The SCOTUS hasn't ordered any rehearing of Prop 8. There are no appeals.

In fact, the only standing federal judiciary ruling on Prop 8 is that it is unconstitutional.

Remember, the imaginary ruling where Prop 8 is found to be constitutional by the USSC.....that doesn't actually exist. You've made it up.

And your imagination doesn't actually bind the CA legislature to do anything.

As those rogue officials know, as guaranteed in the CA Constitution, Article 2, Section 10 (c) which says: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.​

There was no permission given within Prop 8 by the CA voters to rogue legislators there to alter or revoke it; and there was no new intiative to repeal it by the voters.

The proposition was ruled unconstitutional by the federal judiciary. The CA legislature doesn't need an initiative to remove unconstitutional and legally unenforceable text from CA's system of laws. They didn't 'repeal' the proposition. The courts overturned it.

And there was no constitutional finding on it either. It is in limbo and may not be gutted until the final Determination is in.

Nonsense. The constitutionality of Prop 8 was ruled upon by the federal judiciary. And the USSC refused to overrule that verdict, allowing it to stand. The authority to adjudicate issues of constitutional significance lies with the federal judiciary. Not simply the USSC. And it was the federal judiciary that struck down Prop 8.

Just because you don't like the ruling of the Walker court doesn't mean that it magically vanishes or ceases to be authoritative over Prop 8.

The part in red above was deleted from family law code without the permission of voters. And it is the heart and essence of Prop 8 which being in the constitution, governs all lower laws.

The part deleted was found to be unconstitutional by the federal judiciary. The CA legislature needs no 'permission from voters' to remove language found to be unenforceable and an unconstitutional abrogation of rights.

Prop 8 has been found to be exactly that. Its illegal to enforce any of the language that CA removed. Which is why the CA legislature removed it.

In a reaction, obviously to the Hobby Lobby Ruling and the writing they see on the wall, the fascist leadership of California moves to block what they see obviously coming: the restoration of Propositon 8 as an enforceable law

You've completely imagined pretty much everything you began the thread with. Your 'cause', the hobby lobby ruling....came on June 30th.

Your 'effect', the CA bill to remove the unconstitutional language of Prop 8 from our laws, came on May 2nd. Almost 2 months earlier.

SB1306 would remove from the state Family Code language that marriage must be "between a man and a woman.'' It would substitute gender-neutral language, define marriage as a personal relation arising from a civil contract between two persons, and remove limits on the state recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages performed outside of California.

Source: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...arriage-Replace-with-Gender-Neutral-Language-

Friday, May 2, 2014

Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by 2 months. You simply don't know what you're talking about, making up a narrative for the CA legislature based on nothing but your imagination, tossing in terms you clearly don't understand. As bringing our laws into compliance with the federal judiciary's ruling isn't 'fascism', or a 'coup' or 'sedition'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette is merely bummed that marriage equality is in the end game.

She has become like healthmyths, shootspeeders, and edward baiamonte, who simply can't and won't undertand the world has changed for them in ways they hate.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette is merely bummed that marriage equality is in the end game.

She has become like healthmyths, shootspeeders, and edward baiamonte, who simply can't and won't undertand the world has changed for them in ways they hate.

It is only the end game by vote up or down by the People of each separate state. With all the wild & great numbers LGBT devotees claim they have...this should be a happy compromise for them. Right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

America does not run by majority democracy ignoring minority rights guaranteed by the Constitution as interpreted by the courts.

That is the American way, Sil; you are not going to have it your way because you want it.

SCOTUS says that is not the way the law operates and is interpreted.

 

[Silhouette]

America does not run by majority democracy ignoring minority rights guaranteed by the Constitution as interpreted by the courts.

That is the American way, Sil; you are not going to have it your way because you want it.

SCOTUS says that is not the way the law operates and is interpreted.

It does when the minority group's affect is objectionable behaviors. Not race, religion, gender or country of origin.

Good luck on rewriting the 14th Amendment...& the penal, civil & family codes...oh wait a minute...your cult is already doing that last one without permission from the governed!

& it is not "the courts but THE Court who is en route as we debate this to remind rogue lower courts that defying what was said in Windsor is unwise. Those willful activist judges had better hope the public outrage of having gay marriage forced upon ther state doesn't translate into a GOP congress next year because some congressmen are already planning to impeach them for misconduct, overreach & contempt of Windsor.

 

[Silhouette]

[
[1]'Kangaroo Court'? You simply don't like the outcome of the case. Just because you don't like the outcome of a case doesn't mean that the process to reach that outcome was invalid.

[2]The federal judiciary has ruled on the Prop 8, and found it to be unconstitutional. A ruling that remains authoritative to this day.

1. Let's hope you take your own advice when SCOTUS reminds these activists lower courts about the constitutional finding on states' rights in Windsor. They determined, consitutionally, that each state has the unquestioned authority on gay marriage to say "yes" or "no" for themselves. The legality of so-called gay marriage rests only on either the state's voters saying "yes" or the 14th applying. That determination is in limbo as we speak.

2. That may be or not, but the case is still in limbo since everyone in the world knows it is on appeal to SCOTUS right now. In the meantime the rogue officials in CA do not have the legal permission to rewrite underlaws in family code to reflect a certainty in the validity of Prop 8 being found unconstitutional. For it in fact was actuallly FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL in Windsor by Windsor's very definition generally: states' widest swath of electors get to weigh in on new and weird gay marriage in their "discreet community".

So the weight of law leans towards Prop 8 being constitutional, for it in fact is at present time. The High Court may later change its mind and assign the 14th to cover just some deviant sex behaviors objectionable to the majority. But until then the default is the latest constitutional finding in Windsor which Found that states voters, the broadest swath possible are those who decide whether or not gay marriage is legal.

