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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Such a ruling will not happen, and if it does, SCOTUS will overturn it. Stop shaming God's people.

 

[g5000]

Gay is a behavior, not a race.

So is religion. Yet we protect religion.

Gay is not a choice, nor is race. But religion is.

None of these should be discriminated against.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

In Windsor the Court ruled that the Federal government must treat the marriage laws of all the states equally, marriage between same-sex couples must be viewed on the same level as marriages between opposite-sex couples.

Moreover, no one has ever argued that ‘gay marriage’ is a ‘Constitutional right.’

Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

Proposition 8 was struck down as un-Constitutional because it violated the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access California marriage law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. See: Hollingsworth v. Perry.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled on this issue, reaffirming a Federal District Court’s ruling. And all the Federal and state courts in the Ninth’s jurisdiction are compelled to follow that precedent.

This is merely a desperate, pointless, and pathetic attempt by those hostile to same-sex couples to deny them their equal protection rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You’re both incorrect.

See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail (1978).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Gay marriage is not a civil right.

Again, no one ever said it was. And there’s no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

Current case law, however, maintains that same-sex couples do have a 14th Amendment right to access California marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Actually not.

In fact, the courts need not get involved at all if the people of a given jurisdiction, as well as California, would simply obey the Constitution and acknowledge the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

The courts are forced to get involved only after the people have acted in a manner offensive to the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

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

So you too wish to ignore one third of our federal government as set up by the Framers.

SCOTUS never ruled marriage is a civil right, get of your ignorant high horse

You're correct. They said it was a fundamental right...like voting, interstate travel, procreation, etc.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Proposition 8 was struck down on 14th Amendment grounds, that it violated the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access California marriage law absent a rational basis or legitimate legislative end, motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.

Judge Walker did not just ‘dream up’ the reasoning for his ruling, it was based on acknowledged and settled 5th and 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and upheld upon review.

One does not need to be a member of a suspect class to make a claim that his right to equal protection of (equal access to) the law was violated. The Court has consistently held that the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause affords all persons the right to self-determination, to express oneself as he sees fit, free from interference by the government. See: Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Consequently, whether or not homosexuality is naturally occurring or an expression of free will is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Silhouette]

The CA case was thrown out on lack of standing not constitutionality

Correct, and now there is standing showing real and grave harm, even danger to the foundation of democracy itself. It isn't even an exaggeration to say that if this tyranny quashes rule of law in California, that dangerous precedent could catch fire in other states where gay activists are rabidly engaged in multiple contortions of thwarting due process there to shove the rainbow culture on everyone, everywhere..

The 14th Amendment offers zero class status for gays. They are not a religion, they are not a race, they are not a country of origin and they are not a gender. They are a collective of odd sexual behaviors, incomplete, but also including under the "queer" umbrella, incest and polygamy; which would have to get class status along with them, also being sexual preferences.

So, there is no "civil right" for gay marriage. Only states get to decide what marriage is. And the State of California decided already. You can't take that privelege away from just one state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Silhoutte, the only danger is in your head. This filing is similar to trutherism and birtherism denial, so we will call it gayism to define your denial. Since there are troofers and birfers here on the Board, you will join them as a gayfer. I would prefer that you concentrate your obvious talents on issues that benefit minorities, women, and immigrants.

 

[Silhouette]

An update:

Monday, July 15, 2013


The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks regarding the decision of the California Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. O’Connell not to issue a stay while the lawsuit seeking clarity for county clerks on Proposition 8 moves forward:

“Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed. Although we would have preferred for the California Supreme Court to issue a stay so that the state’s marriage amendment would be respected sooner rather than later, the proponents of Proposition 8 will continue to urge the court to uphold the rule of law. We remain hopeful that the court will recognize that Proposition 8 remains the law of the land in California and that county clerks must continue to enforce it.”

 

[Seawytch]

An update:

Monday, July 15, 2013


The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks regarding the decision of the California Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. O’Connell not to issue a stay while the lawsuit seeking clarity for county clerks on Proposition 8 moves forward:

“Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed. Although we would have preferred for the California Supreme Court to issue a stay so that the state’s marriage amendment would be respected sooner rather than later, the proponents of Proposition 8 will continue to urge the court to uphold the rule of law. We remain hopeful that the court will recognize that Proposition 8 remains the law of the land in California and that county clerks must continue to enforce it.”

