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

[Silhouette]

The logic of revoking the underlaws and exact definition within them of Prop 8 which they rely upon in order to be manifested in daily affairs before a Ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8 has been determined in appeals is flawed.

Prop 8's constitutionality is most definitely in question. And that is because Prop 8 will be directly affected by the outcome of gay marraige v Utah currently pending to be heard before the US Supreme Court along with a slew of others to be heard at the same time from other state's appeals. In the case of Utah, SCOTUS granted a stay on gay marriage. Ergo, since the ultimate Decision will affect laws in all 50 states, it will also affect Prop 8.

"Legitimizing" [it isn't, not by law] gay marriage in CA is illegal and done in defiance of the initiative system there before a verdict of constitutionality is in on the 50 states. And this verdict will reflect Windsor on whether or not they had the right to define marriage for themselves retroactively. This CA rogue defiance is the same as putting a prisoner on death row to the electric chair before his appeal process is done because his captors decided in their own kangaroo court that "he's going to lose his appeals anyway".

That is not how we do law in the US. These officials in CA are acting as if THEY are the final word on Prop 8 which has not been determined one way or the other to be constitutional or not constitutional.

And they are acting contemptuosly with regard to Hobby Lobby too...for the same reason ultimately...the gay agenda. They could really give a fig about the birth control thing since they already know that birth control is available all over the place for poor women who want it.

The reason they hate Hobby Lobby is because the precedent for refusing to acknowledge certain behaviors because of religious convictions is supported at the Supreme Court. [Utah, predominantly mormon/christian passed their definition of marriage by a 2/3rds majority of the citizens] So they are attempting to overrrule the US Supreme Court on Hobby Lobby in Congress as we speak.

And I guarantee you that if you traced the breadcrumbs backwards you will find a slew of California politicians behind that act of High Contempt. Right straight back to their ringleader there: California state senator Mark Leno...the Harvey Milk advocate for kids to celebrate in schools each May..the guy who doesn't want minors to talk openly with their psychologists about behaviors they don't want [unless those behaviors are hetero crossing over to gay]...the same guy who is behind this act of sedition against CA initiative law system.

Mark Leno. I'd like to see him interviewed on the O'Reilly Factor. And if anyone from that network or show is reading this, I'm throwing it out there. This guy needs to be pulled up short and cornered on what he's up to. Hard to work under the radar when a spotlight is on him...

 

[Silhouette]

I hate this when you're trying to link points and a new page turns over...so..

SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

The part in red is lined out/omitted from family law. And this precise wording is the precise wording of Proposition 8 whose legality is currently being appealed. This revocation of initiative law was done without the permission of voters in a new iniatiative to repeal the old one. [see the stay granted by the US Supreme Court in the case of gay marriage vs Utah]. This is a violation, direct and provable, of the California state constitution and its guarantees to citizens of that state. Senator Leno and his cohorts in the legislature there circumvented the initiative system and inserted their own laws in its place.

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

Therefore, California's rogue officials stepping in in family law and nullifying Prop 8 without the required voters' approval to do so, while the constitutionality of Prop 8 is in question, means that they are in violation of democratic rule in CA. Plain and simple. They lined out the exact wording of Prop 8 as applicable to family law. That is illegal to do and the US Supreme Court should be brought in immediately to take action to preserve the initiative system in CA.


Action must be taken.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The part in red is lined out/omitted from family law.

Correct. Family Law is Statutory Law and is within the perview of the Legislature when there is no governmening valid State Constitutional articles that apply.

Since Prop 8 is unconstitutional, it isn't valid. Therefore the Legislature can amend Family Code to reflect the reality that SSCM is legal in California.

And this precise wording is the precise wording of Proposition 8 whose legality is currently being appealed.

There are no appeals to the Federal District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional in the system.

If you think so please cite the case and relevant course where Prop 8 is being appealed. (And no, the Utah case is not an appeal of the California Federal Judges ruling.)

This revocation of initiative law was done without the permission of voters in a new iniatiative to repeal the old one.

