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

[dcraelin]

Sigh, I didnt think you'd be able to. Rehashed verbal sophistry.
I'm not "demanding" the the courts abandon precedent. This is a message board, a forum for debate. Im saying their so-called "precedent" is total bullshit.

And I'm saying, so what if that's what you're saying? Who gives a shit if you agree or disagree with the merits of a 100 year old case?

Your personal opinion about 100 year old precedent is irrelevant to the outcome of any case (including this one), as the courts will not abandon stare decisis just because you don't like it. As I said, once a case has been used as precedent, its use as precedent becomes the basis of its application in future cases. Not the merits of the case itself.

Your attacking the merits of a 100 year old case is irrelevant as the merits of the case aren't the basis of its use in current cases....its its use as precedent that forms that basis.

Sure, it would be nice for them to try and correct bad precedent as USSCs have done in the past, Or perhaps they could consider it in weighing a solution,.. whatever.

Federal courts don't 'correct precedent' because they create no binding precedent. Their rulings apply only to the cases they are hearing. Only the USSC creates binding precedent. And they have in an 8 to 1 ruling. You disagree with it.

So what? What possible relevance does your agreement or disagreement with a century old case have with any outcome of any case being argued today?
Absolutely nothing.

I brought up 'ex parte young' also to show hypocrisy of their "reasoning" on standing. Recent "reasoning" that it would be very wise of them to overrule. Sotomayor agrees with me, and so should anyone not wholly absorbed in one issue and one issue alone. People need to step back and see the dangers these cases will cause in other areas and get past a narrow-minded "win" on one issue.

Sotomayor never even mentions 'ex Parte Young'. The case she's referring to is from 1987. She doesn't 'agree with you' on this point, as she doesn't even mention the point you've raised.
And worse, your logic is skewed. As you're using the existence of a dissenting opinion as proof that the majority opinion is invalid. Um, that's not how it works. Using your logic, only unanimous opinions could hope to be valid. And that's never been the threshold of legal validity in our system of law. The majority is.
So not only are you rejecting the very concept of stare decisis you're rejecting the legitimacy of majority rulings. Both of which are little more than rhetorical masturbation, as they have no outcome on actual cases for the simple reason that no court will ignore either principle just because you do.
I'm speaking of actual precedent, actual court cases, actual judicial authority and actual outcomes. Not your 'its only legitimate if I agree with it' nonsense that has zero relevance to the outcome of any court case. As no judge is going to base their ruling on your agreement. Or ignore century old precedent because you disagree.

further, IF a federal court allows private parties to oppose a state law in federal court under the dubious process of ex-parte young, then surely 7million voters should also be allowed standing.

These are private parties harmed by the law. Of course they'll have standing. The 'friends of Prop 8' have no standing as they have no harm, nor role in the enforcement of those laws. The State of California has a role in enforcement, and thus standing. And like any litigant, can choose what action to take on litigation they are a party to. In this case, the State of California choose to take no action.
This choice doesn't suddenly pass enforcement authority to individual citizens. They still play no role in enforcement. Leaving actual harm by the law the only remaining basis of standing.

This will be the last time I respond to you unless you can actually come up with an argument. What you reply with is 'STFU you dont agree with the courts, masturbation, masturbation. Which is an inane, strangely prudish, arrogance but not really an argument.

You are too wrapped up in winning on one issue you fail to see the larger picture.

You yourself "give a shit" enough about the "100 year old case" to comment. The case shows why more and more people view the federal courts with contempt. Sotomayor agrees with me that standing in the prop 8 case was decided wrongly.

"As you're using the existence of a dissenting opinion as proof that the majority opinion is invalid."-----IM not using it as proof merely supporting evidence. .......Suddenly your concerned about a majority?----Prop 8 had a majority of 7million votes.....but Americans votes dont count. Dissenting opinions are almost always better, which says something about the federal courts.

