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

[Silhouette]

No individual person has standing in this matter.

Sil, you are wrong yet again.

I know this is hard but face reality, please.

I know this is hard, but face reality Jake:

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....

And...

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

...SEC. 10.

(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.

Just one singular voter from California may appeal to SCOTUS for redress with cause and standing if the legislature attempts to alter or revoke an initiative statute without voters' approval.

 

[KNB]

Jesus is not on your side in this. Go read through your stupid fucking Bible and find where Jesus Christ said that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married. He never said anything like that.

Jude 1. Read it and weep. Not only does it say that homosexuality is an abomination, but it even holds out the lesson of the destruction of Sodom as the inevitable fate of any future generation who allows the spread or enables the spread of a homosexual culture.

The punishment for failure as to its dire warnings is an eternity in the pit of fire.

Do you know that there isn't a "lake of fire"? Do you know that? Is that too difficult to comprehend? Do you know that Sodom was not destroyed by a meteor because of gay sex? Do you know that? Do you know that Jesus Christ never said anything about homosexuality being a perversion? Do you know that?

Why don't you know anything about your own religion? Because you're religious, and religious people don't know how to think for themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is delusional, KNB.

She misunderstands DOMA, Prop 8, HL, and the California constitution along with the Bible.

She thinks some private citizen has standing in court after SCOTUS said "no" before.

She is fretful with every right to be so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Prop 8 was not removed.

Correct, the removal of the text would require another ballot initiative to remove it.

However the text is not operative because it was ruled unconstitutional, a ruling the SCOTUS allowed to stand.

It was not found as constitutional or not constitutional.

False, Prop 8 was found unconstitutional in Federal court. The SCOTUS did not vacate that ruling and therefore the Federal District Court ruling stands.

Ergo, the default is that it remains law and cannot be removed or altered until the final clarification is in.

There is no need for clarification, it was ruled unconstitutional. The text is invalid.

Just like when the ban on interracial marriage in the Alabama Constitution was ruled unconstituional in 1967 but the voters didn't remove the text until 2000. During the period 1967 to 2000 the text remained, but if was invalid.

Any voter has standing on this matter of changing the statute of initiative law without permission of the voters.

This again false. You should review the requirements of "Standing" in federal court. This is proven since Prop 8 was challenged State officers were sued to challenged the action. The State Officers defended it in court. The ruling was "unconstitutional". The State Officers decided not to appeal. Non-Statle persons (i.e. supporters in California) attempted to defend the case at the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS ruled they did not have standing.

The family law code exists because of the statute below. Family code law does not trump the statute in the constitution in CA. And it cannot stand in conflict with it with specific respect to the definition of marriage. You cannot have two diametrically opposed sets of laws in the same state. One has to dominate and that is the initiative law below. This is the insidious incremental sedition I spoke about in the OP.

The important part as to that fact is in bold below.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

ie the State cannot validate or recognize other types of marriages outside man/woman BY LAW in any civil code or process.

#1 What you quoted is not a "Statute" (i.e. part of Statutory Law, which is subordinate to a Constitution). What you quoted was an article of the State Constitution, a part invalidated when it's source (Prop 8) was ruled unconstitutional.


#2 The Family Code sectionas addressed in the Bill ARE NOT a result of Prop 8 as those sections of the Family Code existed BEFORE Prop 8. It is illogical to claim those sections are the result of Prop 8 when in fact they existed prior to it's passage. Those sections of the Family Code are a result (IIRC) of Prop 22 (California, 2000) which was a referendum passed to change Statutory law to make a Civil Marriage only between a man and a woman passed in 2000.

#3 SB 1306 DID NOT amend the constitution as you claim, it changes Statutory law to comply with the reality that Prop 8 was held to be unconstitutional.

"SB 1306, Leno. Marriage.
An existing provision of the California Constitution, which has been held unenforceable, states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state. An existing statutory provision likewise provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in this state.
This bill would repeal that statutory provision.'

Bill Text - SB-1306 Marriage.​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just one singular voter from California may appeal to SCOTUS for redress with cause and standing if the legislature attempts to alter or revoke an initiative statute without voters' approval.

I believe you said you live in California (if I'm mis-remembering, sorry).

Therefore you say you have standing to appeal the SCOTUS decision which allowed the ruling Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Therefore, please file a lawsuit in Federal court claiming you, as an individual voter in California, have "Standing" to appeal the decision of the District Court Judge in Federal Court.

Please let us know how your suit turns out, since the SCOTUS already said that non-State officials (i.e. people not the Governor or AG) don't have Standing.