Since Prop 8 was rule unconstitutional, it is not valid law, therefore there is no need to submit changes to Statutory Laws to the voters.

[see the stay granted by the US Supreme Court in the case of gay marriage vs Utah].

The Utah appeal has no bearing on Prop 8 or on whether SSCM is legal in California, that is settled law - BTW, it is.

The Utah stay applies in Utah because State officials appealed the rulings of the District Court Judge and the 10th Circuit. California DID NOT appeal the decision and therefore the case is dead.

This is a violation, direct and provable, of the California state constitution and its guarantees to citizens of that state.

It would only be a violation of the law if the Constitutionality (under the Federal Constitution) had been upheld - it wasn't. Prop 8 was ruled as unconstitutional and the SCOTUS didn't vacate the ruling.

Senator Leno and his cohorts in the legislature there circumvented the initiative system and inserted their own laws in its place.

No they didn't.

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

#1 The SCOTUS did decline to rule, they punted the fundamental question by ruling on "standing" instead. They did leave in place though the lower courts ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, the SCOTUS had an option to vacate BOTH the 9th Circuit Courts ruling and the Distirct Court ruling and remand it back to the lower court for further action. They didn't do that though, they allowed the lower courts ruling to stand and did not vacate the decision.

#2 Interesting, you forgot to post the next sentence from the next paragraph: "The ruling leaves in place a lower-court decision that struck down the law. " By leaving the lower courts ruling in place, Prop 8 was invalidated.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

There are no appeals to the Federal District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional in the system.

Yes, yes there are. Several of them. Because if the US Supreme Court finds in just one of those state's cases, say Utah for example, that states have the "unquestioned authority" since the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" to regulate the new and weird concept of gay marriage via the largest consensus possible, retroactive to the founding of the country [all those things were said in Windsor] ....and...they fail to pass the test of the 14th, being just an incomplete group of behaviors and not a race, religion, country of origin or gender, then Prop 8 is Upheld as the law of the land in California. Likewise are all the other state statutes enacted by their People defining marriage as "between a man and a woman". And likewise, the 3 states that have legal gay marriage would have those laws remain.

No laws will be erased and no laws are erased. You cannot erase Prop 8 without SCOTUS having found one way or the other on its constitutionality...which is directly affected by the findings of the constitutionalities of all the other laws that read the same as Prop 8 in the various states appealing right now to SCOTUS. As you know, if one state is found to have the right for its voters to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage, it applies automatically across all 50 states.

Tampering with Prop 8 itself or in subservient code law in California while the question of its constitutionality is up in the air is a violation of state law. I think Mark Leno and all the other rogue officials in their legislature, including and especially the two republicans who got on board with this sedition should all be thrown in jail.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You cannot erase Prop 8 without SCOTUS having found one way or the other on its constitutionality...

SCOTUS did rule, they chose not to vacate the District Court judges ruling. That was a ruling upholding the lower courts ruling on the Constitutionality of the Prop 8 case. They could have vacated the lower courts ruling at the time and remanded it for lower court actions - BUT THEY DIDN'T.


Now **IF** the SCOTUS rules in favor of Utah (which is anyones guess at this point), that will not erase the Prop 8 decision, unless the SCOTUS in the Utah case specifically vacates the California District Court Judges ruling which they didn't do at the time. (Very unlikely as Prop 8 isn't a factor in the Kitchen v. Herbert.)

If they rule for Utah and DON'T vacate the California District Court Judges ruling, that does not mean an end to SSCM in California and if the State tried to reactivate Prop 8 - they will be right back in court with a new case to go to the SCOTUS - one asking for them to adjudicate the fact THEY (The SCOTUS) let Prop 8 be ruled unconstitutional and an attempt to re-implement Prop 8 after such a ruling and, as a result, in good faith by the State and couples Civil Marriages were entered into. Retroactive application would raise a Constitutional issue because you would have the ex post facto (from a thing done afterwards) application of a law. Something specifically banned in Article 9 of the Federal Constitution and applicable to the States via the incorporation of the 14th Amendment. That's why the Civil Marriage performed prior to November 5th (the day after election) remained legally valid per the California Supreme Court when it ruled on the Constitutionality of Prop 8, those Civil Marriages (performed between June and Election Day) were valid at the time as Prop 8 didn't become effective until the day after the election.