Stare Decisis has its place, but is usually abused. Let time honored ideas and definitions of marriage stand..........that would be a good and proper use of stare decisis.

-"These are private parties harmed by the law. Of course they'll have standing."....."of course"?....no not of course...that's not how it works. These people were hand sought out...they did not of their own accord sue. This was a manufactured case from the beginning as was Windsor.....Marshall said, in justifying judicial review, that cases should all be taken and cases should be real,.. not made up 'test' cases. The court nowadays turns down real cases and takes up these fraudulent made up cases.

Destroying the American system of rule by WE the People, the Republican system guaranteed by the Constitution, violated the legal rights, i.e. harmed, every one of the citizens of California, indeed of every citizen of every state.... That gives them standing.

 

[Silhouette]

..."As you're using the existence of a dissenting opinion as proof that the majority opinion is invalid."-----IM not using it as proof merely supporting evidence. .......Suddenly your concerned about a majority?----Prop 8 had a majority of 7million votes.....but Americans votes dont count. Dissenting opinions are almost always better, which says something about the federal courts.

Stare Decisis has its place, but is usually abused. Let time honored ideas and definitions of marriage stand..........that would be a good and proper use of stare decisis.

-"These are private parties harmed by the law. Of course they'll have standing."....."of course"?....no not of course...that's not how it works. These people were hand sought out...they did not of their own accord sue. This was a manufactured case from the beginning as was Windsor.....Marshall said, in justifying judicial review, that cases should all be taken and cases should be real,.. not made up 'test' cases. The court nowadays turns down real cases and takes up these fraudulent made up cases.

Destroying the American system of rule by WE the People, the Republican system guaranteed by the Constitution, violated the legal rights, i.e. harmed, every one of the citizens of California, indeed of every citizen of every state.... That gives them standing.

BINGO... That and the fact that Utahans cannot enjoy more power of their vote on the same exact legal question than Coloradans, Oklahomans or Californians do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

BINGO... That and the fact that Utahans cannot enjoy more power of their vote on the same exact legal question than Coloradans, Oklahomans or Californians do.

Actually "Utahans" do not enjoy more power than Coloradans, Oklahomans, or Californians, they have the same power.

Utah - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Kitchen v. Herbert)

Colorado - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Brinkman v. Long)

Oklahoma - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Bishop v. United States)

California - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Perry v. Hollingsworth)​

In each state you list the courts have been consistent in their rulings and they are all working through the appeals process (except California as that case is over when the SCOTUS allowed the District Court judges ruling to remain the final action in the case).



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

BINGO... That and the fact that Utahans cannot enjoy more power of their vote on the same exact legal question than Coloradans, Oklahomans or Californians do.

Actually "Utahans" do not enjoy more power than Coloradans, Oklahomans, or Californians, they have the same power.

Utah - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Kitchen v. Herbert)

Colorado - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Brinkman v. Long)

Oklahoma - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Bishop v. United States)

California - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Perry v. Hollingsworth)​

In each state you list the courts have been consistent in their rulings and they are all working through the appeals process (except California as that case is over when the SCOTUS allowed the District Court judges ruling to remain the final action in the case).



>>>>

Why did Sotomayor grant the stay Worldy? In your own words? Why did she not agree with the 10th that gay marriage can continue while the case makes its way along?

Surely she had a reason for not allowing gay marriages in the interim. What do you suppose that reason was? Her innate belief that gay marriage is a constitutional right? Or her doubt that it is?

 

[WorldWatcher]

BINGO... That and the fact that Utahans cannot enjoy more power of their vote on the same exact legal question than Coloradans, Oklahomans or Californians do.

Actually "Utahans" do not enjoy more power than Coloradans, Oklahomans, or Californians, they have the same power.

Utah - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Kitchen v. Herbert)

Colorado - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Brinkman v. Long)

Oklahoma - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Bishop v. United States)

California - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Perry v. Hollingsworth)​

In each state you list the courts have been consistent in their rulings and they are all working through the appeals process (except California as that case is over when the SCOTUS allowed the District Court judges ruling to remain the final action in the case).