But don't hold your breath, Chief Justice Roberts addresses this issue in the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision (Prop 8):

"The dissent eloquently recounts the California Supreme Court’s reasons for deciding
that state law authorizes petitioners to defend Proposition 8. See post, at 3–5. We
do not “disrespect[]” or “disparage[]” those reasons. Post, at 12. Nor do we question
California’s sovereign right to maintain an initiative process, or the right of initiative
proponents to defend their initiatives in California courts, where Article III does not
apply. But as the dissent acknowledges, see post, at 1, standing in federal court is a
question of federal law, not state law. And no matter its reasons, the fact that a State
thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance
cannot override our settled law to the contrary.

The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court
seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the
role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers. “Refusing to entertain
generalized grievances ensures that. . . courts exercise power that is judicial in
nature,” Lance, 549 U. S., at 441, and ensures that the Federal Judiciary respects
“the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society,
”DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted). States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who
otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.

* * *

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the
constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We
decline to do so for the first time here. Because petitioners have not satisfied their
burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth
Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth
Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered. "​

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/717699/hollingsworth-v-perry.pdf


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Prop 8 was not removed.

Correct, the removal of the text would require another ballot initiative to remove it.

However the text is not operative because it was ruled unconstitutional, a ruling the SCOTUS allowed to stand.


>>>>

So then you agree that removal or alteration of the exiting initiative law is illegal by officials in CA. Good.

And rewriting underlaws that are subservient to that statute to stand diametrically opposed to it, such as in the case of rewriting family code law, means that the same act has been performed illegally.

So we are inagreement then that the CA legislature is currently engaged in sedition of democracy in California.

Now, the next step is for a voter to move for immediate SCOTUS intervention to stop the dissolving of democracy in California and for that voter to move the Court to Uphold that his/her vote counts until such time as SCOTUS can make a final proclamation/clarification of Windsor that states' broad consensuses are the final authority on whether or not gay marriage is legal in that given state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS makes your question irrelevant.

From above: " But as the dissent acknowledges, see post, at 1, standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law. And no matter its reasons, the fact that a State thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance cannot override our settled law to the contrary."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Prop 8 was not removed.

Correct, the removal of the text would require another ballot initiative to remove it.

However the text is not operative because it was ruled unconstitutional, a ruling the SCOTUS allowed to stand.


>>>>

So then you agree that removal or alteration of the exiting initiative law is illegal by officials in CA. Good.

They can't remove the text of the Amendment without submitting an initiative to the voters - that is true.

Therefore since Prop 8 was unconstitutional the text remains - although it is invalid.

And rewriting underlaws that are subservient to that statute to stand diametrically opposed to it, such as in the case of rewriting family code law, means that the same act has been performed illegally.

False, since the text was language in the State Constitutional was ruled unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, the language is invalid.

Therefore the legislature can update Statutory law as needed to comply with reality even though the invalid text remains. I do databases for a living, in my field this is called an "orphans" meaning it's something that exists in the database but doesn't have the proper linkages to other entities to remain valid.

Just like Alabama modified it statutory codes over the years 1967 to 2000 based on interracial marriage even though the language remained in their State Constitution for 33 years until voters got around to removing it.

So we are inagreement then that the CA legislature is currently engaged in sedition of democracy in California.

No we don't agree.

Now, the next step is for a voter to move for immediate SCOTUS intervention....

See my previous post on the your incorrect belief that an individual citizen of the State has Standing in Federal Court to appeal a ruling because they don't like it.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS makes your question irrelevant.

From above: " But as the dissent acknowledges, see post, at 1, standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law. And no matter its reasons, the fact that a State thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance cannot override our settled law to the contrary."

If SCOTUS cannot intervene to stop the destruction of democracy in California, then who can?

I submit that a voter can move SCOTUS to intervene to protect their vote's weight. Yes I do. It is the suppression in a most diabolical way of a person's essential civil right to participate in democracy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Democracy is not being destroyed in California: the elected democratic majority are acting.

You can believe that circles are square: that has as much as what you want.

 

[Listening]

Sil, what exactly is it about this that is so hard for you to understand?

1. Prop. 8 died when the state didn't defend it and the SC let that stand. No one had standing to go any farther.

2. The AG in Utah does have standing so his case is moving forward, so there is a stay in place until hit makes it to the SC?

That's it, that's all...

Then quit posting and wasting our time with your ignorance.

 

[Listening]

WorldWatcher and Sil....

I've enjoyed reading your posts. They've been very informative and well put together.

I only wish that ignorant stupid pathetic losers like Jake and KNB have to pollute them with their low I.Q. turds.

 

[Listening]

Democracy is not being destroyed in California: the elected democratic majority are acting.

You can believe that circles are square: that has as much as what you want.

Shut up Jake.

Nobody cares what you have to say because it is worthless.