Therefore, it will take a new initiative (since a new ban by the Legislature using Statutory law would be very unlikely) to re-implement a ban. Which would only prevent new Civil Marriages (if it were to pass) from the date of passage onward, it would have no impact on Civil Marriages made during the period it was legal. If the language of the initiative were to try to void those legal Civil Marriages, you would have an unconstitutional intiative since ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.

Recent polling shows 61% of among the general population in support of SSCM and 64% in the case of likely voters. There has been a phenomenon in the past of polls showing a 4-5% over representation of support. Mostly because of scare tactics (like you currently try to use and the Mormon Church was influential in using in 2008) that impacted voter response once in the process of casting a ballot. Prop 8 squeaked by with only a change of 2.5% needed to change the outcome and within the 4-5% scare tactic range. Even if you subtract the full 5% from those numbers, the continued change in the view of SSCM in California still shows support of 56-59%, well within the vote needed to keep the law as it currently is.



http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_913MBS.pdf


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. Prop 8 was ruled a violation of the constitution by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton. And the USSC declined to overrule them. Thus, the California Supreme Courts ruling stands. And Prop 8 is null and void. There's nothing for the legislature to overrule.

Sorry, Strauss v. Norton was a challenege to the passage of Prop in in the California Supreme Court - true. However the CSC decision was that Prop 8 was a properly passed amendment to the California constitution and therefore was still valid.

Prop 8 was overturned in Federal court by Hollingsworth v. Perry.


>>>>

 

[Patriot1776]

The level of hypocrisy within this thread is astounding, let me see if i can sum it up in one sentence.

Hey you hate filled DOMA supporters, fuck you, fuck your god, fuck your religion, and accept that what you believe in is dead.

 

[Silhouette]

The level of hypocrisy within this thread is astounding, let me see if i can sum it up in one sentence.

Hey you hate filled DOMA supporters, fuck you, fuck your god, fuck your religion, and accept that what you believe in is dead.

Hmmm...only 9 posts and that's what you open with?

I can't make up my mind whether or not you're drumming up votes for the GOP or you're actually irate about people wanting democracy to rule in states?

 

[Patriot1776]

I'm not really sure what having only 9 posts has to do with anything seeing as i just joined a few day ago and don't have a tremendous amount of time to devote to forums.
My point was this though, those in defense of gay marriage didn't accept prop 8 so they fought against it, now those of you who are on here defending homosexuality are telling the doma supporters that the fight is over and to just accept it, while also calling them hate filled when clearly the most hate filled comments have come from those supporting gay marriage .

 

[dcraelin]

Nope. Prop 8 was ruled a violation of the constitution by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton. And the USSC declined to overrule them. Thus, the California Supreme Courts ruling stands. And Prop 8 is null and void. There's nothing for the legislature to overrule.

Sorry, Strauss v. Norton was a challenege to the passage of Prop in in the California Supreme Court - true. However the CSC decision was that Prop 8 was a properly passed amendment to the California constitution and therefore was still valid.
Prop 8 was overturned in Federal court by Hollingsworth v. Perry.
>>>>

and Hollingsworth V. Perry was brought to federal court via the process justified by ex parte Young.....a fraudulent case based on federal judicial corruption and favoritism to powerful (at the time) railroad corporations.

the 14th amendment itself is though by some to have been worded in part as a favor to railroad corporations. It is the only amendment, I believe, to be "reconsidered" by some states under coercive threat.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not really sure what having only 9 posts has to do with anything seeing as i just joined a few day ago and don't have a tremendous amount of time to devote to forums.
My point was this though, those in defense of gay marriage didn't accept prop 8 so they fought against it, now those of you who are on here defending homosexuality are telling the doma supporters that the fight is over and to just accept it, while also calling them hate filled when clearly the most hate filled comments have come from those supporting gay marriage .