>>>>

Why did Sotomayor grant the stay Worldy? In your own words? Why did she not agree with the 10th that gay marriage can continue while the case makes its way along?

Surely she had a reason for not allowing gay marriages in the interim. What do you suppose that reason was? Her innate belief that gay marriage is a constitutional right? Or her doubt that it is?

#1 You would have to ask **THEM**, I'm smart not telepathic. No reason was provided in the stay order. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010614zr_2co3.pdf


#2 Sotomayer didn't make the decision on her own.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received the Utah petition and then asked her colleagues to weigh in.

The court followed up with a two-sentence order without comment that puts same-sex marriages on hold in Utah only.

Supreme Court puts hold on same-sex marriages in Utah​

Good luck ask them though, the Justices are normally pretty tight lipped about their reasoning. While (IIRC) there are cases that set criteria for lower courts, the Supreme Court is not bound by such precedence.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Actually "Utahans" do not enjoy more power than Coloradans, Oklahomans, or Californians, they have the same power.

Utah - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Kitchen v. Herbert)

Colorado - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Brinkman v. Long)

Oklahoma - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Bishop v. United States)

California - Ban ruled unconstitutional (Perry v. Hollingsworth)​

In each state you list the courts have been consistent in their rulings and they are all working through the appeals process (except California as that case is over when the SCOTUS allowed the District Court judges ruling to remain the final action in the case).



>>>>

Why did Sotomayor grant the stay Worldy? In your own words? Why did she not agree with the 10th that gay marriage can continue while the case makes its way along?

Surely she had a reason for not allowing gay marriages in the interim. What do you suppose that reason was? Her innate belief that gay marriage is a constitutional right? Or her doubt that it is?

#1 You would have to ask **THEM**, I'm smart not telepathic. No reason was provided in the stay order. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010614zr_2co3.pdf


#2 Sotomayer didn't make the decision on her own.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received the Utah petition and then asked her colleagues to weigh in.

The court followed up with a two-sentence order without comment that puts same-sex marriages on hold in Utah only.

Supreme Court puts hold on same-sex marriages in Utah​

Good luck ask them though, the Justices are normally pretty tight lipped about their reasoning. While (IIRC) there are cases that set criteria for lower courts, the Supreme Court is not bound by such precedence.


>>>>

I didn't want direct knowledge from them. I was asking YOU why YOU thought the stay was given in Utah's case? Is it a vote that the Court is thinking gay marriage is a civil right or a doubt that it is? YOUR words please...

There are two options: 1. Vote of confidence as a civil right. 2. Vote of doubt. Which one do YOU think it was?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why did Sotomayor grant the stay Worldy? In your own words? Why did she not agree with the 10th that gay marriage can continue while the case makes its way along?

Surely she had a reason for not allowing gay marriages in the interim. What do you suppose that reason was? Her innate belief that gay marriage is a constitutional right? Or her doubt that it is?

#1 You would have to ask **THEM**, I'm smart not telepathic. No reason was provided in the stay order. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010614zr_2co3.pdf


#2 Sotomayer didn't make the decision on her own.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received the Utah petition and then asked her colleagues to weigh in.

The court followed up with a two-sentence order without comment that puts same-sex marriages on hold in Utah only.

Supreme Court puts hold on same-sex marriages in Utah​

Good luck ask them though, the Justices are normally pretty tight lipped about their reasoning. While (IIRC) there are cases that set criteria for lower courts, the Supreme Court is not bound by such precedence.


>>>>

I didn't want direct knowledge from them. I was asking YOU why YOU thought the stay was given in Utah's case? Is it a vote that the Court is thinking gay marriage is a civil right or a doubt that it is? YOUR words please...

Sotomayor didn't issue the stay all on her own. She could of, but she didn't - she referred it the full court for input. So a question about why Sotomayor issued a stay has no basis in reality since she isn't the one that did it, the court did.