This thread has two good posters (and you are not one of them).

Crawl over to the asshole forum where you'll shine.

 

[JoeB131]

I told y'all that this fascist cult was getting out of control. They are incrementally turning American democracy on its head. If you think this is something they mean to confine to Califorina, think again. They have used California as their testing grounds for how far they can and will push their agenda at the federal level.

Precedents and unbridled hubris have a funny way of burning out of control like a wildfire.

Okay, here's a reality check.

When Loving v. Virginia struck down the miscegenation laws (That would be laws against racially mixed marriages) 17 states made it a crime to marry outside your own race.

Alabama was the last state to finally remove such a law from the books- in 2000! (Loving had rendered them unenforceable). The ballot initiative to remove this law won by 60%. 40% of Alabama's population voted to keep a mean-spirited, unconstitutional law on the books. In 2000!

 

[JoeB131]

SCOTUS makes your question irrelevant.

From above: " But as the dissent acknowledges, see post, at 1, standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law. And no matter its reasons, the fact that a State thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance cannot override our settled law to the contrary."

If SCOTUS cannot intervene to stop the destruction of democracy in California, then who can?

I submit that a voter can move SCOTUS to intervene to protect their vote's weight. Yes I do. It is the suppression in a most diabolical way of a person's essential civil right to participate in democracy.

sorry, I just don't buy that California should keep a law that was voted in because the Mormon Church dumped a bunch of misinformation into the race as to what this law would legalize.

The reality is, the GOP wants this issue to go away. They don't want to talk about it anymore. This is why Republican Governors are refusing to defend these laws in court and Republican judges are swatting them down.

It's a distraction.

 

[Silhouette]

Correct, the removal of the text would require another ballot initiative to remove it.

However the text is not operative because it was ruled unconstitutional, a ruling the SCOTUS allowed to stand.

They can't remove the text of the Amendment without submitting an initiative to the voters - that is true.

Therefore since Prop 8 was unconstitutional the text remains - although it is invalid.

...False, since the text was language in the State Constitutional was ruled unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, the language is invalid.

Therefore the legislature can update Statutory law as needed to comply with reality even though the invalid text remains. I do databases for a living, in my field this is called an "orphans" meaning it's something that exists in the database but doesn't have the proper linkages to other entities to remain valid.

Just like Alabama modified it statutory codes over the years 1967 to 2000 based on interracial marriage even though the language remained in their State Constitution for 33 years until voters got around to removing it.

Yes, but the KEY difference in the Alabama case and California is that The Civil Rights Act had passed and was recognized at the highest federal level.

As you know, many many appeals on gay marriage are pending. As a vote of no confidence [for there was no constitutional finding on Prop 8 one way or the other] from the US Supreme Court, a stay was issued in the case of Utah pending appeal. Other stays are in place as well. There is large ambiguity surrouding whether or not practing gay sex allows you to claim "constitutional rights" where an entire state would be forced to abandon its democratic process for regulating behaviors.

In California, behaviors are regulated via the penal, civil and family law codes. Lawmakers in California cannot claim innocence of the process that's happening with gay marriage at the federal level.

There are TWO sides to these appeals, NOT JUST ONE. You act as if gay marriage getting umbrella under the 14th and not being sent back to the states is a done deal. It ain't. Not by a long shot. In fact, California's rogue officials timed this reactive sedition precisely just after Hobby Lobby because THEY KNOW there is an EXCELLENT CHANCE that so-called "gay marriage" will have to be decided at the state level. And they've read Windsor where it says that states have the "unquestioned authority" under the question of gay marriage since the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".

This coup was timed precisely to undermine that already existing state law by attempting to rewrite it illegally in an underlaw. They cannot defy the Will of the voters because the question is still pending and out there and moving its way to the US Supreme Court. It is an act of defiance towards CA voters by violating their initiative system pre-emptively...and on purpose...and directly in reaction by activist rogue leaders defiling that state's constitution purposefully and with malicious intent.

Any singular voter of that state could appeal to the US Supreme Court for a stay on this sedition. It may be that gay marriage will be forced upon the states federally.. BUT THAT IS NOT YET AND NOT A DONE DEAL. In the mean time, you don't perform sedition to pre-emptively alter, revoke or defile a law the People of California enacted via due-process. The Legislators' opinions about gay marraige being valid and a "right" does not override the 7 million there who disagreed.

Ignorance is no excuse; but this has gone beyond that. This is knowledgeable active and purposeful sedition. An immediate stay must be sought from SCOTUS.