Wait...what? I thought you were calling the people who support traditional marriage "hate-filled"?

I'm confused.

 

[Silhouette]

Well everyone is in agreement I assume that if one state, like Utah, is found to have the right to say "yes" or "no" via its normal voters' or other consensus to gay marriage, Prop 8 is immediately validated and Upheld. It was never killed. That's my point.

Yet CA legislators are moving forward as if it is already dead, like their fascism has already "won". Prop 8 is a law, duly enacted, on the books, in the CA state constitution, currently being questioned on its way to the top, grafted onto all the other states' statutes same or simliar. Whatever happens with them, happens with it. Changing family law code and lining out Prop 8's definition of marriage is illegal. It is a circumvention of democracy. We call that fascism.

While they are drawing up impeachment proceedings for Eric Holder and arresting Ms. Learner at the IRS, they should issue a warrant to take in Mark Leno and the other state senators in CA for sedition.

 

[Patriot1776]

I'm not really sure what having only 9 posts has to do with anything seeing as i just joined a few day ago and don't have a tremendous amount of time to devote to forums.
My point was this though, those in defense of gay marriage didn't accept prop 8 so they fought against it, now those of you who are on here defending homosexuality are telling the doma supporters that the fight is over and to just accept it, while also calling them hate filled when clearly the most hate filled comments have come from those supporting gay marriage .

Wait...what? I thought you were calling the people who support traditional marriage "hate-filled"?

I'm confused.

Ya I realized that a bit late. No I was summing up the hypocritical responses I had seen in the thread. You and I are on the same page here.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not really sure what having only 9 posts has to do with anything seeing as i just joined a few day ago and don't have a tremendous amount of time to devote to forums.
My point was this though, those in defense of gay marriage didn't accept prop 8 so they fought against it, now those of you who are on here defending homosexuality are telling the doma supporters that the fight is over and to just accept it, while also calling them hate filled when clearly the most hate filled comments have come from those supporting gay marriage .

Wait...what? I thought you were calling the people who support traditional marriage "hate-filled"?

I'm confused.

Ya I realized that a bit late. No I was summing up the hypocritical responses I had seen in the thread. You and I are on the same page here.

OK well let me ask you this, do you agree that if any other state's statute enacted by their People is found valid in limiting marriage to just one man and one woman, that Prop 8 in CA is automatically Upheld constitutionally?

It's a rhetorical question really. The US Supreme Court cannot by law play favorites one state over another.

 

[Patriot1776]

If the supreme court rules that it is valid in a different state then yes Prop 8 in California should be upheld. But, while I may disagree with the States that have allowed homosexual marriage I believe it is in their rights to decide for themselves.

 

[Silhouette]

Not automatically, no. But I do believe it gives the poeple of California that believe marriage should be between one man and one woman a better platform to stand on. While I may disagree with the States that have allowed homosexual marriage I do believe it is in their constitutional rights to decide it for themselves.

OK, so you think that if the US Supreme Court finds that Utah voters have the constitutional right to limit marriage to one man and one woman, that other states would have to petition for that same right state by state?

Or do you understand that once the US Supreme Court makes that determination for one state that it applies to all 50? That all states' citizens were allowed to limit marriage to one man and one woman if their voters said so?

 

[Skylar]

Well everyone is in agreement I assume that if one state, like Utah, is found to have the right to say "yes" or "no" via its normal voters' or other consensus to gay marriage, Prop 8 is immediately validated and Upheld. It was never killed. That's my point.

Prop 8 was overturned by the federal judiciary in Perry V. Schwartzenhegger. The USSC allowed that ruling to stand. The power to adjudicate issues of constitutional significance (or 'cases that arise under the constitution' as the constitution puts it) is delegated to the federal judiciary. While the USSC is the chief and most authoritative court in the federal judiciary, any ruling made by a federal court is authoritative unless overruled by a higher court.