Now my opinion as to why? Not because it's a slam-dunk case against Marriage Equality. Not because it's a slam-dunk case for Marriage Equality. The real reason I think they issued the stay is because without a stay by the 10th then Utah would be required to issue marriage licenses during the appeal process which made no sense because the outcome of such an appeal is unknown. It then creates a situation where you have people are getting Civilly Married without a final decision in the matter.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Now my opinion as to why? Not because it's a slam-dunk case against Marriage Equality. Not because it's a slam-dunk case for Marriage Equality. The real reason I think they issued the stay is because without a stay by the 10th then Utah would be required to issue marriage licenses during the appeal process which made no sense because the outcome of such an appeal is unknown. It then creates a situation where you have people are getting Civilly Married without a final decision in the matter.



>>>>

So your answer then is "because doubt exists that gay marriage is a right" within a significant number of the US Supreme Court Justices..

Otherwise they would have let the 10th's refusal for the stay to stand. For some reason the Justices said "we need to stop this in the mean time". So there's a question in their minds as to whether or not gay marriage is a civil right. What else would they justify denying people who are wanting to marry the same gender in Utah's case? Polygamy maybe?

 

[Silhouette]

Do you think polygamy is a legal shoe-in upon any recognition of just 'LGBT' marriage as a 'civil right'?

If not, why exactly? Because it's "icky and objectionable to the majority"?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you think polygamy is a legal shoe-in upon any recognition of just 'LGBT' marriage as a 'civil right'?

If not, why exactly? Because it's "icky and objectionable to the majority"?

That takes equality for three or more. We haven't gotten to equality for two yet. Cart after the horse, not before.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you think polygamy is a legal shoe-in upon any recognition of just 'LGBT' marriage as a 'civil right'?

If not, why exactly? Because it's "icky and objectionable to the majority"?

That takes equality for three or more. We haven't gotten to equality for two yet. Cart after the horse, not before.

Two are absolutely able to marry right now. What planet do you live on? You're petitioning for a person's deviant sexual preference from monogamy/hetero to marry. You know full well your exclusion of polygamy "P" from "LGBTQ" is arbitrary. No, wait....it's not quite arbitrary is it? It's politically-expedient right now to turn your backs on some sexual deviations from traditional marriage because they're just too much of a hard sell to lump in with yourselves at the moment...

...but your wish to be rid of them does not mean they are not legally the exact same concept...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you think polygamy is a legal shoe-in upon any recognition of just 'LGBT' marriage as a 'civil right'?

If not, why exactly? Because it's "icky and objectionable to the majority"?

That takes equality for three or more. We haven't gotten to equality for two yet. Cart after the horse, not before.

Two are absolutely able to marry right now. What planet do you live on? You're petitioning for a person's deviant sexual preference from monogamy/hetero to marry. You know full well your exclusion of polygamy "P" from "LGBTQ" is arbitrary. No, wait....it's not quite arbitrary is it? It's politically-expedient right now to turn your backs on some sexual deviations from traditional marriage because they're just too much of a hard sell to lump in with yourselves at the moment...

...but your wish to be rid of them does not mean they are not legally the exact same concept...

When any two adults can marry, we'll discuss what it means for any three or more can do the same. That will takes some time so don't panic, like you usually do,

 

[Silhouette]

When any two adults can marry, we'll discuss what it means for any three or more can do the same. That will takes some time so don't panic, like you usually do,

Yes, when a mother and son or father and daughter, or father/son mother/daughter both adults, can marry, then we'll discuss how the number "two" is arbitrary...good point Paint....

Oh...wait...is that icky? Today's icky is tomorrow's normal. Just add time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When any two adults can marry, we'll discuss what it means for any three or more can do the same. That will takes some time so don't panic, like you usually do,

Yes, when a mother and son or father and daughter, or father/son mother/daughter both adults, can marry, then we'll discuss how the number "two" is arbitrary...good point Paint....