Rogue officials in CA of course, being lawyers and many versed quite well in the latest written opinions on gay marriage at the Top, realized this and have taken a pre-emptively contemptuous step of rewriting California law without voters' permission per their rights in their constitution. To revoke or alter Prop 8, the legal and binding law in this state of limbo, [Windsor 2013], officials need the permission of voters in the form of a state initiative that repeals Prop 8. They do not and did not have that when they took steps to change law there. And we call that here in the US of A, "sedition"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. SCOTUS opinion, not Sil opinion, which is simply inconsistent and incorrect.

2. The official in CA have every right to rewrite any legislation it wants.

3. The weight of 22 straight court decisions mandate that Prop 8 is not constittuional.

4. Marriage equality is about marriage not objectionable behaviors.

5. Windsor is at the mercy of SCOTUS as well as in favor of marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

1. SCOTUS opinion, not Sil opinion, which is simply inconsistent and incorrect.

2. The official in CA have every right to rewrite any legislation it wants.

3. The weight of 22 straight court decisions mandate that Prop 8 is not constittuional.

4. Marriage equality is about marriage not objectionable behaviors.

5. Windsor is at the mercy of SCOTUS as well as in favor of marriage equality.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It
may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that
becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the
initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their
approval.

Prop 8 does not include language allowing the legislature to revoke or amend it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Prop 8 was ruled null by SCOTUS, which meets the intent of Article 2(C) of the Cal constitution.

Yes, the lege has every constitutional right to gut the language so that proposition can never be resurrected.

That is good legislaiton.

 

[Silhouette]

Prop 8 was ruled null by SCOTUS, which meets the intent of Article 2(C) of the Cal constitution.

Yes, the lege has every constitutional right to gut the language so that proposition can never be resurrected.

That is good legislaiton.

No, they VACATED an appeal on the kangaroo court held by gay "judge" who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time he sat on the case to overturn the Will of 7 million voters. There was no constitutional ruling one way or the other on Prop 8; until Windsor which said that it was appropriate and proper for gay marriage to be decided by the largest swath of people in a "discreet community" such as a state "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". In that way, Prop 8 was actually Upheld as constitutional.

All it would take is for someone with standing to object to rogue officials rewriting or revoking Prop 8 without a new initiative to do so approved by the voters.

And that would be any registered voter in CA. You cannot have a legal situation where registered voters are being usurped by the very officials they would otherwise have to rely upon to have their case of sedition against them brought to the US Supreme Court. That would be like placing a victim of rape in a position of appealing to her rapist to turn himself in to the authorities and have himself prosecuted...or you know...she's shit out of luck..

A good lawyer could argue that very point and get a Ruling from SCOTUS whether voters have standing on this sedition currently going on in California..

 

[JakeStarkey]

No kangaroo courts or judges, Sil, in California.

You could have six billion people opposed to marriage equality, which mean nothing since the Constitution guarantees due process to all Americans equally. Uber democratic rule is meaningless in the face of the Constitution. Your strange and false equivalency of a rape victim being subject to the legal authority that makes decisions indicates just how far you are reaching on this issue.

Once again, you have no standing as a private citizen: SCOTUS made this very clear.

No lawyer, good or bad, would argue such silliness before SCOTUS.

 

[Silhouette]

No kangaroo courts or judges, Sil, in California.

You could have six billion people opposed to marriage equality, which mean nothing since the Constitution guarantees due process to all Americans equally. Uber democratic rule is meaningless in the face of the Constitution. Your strange and false equivalency of a rape victim being subject to the legal authority that makes decisions indicates just how far you are reaching on this issue.

Once again, you have no standing as a private citizen: SCOTUS made this very clear.

No lawyer, good or bad, would argue such silliness before SCOTUS.

None of what you just said erases the fact that as a matter of constitutional law in California, no official anywhere may revoke or alter initiative law like Prop 8, which was constitutionally-Upheld as viable in Windsor 2013, without permission from the voters there.

And yet that is precisely what they have done with the family law code that this thread is about. They "erased" the definition of marriage as defined by the constitutional Prop 8 from the family law code. You cannot alter any initiative law or its subservient law there without permission from the voters. They are in violation of democracy.

 

[Silhouette]

In other words, any voter from California who voted for Prop 8 would have standing to have immediate redress from the US Supreme Court to intervene to stop the rewriting of underlaws in California, subservient to Prop 8, until such time as the voters of that state, with a new initiative, revoke or alter Prop 8. As is required by the California constitution, Article II, Section 10 (c).

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of what I have written makes excellent sense and eviscerates your nonsensical posting.

Windsor did not uphold Prop 8, quite the opposite. Windsor did uphold states rights to regulate marriage within the boundaries of the Constitution. Windsor also put the states on notice that SCOTUS retains the authority to end Windsor, modify it, or leave it in place.

The California legislature, since Prop 8 has been judicially executed, to erase the language. The lege has paralyzed it, sedated it, and is administering metaphorically a drug that is buring out the veins of Prop 8 so that it can never be resurrected. Dead initiatives can be overridden by the lege; nothing forbids it.

In other words, because SCOTUS has so opined, no private citizen has any standing to bring suit on behaf of the dead Prop 8, only the lawful administrators of the state's judicial system. Your interpretation of Art II, Sec 10 (c) is spurious as they come. File suit with that argument, your case will be summarily dismissed and you will be warned any more such flippancy will be met with contempt of court findings and fines.

We all understand that you have whined; continue it in court, you will be fined.