And the USSC declined to overturn the outcome of Perry V. Schwartzenhegger. Thus, it stands, voiding Prop 8.

The Legislature of CA isn't overruling the people. There's nothing to overrule, as the federal judiciary has already found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and thus void. And any law thus voided has no authority.

Its completely within the powers delegated to the State legislature to remove the wording of a law that lacks authority due to its violation of constitutional rights. The legislature is not bound by some hypothetical ruling that may or may not occur at some unspecified future date. They are bound by the ruling of the federal judiciary as it exists today.

And that ruling voids Prop 8.

The authority you insist the legislature 'stole', is in fact lawfully delegated to them. Prop 8, which you insist is still in effect, has been voided by the federal judiciary. It cannot be enforced. Your speculation about that changing in some hypothetical future doesn't change its status today.

So we have the legislature with the authority to write law. And the wording of a statute that is unconstitutional that they seek to remove from books. At every stage, authority necessary to carry out such actions is possessed by the legislative bodies that are carrying them out. How then is the lawful application of legislative authority a 'coup' or 'fascism' or any of the other melodramatic titles you've applied?

Especially when the proposition in question cannot be enforced, its definitions of Prop 8 cannot be used, by ruling of the Federal Judiciary. There's no power being exercised by the legislature that the legislature doesn't lawfully possess. What they lack is the authority to enact any part of Prop 8. That they also lack the will to do so is incidental.

Its not as if there are appeals for Prop 8 still working their way through the courts. The issue is settled.

Yet CA legislators are moving forward as if it is already dead, like their fascism has already "won". Prop 8 is a law, duly enacted, on the books, in the CA state constitution, currently being questioned on its way to the top, grafted onto all the other states' statutes same or simliar. Whatever happens with them, happens with it. Changing family law code and lining out Prop 8's definition of marriage is illegal. It is a circumvention of democracy. We call that fascism.

No that's not fascism. You're using the term as a generic pejorative. Actual fascism involves dictatorship, stringent economic and social controls (far beyond anything we experience here in the US), state sanctioned racism, belligerent nationalism and violent suppression of political opposition and the press.

None of which are present in the CA legislature's current actions.

If you want a taste of actual fascist doctrine, take a look at the Manifesto of the Racial Scientists ( also known as the Race Charters, or Manifesto of Race), written by Benito Mussolini.

RacistScientists

That was official state mandated doctrine. And those who opposed it were beaten, imprisoned or killed. That's just a piece of actual fascism.

While they are drawing up impeachment proceedings for Eric Holder and arresting Ms. Learner at the IRS, they should issue a warrant to take in Mark Leno and the other state senators in CA for sedition.

By 'they', you mean Rep Stockman? There is no arrest for Lerner, nor impeachment for Holder. Anymore than there was arrest for Karl Rove or impeachment for Bush.

And sedition? Again, I don't think you know what that term means. You didn't follow the meaning of 'coup', you certainly didn't track with fascism. And now your claims regarding sedition are also startlingly inaccurate.

Remember, Prop 8 can't be enforced. Its illegal for any definition provided by it to be used in California. How then is it incitement of insurrection against the government to bring the wording of California law into accordance with the Federal Judiciary's ruling on the matter?

You've not only insisted that the CA legislatures should act in accordance with a future ruling that doesn't exist....but you've insisted that the failure to abide a *non-existent* ruling that has never been issued and may never be issued is an act of sedition.

That's taking baseless speculation to a whole new level.

What lawful statute are the CA legislatures violating? What ruling are they flouting? What government authority are they inciting insurrection against?

Remember, Prop 8 is illegal. Its unconstitutional and void. They couldn't enforce it if they wanted to. And they don't want to.

 

[Silhouette]

Well everyone is in agreement I assume that if one state, like Utah, is found to have the right to say "yes" or "no" via its normal voters' or other consensus to gay marriage, Prop 8 is immediately validated and Upheld. It was never killed. That's my point.

