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

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you all for your generally respectful attitude here and the wonderful discussion from both sides.

 

[Silhouette]

You are quite welcome Jake!

I think there is some confusion as to what the lower court in California ruled as "unconstitutional" vs what the Supreme Court just said in DOMA. Since the two are diametrically opposed, the default of "truth" and constitutionality goes to the Supreme Court's most recent and superior Ruling:

The issue quite plainly is: "Is the lower court's saying "saying no to gay marriage is unconstitutional" the law? Or is the DOMA Decision what is constitutional and the Law?...

The Supreme Court didn't leave the constitutionality of saying "no" to gay marriage up to the states; for only they can determine what is constitutional. The only thing they left up to the states was saying "yes" or "no" to gay marriage. They Upheld THAT as constitutional. That has large implications for Prop 8 in California because it means there is nothing unconstitutional about it. In fact, quite the opposite. In its "muddy" appearing opinion on DOMA, the Court actually "said" [it will be argued quite successfully] that a state's right to choose is constitutional, and therefore Prop 8 is completely and utterly valid state law.

The only way this couldn't be true is if the California initiative system was completely castrated and removed by an act of tyranny against the guaranteed power of the 7 million vote majority that enacted Prop 8 as Law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The vote totals were The final vote: Yes: 7.0M votes, 52.2%; No: 6.4M votes, 47.8%.

The federal courts will do nothing to change the fact that now marriage is universal in CA. Any attempt to reinstate Prop 8 will be blocked. A new initiative to do a new Prop 8 will inevitably fail.

I do think the opponents of universal marriage using a big government progressive statist tool, the initiative, for conservative reasons is great.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the state initiative system [Prop 8] is not going to get such an easy smack down as you say Jake. The constitutionality of California [state initiatives] to say "no" to gay marriage was just upheld. It cannot be the singular exception to the Supreme Court's freshest Ruling in my signature.

 

[bendog]

No, the state initiative system [Prop 8] is not going to get such an easy smack down as you say Jake. The constitutionality of California [state initiatives] to say "no" to gay marriage was just upheld. It cannot be the singular exception to the Supreme Court's freshest Ruling in my signature.

There's no "exception." Any state's governor and attny general can refuse to defend against legal challanges to any ban on, or law for, gay marriage. If that happens, there's simply no one, or government, that has standing to defend the law.

 

[Seawytch]

The constitutionality of California [state initiatives] to say "no" to gay marriage was just upheld.

No, it wasn't. The SCOTUS punted and did not rule on the Constitutionality of anti gay laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the state initiative system [Prop 8] is not going to get such an easy smack down as you say Jake. The constitutionality of California [state initiatives] to say "no" to gay marriage was just upheld. It cannot be the singular exception to the Supreme Court's freshest Ruling in my signature.

Private citizens have no standing in this matter, Silhouette. No Democratic governor or AG will raise the issue again. This is over.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no "exception." Any state's governor and attny general can refuse to defend against legal challanges to any ban on, or law for, gay marriage. If that happens, there's simply no one, or government, that has standing to defend the law.

Not true at all.

From the Petition on this case: http://gallery.mailchimp.com/cd3e28...2013.07.11_Petition_FINAL_WITH_SIGNATURES.pdf

...This Court’s case law requires executive officials charged
with ministerial duties to execute those duties regardless of their or others’
views about the constitutionality of the laws imposing those duties. Yet
Respondents are violating their ministerial duties by issuing marriage
licenses in violation of state law. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of
mandate requiring Respondents to comply with state law defining marriage
as a union between a man and a woman.
99. Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution prohibits
government agencies and officials from declaring state law unenforceable,
or declining to enforce state law, on the basis that the law is
unconstitutional, unless an appellate court has first made that
determination. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry has been vacated;
hence there is no appellate decision holding that Proposition 8 is
unconstitutional. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of mandate requiring
Respondents to comply with state law defining marriage as a union
between a man and a woman.

 

[eflatminor]

Because they do and I really don't care. Go ahead and bang your head against the wall and try to take away married benefits from all people. Have fun storming the castle as they say. In the meantime, I'm just going to fight for my right to equal access of those "cash and prizes" for my legal marriage.

Doesn't care about equality. Noted.

Thanks for your revealing honesty. Quite telling.

LOL...except it isn't inequality. Single people aren't denied the right to marry.

But they are denied the rights afforded to married couples. In other words, NOT equal.

Society has decided that there is a benefit to being married and gives tax incentives to those that are.

I disagree. Society has not decided this, central planners have. If marriage is in fact a benefit, it needs no incentives nor punishment to thrive. Marriage has been around a lot longer than any government.

But it's much more than that. It is a legal contract that combines two individuals into a "partnership" that enables them to make important decisions about each other.

Correct, which does NOT require government approval, only a court system should a dispute arise between said parties. Anyone should be free to enter into such a contract, on this I suspect we agree. What I do not agree with is government basing tax incentives and other perks to married couples that it denies to non-married couples.