The upside of this if there can be any is that this type of brazen sedition before the final verdict is in at the Top Level is not going to win any friends in SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy is going to be particularly unimpressed with California's rogue officials not being patient to see the outcome and THEN act if they can or need to. Especially if their lack of patience involves violating their own constitution and democracy itself at such a fundamental level. That's dangerous weird and scary shit. This is going to look more like the virulent desperation of a vindictive cult instead of "an act of compassion towards gays"...especially given its timing just on the heels of the Hobby Lobby case.

In other words it looks from the marble halls of the US Supreme Court like pre-emptive contempt. And you know how much judges like it when you act contemptuously of their court. They get a little snippy...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Fascist? A very piss-poor effort to use fascist as a pejorative attached to progressives.

As a troll you've clearly failed; so much so you are at risk of being tossed under the bus by the American Federation of Trolls.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All over but the shouting: States | Freedom to Marry

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, but the KEY difference in the Alabama case and California is that The Civil Rights Act had passed and was recognized at the highest federal level.

Now your trying to move the goalposts. Your comments have always been since the text is still there it's valid. Not true.

As you know, many many appeals on gay marriage are pending.

The other appeals have no bearing on the Status of SSCM in California. It was ruled unconstitutional and therefore is invalid.

If, and I repeat **IF** the SCOTUS were to rule that discriminating against same-sex couples was Constitutionally permissible, then California would not be impacted by such a ruling since SSCM is already legal there.

A new initiative post that ruling would have to be had, and given how Prop 8 passed by the skin of it's teeth (a shift of only 2.5% would have changed the outcome), the likely hood that a new vote will produce the same outcome is slim.

As a vote of no confidence [for there was no constitutional finding on Prop 8 one way or the other] from the US Supreme Court, a stay was issued in the case of Utah pending appeal.

The SCOTUS let the district court ruling stand, that means the District Court ruling is the final ruling in the case.

Other stays are in place as well.

Not relevant to California as that case is decided and no longer under appeal.

There is large ambiguity surrouding whether or not practing gay sex allows you to claim "constitutional rights" where an entire state would be forced to abandon its democratic process for regulating behaviors.

No there isn't. See Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The majority cannot regulate the behaviors of homosexuals. That's a done deal.

There are TWO sides to these appeals, NOT JUST ONE. You act as if gay marriage getting umbrella under the 14th and not being sent back to the states is a done deal. It ain't.

Go back and read my posts again. That isn't what I've said.

YOU are the one that has claimed victory to be able to discriminate against fellow citizens, I've said (repeatedly) that I don't know how the SCOTUS will decide.

Where we have had disagreements is when you make claims about PAST rulings that are factually false. Two of which that come to mind are:

1. And I paraphrase "Gay Marraige is only legal in 3 states per Windsor" based on the 3 states that passed it at the ballot box. Factually incorrect, the SCOTUS identified 11 States + New York + the District of Columnbia that had legal SSCM when they issued the Windsor decision. As a matter of fact New York passed it legislatively and not at the ballot box so the whole Windsor case made no logical since (under your incorrect premise) since there was no Same-sex Civil Marriage in New York.


2. That 14th Amendment protections have never been extended to homomsexuals. That is in fact false again, see Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans.​

Any singular voter of that state could appeal to the US Supreme Court for a stay on this sedition.

OK, make that 3 things that you repeatedly get factually wrong about the law.

Let me repeat for you again what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said in the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision (Prop 8) on that very issue. The SCOTUS will not be entertaining any "appeals" from private voters on the decision.

"But don't hold your breath, Chief Justice Roberts addresses this issue in the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision (Prop 8):

"The dissent eloquently recounts the California Supreme Court’s reasons for deciding
that state law authorizes petitioners to defend Proposition 8. See post, at 3–5. We
do not “disrespect[]” or “disparage[]” those reasons. Post, at 12. Nor do we question
California’s sovereign right to maintain an initiative process, or the right of initiative
proponents to defend their initiatives in California courts, where Article III does not
apply. But as the dissent acknowledges, see post, at 1, standing in federal court is a
question of federal law, not state law. And no matter its reasons, the fact that a State
thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance
cannot override our settled law to the contrary.

The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court
seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the
role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers. “Refusing to entertain
generalized grievances ensures that. . . courts exercise power that is judicial in
nature,” Lance, 549 U. S., at 441, and ensures that the Federal Judiciary respects
“the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society,
”DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted). States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who
otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.

* * *

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the
constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We
decline to do so for the first time here. Because petitioners have not satisfied their
burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth
Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth
Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered. "


http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/717699/hollingsworth-v-perry.pdf​

<<Rest of word salad omitted>>



>>>>

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q..Fascists take away the rights of people. Which group in the US wants to take away a women's right to choose, a gay or lesbian couple the rights of marriage?

A. The same group that goes all hysterical when the issue of gun control is discussed.