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

[OODA_Loop]

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

Nope.

The Supreme Court in precedent law disagree with you.

Cite ?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Yes Vox and the Supreme Court addressed that specifically within the context of also addressing so-called "gay marriage":

From the DOMA Opinion text: scribd.com/doc/150137274/Supreme-Court-DOMA-Opinion]Supreme Court - DOMA Opinion

Pages 18-20
"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’sbeginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012).Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary(most States permit first cousins to marry

 

[Silhouette]

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

Well if it wasn't the question of a state's initiative system's viability at the bottom of it all, I might agree with you. However, 7 million people in California beg to differ.

In addition of those 7 million are a very significant and sought after political base in the upcoming fight for Congressional seats in 2014. Hispanics. More particularly old school catholic hispanics. If you tell them they have to ratify gay marriage outside the power of their vote, they might defect to an opposing political party.

One might even suspect a bit of genius on behalf of the GOP strategists hoping democratic elected leaders in California act heavy handed in denying voters their day in court. After all, how much easier to convince them not to vote democratic leadership in the future?...

ie: there are compelling political reasons this case won't be thrown in the dungeon to rot next to the CA state initiative system recently imprisoned there by his Royal Highness King Jerry the Brown and Consort

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Well if it wasn't the question of a state's initiative system's viability at the bottom of it all, I might agree with you. However, 7 million people in California beg to differ.

In addition of those 7 million are a very significant and sought after political base in the upcoming fight for Congressional seats in 2014. Hispanics. More particularly old school catholic hispanics. If you tell them they have to ratify gay marriage outside the power of their vote, they might defect to an opposing political party.

One might even suspect a bit of genius on behalf of the GOP strategists hoping democratic elected leaders in California act heavy handed in denying voters their day in court. After all, how much easier to convince them not to vote democratic leadership in the future?...

ie: there are compelling political reasons this case won't be thrown in the dungeon to rot next to the CA state initiative system recently imprisoned there by his Royal Highness King Jerry the Brown and Consort

No one but the judge, not the Democratic Party or you for that matter, can say it is over.

If another vote is held, it will uphold same-sex marriage. The polls don't lie.

This is over.

 

[bodecea]

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

So...you've not read the decision on Loving v Virginia?

 

[Silhouette]

No one but the judge, not the Democratic Party or you for that matter, can say it is over.

If another vote is held, it will uphold same-sex marriage. The polls don't lie.

You mean the one gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time of trial and who practiced active witness bullying by threatening to air the trail on youtube outside court rules? That guy?

vs 7 million?

Think again. Read up on Article II of the California Constitution. Pay particular attention to the emphasis placed on individual voters and their power through the intiative system as paramount.

Then read up on the rules that say if a Supreme Court determination is made that a lower court's determination is in conflict with, the Supreme Court ALWAYS wins and the lower court ALWAYS loses...

That would be the case when this case ultimately boils down to "Judge Walker's determination that saying no to gay marriage is unconstitutional vs the Supreme Court's more recent determination that saying no to gay marriage is consitutional.

Who do you think will win that case at the Supreme Court level?...lol...

 

[bendog]

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.

It is a fundamental right. It is a personal right that may not be infringed upon unless the state has a compelling reason and the state action addresses that reason in the most narrow way possible to fix the reason. As I recall, the only federal decision on Prop 8 that Calif actually defended, giving standing to even hear the issue, was Judge Walker's smack down of Prop 8.

Supreme Court Rules On Prop 8, Lets Gay Marriage Resume In California

As for the motion for mandamus (or whatever) file here, it ain't going anywhere unless Jerry Brown's AG brings it, because the Scotus done decided private citizens don't have standing (at least in fed ct) to defend prop 8.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's how the Court summated the Loving v Virgina situation within the context of states rights. They said states rights rule as long as they are constitutional. Since gay marriage is not a constitutional right as Vox correctly asserts, ...well...just read here:

Page 16, last paragraph-17 1st paragraph:
"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons ,see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States. Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 404 (1975).

 

[Vox]

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

So...you've not read the decision on Loving v Virginia?

I could not care less about the decision. If the matter is left to the states - it is NOT a civil right.