 

[Silhouette]

Don Quixote? This case was ACTUALLY filed Seawytch. Seven million voters denied the power of the intiative system, just on the heels of DOMA saying they can choose "no" to gay marriage means that there's a real and compelling legal issue of having that choice forcibly removed from them by the tyranny of a handful of people, public servants, drunk with their imagined power of office.

 

[Seawytch]

Don Quixote? This case was ACTUALLY filed Seawytch. Seven million voters denied the power of the intiative system, just on the heels of DOMA saying they can choose "no" to gay marriage means that there's a real and compelling legal issue of having that choice forcibly removed from them by the tyranny of a handful of people, public servants, drunk with their imagined power of office.

Tilt away. The windmills will still win.

 

[eflatminor]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

 

[Seawytch]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

So where's the legislation to do that? Where was it before the gays wanted in the pool?

 

[eflatminor]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

So where's the legislation to do that?

I've seen no legislation, but I'm glad to see you're keen on the idea. Perhaps some freedom minded, anti-nanny state politician will introduce it. We shall see.

Where was it before the gays wanted in the pool?

Well, as we don't see such legislation now, it's hardly surprising that we didn't see it in the past.

That said, I've been arguing against any special benefits/loopholes for any select/favored group for decades now. IMO, laws, regulations, tax codes, etc should be made only when absolutely necessary and without giving benefit to one group over another.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

No, because we are the government. We aren't a group of some aesthetic hypotheticals. We are real, breathing stinking apes that need social structure so we don't devolve into chaos...as history has taught us we repeatedly do when the brakes are removed from our collective vehicle. The "government" has a vested interest in encouraging the idea of marriage. That's why "we" place so many incentives as lures to get people to marry.

This rainbow wildfire is burning under the assumption that "anything goes" is an excellent part of any ape structure. They are patently wrong. Already we are seeing, just in the years gay marriage has been forced on some states, a rapid increase in young boys ages 13-29 coming down with HIV. Monkey see, monkey do means we pay close attention to the norms we set for little sponges to absorb.

Having sex with the lower intestines is not a good example to model to youth in marriage as it turns out. Marriage means a lot to people. Your solution to dilute it to nothing is not a solution at all.

 

[eflatminor]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

No, because we are the government. We aren't a group of some aesthetic hypotheticals. We are real, breathing stinking apes that need social structure so we don't devolve into chaos...as history has taught us we repeatedly do when the brakes are removed from our collective vehicle.

Spoken like a true central planner who is just SURE he knows what's best for other people.

Pass.

The "government" has a vested interest in encouraging the idea of marriage. That's why "we" place so many incentives as lures to get people to marry.

Yet the institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than any existing government. A pesky little fact that doesn't fit your agenda, I know.

This rainbow wildfire is burning under the assumption that "anything goes" is an excellent part of any ape structure. They are patently wrong.

When you can't argue with logic, call your opponent an ape. Great plan...

Already we are seeing, just in the years gay marriage has been forced on some states, a rapid increase in young boys ages 13-29 coming down with HIV. Monkey see, monkey do means we pay close attention to the norms we set for little sponges to absorb.

You set the norms for your little sponges, I'll set them for mine. You do not get to decide what is best for someone else's family.

Having sex with the lower intestines is not a good example to model to youth in marriage as it turns out.

So if a heterosexual couple engages in anal sex, they're harming youth? Whatever.

Marriage means a lot to people. Your solution to dilute it to nothing is not a solution at all.

Not diluting it at all. Simply getting the government out of the business of attempting to pick winners and loser in society through tax codes and other regulations. Marriage does not need the blessing of central planners. That you think it does speaks volumes about your faith, or lack thereof, in the institution. Personally, I believe traditional marriage would increase without the increased government meddling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

we are the government. . . . Marriage means a lot to people.

You are a small, minor part of decision making now. Marriage for all enhances marriage. The Constitution protects that, and the old Prop 8 way is now way gay.

Is what it is, and the tide will roll forward without insurmountable barriers.