Oh...wait...is that icky? Today's icky is tomorrow's normal. Just add time.

That's icky is not valid legal reasoning, and why gays are now being allowed to marry. Incest laws have the same kind of issue but those are even deeper in the human psyche, however, in legal terms, with the minor issue of problems in their offspring, and that's valid to a point, the only reason they are on the books is because "That's icky" and that will fall given time as well.

 

[Darlene]

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.

In a move to block the dominant initiative system [it's dominant to the legislature's Bills] in that state, lawmakers proposed a Bill to remove the language of Proposition 8 off the State Constitution in an pre-emptive strike to try to force gay marriage on a state whose majority does not want it there.

Thus, if citizens allow this usurping of democracy in contempt of Windsor, they would have to put another initiative on the ballot to restore the traditional marriage description as it legally stands today. But guess what? Lawmakers have to approve of every iniative put on the ballot. So they'll block it and will have successfully forced gay marriage upon the citizens of California without their approval.

I suggest that citizens in California begin a lawsuit IMMEDIATELY to challenge this coup on the grounds that a final decision at the US Supreme Court is needed to legally remove the description of marriage off of California's Constitution. They need to appeal to the US Supreme Court to intervene because this mess and giant blast hole placed in the broadside of California's initiative system was made directly by their vague-Ruling in 2013...a vagueness BTW that a county clerk with standing sought to clarify but was refused: San Diego County Clerk Defends Prop 8 Stay Request | NBC 7 San Diego And without that lawsuit, the citizens of that state have abdicated their initiative system in favor of a totalitarian regieme that panders to the gay sex cult entrenched there.



For reasons why citizens all across the country should be alarmed: this is a cult that has been utilizing blackmail and nazi-style techniques to force its agenda on various states and ultimately to access orphaned children. How this becomes a problem is obvious in my signature and in this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

A bill that would strike the traditional definition of marriage from California law was approved by the state Senate on Thursday after the U.S. and state supreme courts allowed same-sex unions to resume last year.

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....

...said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco....

..."I cannot bring myself, though, to diminish the words `husband and wife,' and this clearly does that. Throughout history those words have been widely used and accepted,'' said Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, the only senator to speak in opposition. "They're kind of sacred terms, I would argue, and by this bill we are diminishing those very important words.''...

...The bill was sent to the Assembly on a 25-10 vote, with only Republicans in opposition. Two Republicans, Anthony Cannella of Ceres and Ted Gaines of Roseville, voted in favor.

"All this bill does is bring our Family Code section up to date to comply with those two court decisions,'' Leno said. He added later: "The sky did not fall, civilization as we know it did not end'' when gay marriages began. California May Remove "Man and Woman" from Legal Definition of Marriage, Replace with Gender-Neutral Language | NBC 7 San Diego

The sky did fall however when the initiative system in California was rendered defunct by collusion between the US Supreme Court's refusal to clarify its decision on constitutionality and by this fascist-dictator's unquestioned influence over the state's legislature and the Governor's office. There is literally no bill that they will deny the gay state senator from San Francisco. He is the one who pushed forward the "law" that minors may not get access to therapy to change their orientation from gay to straight, even if they were molested and want nothing to do with those unwanted compulsions and the sick memories they stir up in constant unstoppable repetition...

Yet all manner of help and assistance is available for straight kids to change over to gay.

This is a coup on democracy. Here's what it says about the initiative system's dominance:

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....

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


SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that
affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of
electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for
the conviction of a felony....

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


SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
(d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not
be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
(e) An initiative measure may not include or exclude any political
subdivision of the State from the application or effect of its
provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative
measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes
in favor of the measure, by the electors of that political
subdivision.
(f) An initiative measure may not contain alternative or
cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would
become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of
votes for or against the measure...

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


SEC. 9. (a) The referendum is the power of the electors to approve
or reject statutes or parts of statutes except urgency statutes,
statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or...