It's not my battle, but I support your efforts. You're not ever going to get the "gubmit" out of the marriage biz but you're free to try.

Thanks. I will continue to try, not so much because I feel so passionately about who gets to marry who, but because I am passionate about the idea that government should treat all citizens equally and that it does more harm than good trying to engineer behavior. The central planners do not know what is best for us all.

 

[Silhouette]

I will continue to try, not so much because I feel so passionately about who gets to marry who, but because I am passionate about the idea that government should treat all citizens equally and that it does more harm than good trying to engineer behavior.

Even polygamists? For they are next. Reference: Brown v Utah

 

[eflatminor]

I will continue to try, not so much because I feel so passionately about who gets to marry who, but because I am passionate about the idea that government should treat all citizens equally and that it does more harm than good trying to engineer behavior.

Even polygamists? For they are next. Reference: Brown v Utah

If these polygamists are all adults entering into their relationship of their own free will, hell yes.

Why would that bother you?

Again, it's not the definition of marriage I care about, it's the perks given by government to some groups and not others. I believe government should treat citizens equally. Government should not pick and choose winners in some vain and misguided attempt to socially engineer the people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette has fail with the idea that CA will refile: it won't.

The issue, of course, is consent by adults.

If adults want to enter into polygyny or polyandry, then surely that is their right.

Notice: Great Britain has recognized universal marriage.

 

[bendog]

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

I don't think that is correct. The scotus did not say gay marriage was not like Loving v. VA, it simply said the private citizens making that argument LACKED STANDING to be in court. Thus, the issue has not been decided. I suspect the scotus will have to take it in a few years, though practicality may just make it moot, because there may just be so many GayLesbian marriages, states will have no choice but to treat them equally.

 

[bendog]

There's no "exception." Any state's governor and attny general can refuse to defend against legal challanges to any ban on, or law for, gay marriage. If that happens, there's simply no one, or government, that has standing to defend the law.

Not true at all.

From the Petition on this case: http://gallery.mailchimp.com/cd3e28...2013.07.11_Petition_FINAL_WITH_SIGNATURES.pdf

...This Court’s case law requires executive officials charged
with ministerial duties to execute those duties regardless of their or others’
views about the constitutionality of the laws imposing those duties. Yet
Respondents are violating their ministerial duties by issuing marriage
licenses in violation of state law. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of
mandate requiring Respondents to comply with state law defining marriage
as a union between a man and a woman.
99. Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution prohibits
government agencies and officials from declaring state law unenforceable,
or declining to enforce state law, on the basis that the law is
unconstitutional, unless an appellate court has first made that
determination. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry has been vacated;
hence there is no appellate decision holding that Proposition 8 is
unconstitutional. Petitioners are thus entitled to a writ of mandate requiring
Respondents to comply with state law defining marriage as a union
between a man and a woman.

That proves nothing. I can file a suit in my effing dog's name, but that doesn't mean a court can find he has standing.

 

[Seawytch]

Doesn't care about equality. Noted.

Thanks for your revealing honesty. Quite telling.

LOL...except it isn't inequality. Single people aren't denied the right to marry.

But they are denied the rights afforded to married couples. In other words, NOT equal.

Tax breaks aren't a fundamental right, marriage is. They aren't denied the right to marry.

I disagree. Society has not decided this, central planners have. If marriage is in fact a benefit, it needs no incentives nor punishment to thrive. Marriage has been around a lot longer than any government.

Registries have been. You can rail all you want but it simply isn't remotely realistic to get the Gubmit out of "the biz".

But it's much more than that. It is a legal contract that combines two individuals into a "partnership" that enables them to make important decisions about each other.

Correct, which does NOT require government approval, only a court system should a dispute arise between said parties. Anyone should be free to enter into such a contract, on this I suspect we agree. What I do not agree with is government basing tax incentives and other perks to married couples that it denies to non-married couples.

Libertarian wet dream that will never become a reality...no matter how much contract lawyers would salivate.

It's not my battle, but I support your efforts. You're not ever going to get the "gubmit" out of the marriage biz but you're free to try.

Thanks. I will continue to try, not so much because I feel so passionately about who gets to marry who, but because I am passionate about the idea that government should treat all citizens equally and that it does more harm than good trying to engineer behavior. The central planners do not know what is best for us all.

Yeah? Try how? What have you done?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What central planners?

Is eflatminor in Cuba now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Marriage is a civil right, as is the right to equal access to the law – rights the states may not violate.

 

[Silhouette]

But the Supreme Court just said they could choose "no" to gay marriage. And so, they may do so. California is no exception to this new Ruling.

 

[Noomi]

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

The conservatives think that it is acceptable for 51% to take away the rights of the other 49%.

 

[Seawytch]

But the Supreme Court just said they could choose "no" to gay marriage. And so, they may do so. California is no exception to this new Ruling.

They did no such thing. You really need to look up both rulings.