Which it is not anyway

 

[Silhouette]

the Scotus done decided private citizens don't have standing (at least in fed ct) to defend prop 8

Ah but they do have standing. Harm done to the initiative process and the recent Superior Ruling discussing in great detail how states have "unquestioned authority" in setting the standards of who may and may not marry as it affects their social structure greatly. Gays WERE NOT given constitutional rights to marry as a result of EITHER RULING last month.

Therefore, a state's right to choose means California can say "no" to gay marriage, minors marriage, polygamy and other non-qualifiers according to their initiative law.

 

[Seawytch]

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

It wasn't the "liberals" that declared it a fundamental right, it was the SCOTUS...3 different times.

 

[Seawytch]

the Scotus done decided private citizens don't have standing (at least in fed ct) to defend prop 8

Ah but they do have standing. Harm done to the initiative process and the recent Superior Ruling discussing in great detail how states have "unquestioned authority" in setting the standards of who may and may not marry as it affects their social structure greatly. Gays WERE NOT given constitutional rights to marry as a result of EITHER RULING last month.

Therefore, a state's right to choose means California can say "no" to gay marriage, minors marriage, polygamy and other non-qualifiers according to their initiative law.

The constitutionality of anti gay laws has yet to be determined by the SCOTUS...but it will in a year or two.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Right they deemed it a state right for one decision to come back and deem it unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

The constitutionality of anti gay laws has yet to be determined by the SCOTUS...but it will in a year or two.

__________________
It will be questoned immediately upon this case arriving at its doorstep. Don't hold your breath on gay marriage being forced on the 50 states. The Supreme Court made it quite clear that gay and related polygamy, incest and minor marriage is a conversation STATES must have, not the fed. They are not going to go down in history as "the Supreme Court that inadvertently ratified polygamy and incest marriage"...or so-called gay marriage either...

Read the DOMA Opinion. They aver that it's a longstanding traditional and unquestioned right of each state to determine marriage. It would take an Amendment to the Constitution ratified by Congress to include "gays, polygamists and other sexual behaviors" to establish those types of "marriages" as "a civil right".

And, good luck on getting 2/3rds of any Congress to Amend that, considering the 7 million christian and hispanic cathoic voters currently being disenfranchised by King Jerry Brown and Consort...of the democratic leadership in CA...

 

[Seawytch]

Kids, it wasn't just Loving in 1967. It was also in ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL and TURNER v. SAFLEY. Read up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one but the judge, not the Democratic Party or you for that matter, can say it is over.

If another vote is held, it will uphold same-sex marriage. The polls don't lie.

You mean the one gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time of trial and who practiced active witness bullying by threatening to air the trail on youtube outside court rules? That guy?

vs 7 million?
...

Doesn't matter. The courts will uphold the findings. That part is over. A new vote of the people will uphold same-sex marriage, so that is over.

This is over, and your continued crying shames God's people.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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

So...you've not read the decision on Loving v Virginia?

Loving was about denial based on race to marry.

Race is protected Federal class .

The ghey not so much.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Kids, it wasn't just Loving in 1967. It was also in ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL and TURNER v. SAFLEY. Read up.

Did SCOTUS just not read up when they made a decision on the precedent and affirmation marriage is state purview ?

 

[Seawytch]

No one but the judge, not the Democratic Party or you for that matter, can say it is over.

If another vote is held, it will uphold same-sex marriage. The polls don't lie.

You mean the one gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time of trial and who practiced active witness bullying by threatening to air the trail on youtube outside court rules? That guy?

vs 7 million?
...

Doesn't matter. The courts will uphold the findings. That part is over. A new vote of the people will uphold same-sex marriage, so that is over.

This is over, and your continued crying shames God's people.

There won't be a new vote. The CA Constitutional Amendment was ruled unconstitutional. There's no way to change that without an amendment to the US Constitution and that will NEVER fly.

 

[Silhouette]

There won't be a new vote. The CA Constitutional Amendment was ruled unconstitutional. There's no way to change that without an amendment to the US Constitution and that will NEVER fly.

Ruled unconstitutional by whom? On what grounds? Answer: Judge Walker on his own belief that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, that ruling is inferior and stale to the fresh and Superior one declaring a state's right to say "no" to gay marriage IS constitutional.


The gay is not at alla race, neither polygamy, incest nor minors. Gay is a behavior, not a race.