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


SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.
(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest
affirmative vote shall prevail.
(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. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

The Proposition 8 statute DOES NOT come with permission for the state legislature to amend or repeal it. And its legality is binding up until the US Supreme Court provides clarification on the Windsor/Prop 8 Decision in 2013.

Please get off your fucking soap box about gay marriage. How about you focus on people marrying objects and animals for once? Fucking psycho.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, when a mother and son or father and daughter, or father/son mother/daughter both adults, can marry, then we'll discuss how the number "two" is arbitrary...good point Paint....

Oh...wait...is that icky? Today's icky is tomorrow's normal. Just add time.

That's icky is not valid legal reasoning, and why gays are now being allowed to marry. Incest laws have the same kind of issue but those are even deeper in the human psyche, however, in legal terms, with the minor issue of problems in their offspring, and that's valid to a point, the only reason they are on the books is because "That's icky" and that will fall given time as well.

So there you have it. The LGBT cult is being frank and honest about how incest marriage is the legal identical twin to gay marriage.

So know that when you vote state by state to define marriage for yourselves.

 

[Silhouette]

Please get off your fucking soap box about gay marriage...

No. Request denied.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, when a mother and son or father and daughter, or father/son mother/daughter both adults, can marry, then we'll discuss how the number "two" is arbitrary...good point Paint....

Oh...wait...is that icky? Today's icky is tomorrow's normal. Just add time.

That's icky is not valid legal reasoning, and why gays are now being allowed to marry. Incest laws have the same kind of issue but those are even deeper in the human psyche, however, in legal terms, with the minor issue of problems in their offspring, and that's valid to a point, the only reason they are on the books is because "That's icky" and that will fall given time as well.

So there you have it. The LGBT cult is being frank and honest about how incest marriage is the legal identical twin to gay marriage.

So know that when you vote state by state to define marriage for yourselves.

I'm not in the "cult", and said nothing of the kind, but the legal reasoning follows the same pattern. As I said, when any two can marry then we will discuss three or more, and it isn't up for a vote.

 

[Silhouette]

That's icky is not valid legal reasoning, and why gays are now being allowed to marry. Incest laws have the same kind of issue but those are even deeper in the human psyche, however, in legal terms, with the minor issue of problems in their offspring, and that's valid to a point, the only reason they are on the books is because "That's icky" and that will fall given time as well.

So there you have it. The LGBT cult is being frank and honest about how incest marriage is the legal identical twin to gay marriage.

So know that when you vote state by state to define marriage for yourselves.

I'm not in the "cult", and said nothing of the kind, but the legal reasoning follows the same pattern. As I said, when any two can marry then we will discuss three or more, and it isn't up for a vote.

At present time it IS up for a vote. And the Utah stay proves that. Their AG pled exactly that point: that denial of the stay would be the denial of that state's right per Windsor to have defined marriage for itself.

Now later as appeals make their way to SCOTUS, the limited sex behaviors known as LGBT may actually set a precedent under the 14th for just some behaviors to gain federal "civil rights protection", that all may change. But interim legal status is "state's choice". And that means Prop 8 is LAW. Utah cannot be the only state that has its right to choose on marriage be federally protected in the interim.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So there you have it. The LGBT cult is being frank and honest about how incest marriage is the legal identical twin to gay marriage.

So know that when you vote state by state to define marriage for yourselves.

I'm not in the "cult", and said nothing of the kind, but the legal reasoning follows the same pattern. As I said, when any two can marry then we will discuss three or more, and it isn't up for a vote.

At present time it IS up for a vote. And the Utah stay proves that. Their AG pled exactly that point: that denial of the stay would be the denial of that state's right per Windsor to have defined marriage for itself.

The state has the standing to appeal what they people voted on which the court has now said is unconstitutional. When the SC rejects the appeal, as I expect they will, that is the end of that and just like CA what the voters voted for is dead and gone. One of these days you might just get that.