New Prop 8 Case Filed in CA July 12, 2013 Headed to SCOTUS Ultimately

[Silhouette]

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND REQUEST FOR
IMMEDIATE STAY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STAY REQUESTED TO FORBID ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE
LICENSES IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW
...By this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, Petitioners
Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A.
Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California
Renewal, hereby respectfully request a writ of mandate ordering
Respondents—the 58 county clerks in the State of California, each of
whom is named below—to enforce article I, section 7.5 of the California
Constitution (commonly known as Proposition 8 )...

...Petitioners also request an immediate stay or injunction, to
remain in place during the pendency of these writ proceedings, requiring
Respondents to enforce state law defining marriage as a union between a
man and a woman. The urgency demanding this immediate stay or
injunction, which is explained further in the accompanying Memorandum
of Points and Authorities, derives from the need to affirm the rule of law
and the legitimate limitations on Respondents’ authority, and to provide
legal clarity regarding the issue of marriage in this State....

Because the recent Ruling in DOMA last month said over and over that states get to choose on gay marriage, stating therefore at the same moment that gay marriage is not a constitutional right, a new case has been filed that will test this.

In spite of what you may have heard, DOMA in total was not "struck down" last month. Only one part of it was, where the fed has to abide by what the Court calls "the states' unquestioned authority" to decide on gay marriage.

So that means all 50 states get to choose "no" on gay marriage if they like as their constitutional guarantee. The Court just interpreted that.

That means, that Prop 8 and the California iniative system that duly enacted that law have been under illegal attack by the Governor there, Jerry Brown and others.

The case is an injunction filed to stop bogus marriage licenses being issued to gay people under the misconception that Gov. Brown has the authority over the state initiative system. He doesn't. He is merely a public servant charged with upholding state law, not dictating it against the Will of the majority 7 million who voted for Prop 8.

So Gov. Brown ordered the County Clerks to issue marriage licenses in violation of law. Only Los Angeles and Alameda were excepted in the weird vague "Opinion" on the rat's nest that is the original Prop 8 hearing at the State Supreme Court. The other counties are still bound to abide by state law: which the Supreme Court just said was legal by virtue of their statement that states get to decide with their "unquestioned authority".

It just so happens that in California's State Constitution, the "unquestioned authority" to set law is with the individual, via the initiative system: not the governor, the attorney general or other thugs and tyrants who fancy themselves above the law [the initiative system].

For your reference here are two links. [edit, forum rules only allow me to post links after 15 posts so I'll put search terms so you can find them

One, the DOMA Opinion last month: Sribd dot com "Doma opinion"

Next, the actual case filed: Gutierrez et al. v Governor Jerry Brown et al & California County Clerks [http etc.] gallery.mailchimp.com/cd3e28a2b5019008a4a05ecd9/files/2013.07.11_Petition_FINAL_WITH_SIGNATURES.pdf

Sorry. I am a real person and not a spam bot advertising. This is an important story people are trying to keep out of the media so ? I hope this is OK..

 

[OODA_Loop]

I damn near wore my fingerprints off trying to type and get Seawitch to understand the State's Right precedent set by Windsor.

 

[bodecea]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

 

[Vox]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

marriage is NOT a civil right

 

[OODA_Loop]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

marriage is NOT a civil right

If it were the Winsor precedent would have been much different.

 

[Freemason9]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

Sort of, yeah. The popular vote can decide elections, and that determines who sits on the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS can fuck you over any way they want to, since they "interpret" consitutional wording.

 

[Silhouette]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

No, the Supreme Court thinks that. Except that they "said" gay marriage isn't a civil right by declaring that each state gets to choose. If it was a civil right, the Supreme Court instead would have had to say "all 50 states must allow gay marriage".

I guess as it stands, people who are non-hetero adult monogamous oriented sexually like polygamists, minors and others as well as gays do not qualify for special protection under the Constitution.

The matter will be settled, undoubtedly, by marching this case up to the Supreme Court and asking them what they meant specifically about "states have the unquestioned authority" to decide on gay marriage and how that relates to Prop 8...which is a state deciding on gay marriage.

The question will ultimately be, "can California be the one exception to the other 49 who get to choose "no" to gay marriage".

And we all know the answer to that question...

 

[bodecea]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

No, the Supreme Court thinks that. Except that they "said" gay marriage isn't a civil right by declaring that each state gets to choose. If it was a civil right, the Supreme Court instead would have had to say "all 50 states must allow gay marriage".

I guess as it stands, people who are non-hetero adult monogamous oriented sexually like polygamists, minors and others as well as gays do not qualify for special protection under the Constitution.

The matter will be settled, undoubtedly, by marching this case up to the Supreme Court and asking them what they meant specifically about "states have the unquestioned authority" to decide on gay marriage and how that relates to Prop 8...which is a state deciding on gay marriage.

The question will ultimately be, "can California be the one exception to the other 49 who get to choose "no" to gay marriage".

And we all know the answer to that question...

Got news for you. Gay marriage is a civil right in CA. Right now. So, it's not going bye bye.

 

[Vox]

so..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

no, the supreme court thinks that. except that they "said" gay marriage isn't a civil right by declaring that each state gets to choose. if it was a civil right, the supreme court instead would have had to say "all 50 states must allow gay marriage".

i guess as it stands, people who are non-hetero adult monogamous oriented sexually like polygamists, minors and others as well as gays do not qualify for special protection under the constitution.

The matter will be settled, undoubtedly, by marching this case up to the supreme court and asking them what they meant specifically about "states have the unquestioned authority" to decide on gay marriage and how that relates to prop 8...which is a state deciding on gay marriage.




The question will ultimately be, "can california be the one exception to the other 49 who get to choose "no" to gay marriage".

And we all know the answer to that question...

exactly.

 

[bodecea]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

marriage is NOT a civil right

It most certainly is. Legal, civil marriage, that is.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

Gay marriage is not a civil right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

marriage is NOT a civil right

No, but shortbus (bod) IS a fucking moron....

 

[Vox]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

Gay marriage is not a civil right.

Marriage altogether is not a civil right.

it's a contract, a legal institution

there are many categories of humans which can not enter into any legal contract.

 

[Vox]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

marriage is NOT a civil right

It most certainly is. Legal, civil marriage, that is.

Nope.

 

[bodecea]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

Sort of, yeah. The popular vote can decide elections, and that determines who sits on the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS can fuck you over any way they want to, since they "interpret" consitutional wording.

So, you want to eliminate the Checks and Balances provided by our Framers with 3 branches of government

 

[bodecea]

marriage is NOT a civil right

It most certainly is. Legal, civil marriage, that is.

Nope.

The Supreme Court in precedent law disagree with you.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So..you think that a civil right can be taken away by popular vote?

marriage is NOT a civil right

You're wasting your time here. The Left has already "deemed" it so - and the courts be damned. The people of Kalifornia have voted NO on this (I believe a couple of times) and each time they do - the courts get involved.

Each time the courts interject themselves and overrules the popular vote. You see - In Kalifornia, the vote means nothing.

Это земле мы живем в

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette, really, this is over. The petition will be summarily dismissed.

 

[Vox]

It most certainly is. Legal, civil marriage, that is.

Nope.

The Supreme Court in precedent law disagree with you.

no, it does not. if the issue is left to states - that is as clear as it can be NOT a civil right designation by SCOTUS

 

[RandallFlagg]

It most certainly is. Legal, civil marriage, that is.

Nope.

The Supreme Court in precedent law disagree with you.

Is that a fact? I'd LOVE to see the arguments from that.......you lefties produce your stats and graphs and anything else that will support your case. I'll be waiting (anxiously) for your "proof".