Prop 8 was overturned by the federal judiciary in Perry V. Schwartzenhegger. The USSC allowed that ruling to stand. The power to adjudicate issues of constitutional significance (or 'cases that arise under the constitution' as the constitution puts it) is delegated to the federal judiciary. While the USSC is the chief and most authoritative court in the federal judiciary, any ruling made by a federal court is authoritative unless overruled by a higher court.

And the USSC declined to overturn the outcome of Perry V. Schwartzenhegger. Thus, it stands, voiding Prop 8.

The Legislature of CA isn't overruling the people. There's nothing to overrule, as the federal judiciary has already found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and thus void. And any law thus voided has no authority....


...Remember, Prop 8 is illegal. Its unconstitutional and void. They couldn't enforce it if they wanted to. And they don't want to.

No, you know it is still in legal limbo. You know that there are a dozen cases or close to it on the same grounds Prop 8 was attempted to be smashed heading to the SCOTUS for final proclamation on. There was no constitutional ruling one way or the other from SCOTUS on Prop 8. If Utah's same law is found to have been constitutionally enacted [as defined in Windsor] by Utah's voters, then Prop 8 is valid as well. And that case is pending. So is Prop 8's ultimate determination of validity..

Rogue CA officials cannot claim ignorance of that as fact. They cannot say that the US Supreme Court hasn't already given clear indication of its feelings about states' voters' rights on the matter of gay marriage in Windsor 2013. They emphasized over and over how strongly the Court leans towards states making that decision for themselves with the broadest number of voices weighing in.

These rogue officials know that. And it is no coincidence at all that this coup on democracy came IMMEDIATELY on the heels of Hobby Lobby saying a business entity's religious convictions are grounds to not participate in or sanction certain behaviors. That taken with Windsor, taken with the fact that Utah's 2/3rds majority said "no" to gay marriage and polygamy, among other odd types, meant one thing to the rogue CA officials....and that thing is "the writing's on the wall" legally speaking.

So in a pre-emptive anticipated act of contempt of Windsor and what they know are the High Court's leanings, rogue officials in CA sought to gut Prop 8 while it was still alive. It really is like a group of vigilantes putting a prisoner to death because they've already decided that the jury will eventualy find him guilty anyway.

We don't do law like that in the US. The US was founded precisely to escape that exact type of cave man law.

SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

The part in red is lined out/omitted from family law. And this precise wording is the precise wording of Proposition 8 whose legality is currently being appealed. This revocation of initiative law was done without the permission of voters in a new iniatiative to repeal the old one. [see the stay granted by the US Supreme Court in the case of gay marriage vs Utah]. This is a violation, direct and provable, of the California state constitution and its guarantees to citizens of that state. Senator Leno and his cohorts in the legislature there circumvented the initiative system and inserted their own laws in its place.

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

Therefore, California's rogue officials stepping in in family law and nullifying Prop 8 without the required voters' approval to do so, while the constitutionality of Prop 8 is in question, means that they are in violation of democratic rule in CA. Plain and simple. They lined out the exact wording of Prop 8 as applicable to family law. That is illegal to do and the US Supreme Court should be brought in immediately to take action to preserve the initiative system in CA.


Action must be taken.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well everyone is in agreement I assume that if one state, like Utah, is found to have the right to say "yes" or "no" via its normal voters' or other consensus to gay marriage, Prop 8 is immediately validated and Upheld. It was never killed. That's my point.

That would be in incorrect assumption (that everyone is in agreement).


Go back to post #125.



>>>>

 

[Patriot1776]

If the supreme court rules that it is valid in a different state then yes Prop 8 in California should be upheld. But, while I may disagree with the States that have allowed homosexual marriage I believe it is in their rights to decide for themselves.

No I didn't read your question thoroughly enough. My fault there. If the supreme court rules that marriage can only be between one man and one woman then it is automatically upheld in all States.