The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Redfish]

Nope...the SCOTUS only ruled on the "Yes" states. They punted the "No" state back to the lower court...whose ruling was?

off topic, but your avatar chart is totally wrong. You cannot legally buy a gun without an ID in any state. illegal sales can take place without an ID.

Typical of the misinformation from the gay left.

So start a topic and don't derail this one, Fishy. [Sarcasm]You haters will use any excuse to attack. [/Sarcasm]

I said I was off topic. Your avatar is a lie. You are speading lies.

I don't hate you, I just think your are a disengenuous, partisan, biased, one-issue idiiot.

 

[Seawytch]

off topic, but your avatar chart is totally wrong. You cannot legally buy a gun without an ID in any state. illegal sales can take place without an ID.

Typical of the misinformation from the gay left.

So start a topic and don't derail this one, Fishy. [Sarcasm]You haters will use any excuse to attack. [/Sarcasm]

I said I was off topic. Your avatar is a lie. You are speading lies.

I don't hate you, I just think your are a disengenuous, partisan, biased, one-issue idiiot.

Wow...you even missed the sarcasm strictly implied in the "hater" sentence. They really do give you righties blinders don't they?

Start a thread to point out the "lies" and stop deflecting and derailing this one.

 

[Redfish]

So start a topic and don't derail this one, Fishy. [Sarcasm]You haters will use any excuse to attack. [/Sarcasm]

I said I was off topic. Your avatar is a lie. You are speading lies.

I don't hate you, I just think your are a disengenuous, partisan, biased, one-issue idiiot.

Wow...you even missed the sarcasm strictly implied in the "hater" sentence. They really do give you righties blinders don't they?

Start a thread to point out the "lies" and stop deflecting and derailing this one.

I got your weak attempt at sarcasm.

You created the lie in your avatar. I think you should either remove it or start your own thread on buying guns without an ID. I know the truth on that topic.

 

[Redfish]

OK, wytch. back to topic. How did the people of CA vote on gay marriage in two elections?

 

[Seawytch]

OK, wytch. back to topic. How did the people of CA vote on gay marriage in two elections?

They voted to violate the Constitution, just as I answered before. I'll say the same thing the next 500 times you ask, Fishy.

 

[Redfish]

OK, wytch. back to topic. How did the people of CA vote on gay marriage in two elections?

They voted to violate the Constitution, just as I answered before. I'll say the same thing the next 500 times you ask, Fishy.

Wrong for the 500th time. You have yet to quote the language in the 14th amendment that addressed homosexuality. You keep citing that as the violation of the constitution, but you can't provide any proof.

What has been violated is the will of the people by some judge's INTERPRETATION of the 14th.

 

[bodecea]

More gay couples getting married this holiday weekend.

 

[Redfish]

More gay couples getting married this holiday weekend.

As our society sinks further into the muck.

 

[Seawytch]

OK, wytch. back to topic. How did the people of CA vote on gay marriage in two elections?

They voted to violate the Constitution, just as I answered before. I'll say the same thing the next 500 times you ask, Fishy.

Wrong for the 500th time. You have yet to quote the language in the 14th amendment that addressed homosexuality. You keep citing that as the violation of the constitution, but you can't provide any proof.

What has been violated is the will of the people by some judge's INTERPRETATION of the 14th.

You do realize that it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution, right? This is not "new" information to you?

In an historic ruling in August 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker held that Prop 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Prop 8 proponents appealed to the Ninth Circuit.[...]

Given its ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, leaving Judge Walker’s opinion – that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment – as the final and controlling decision on the merits. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted a stay pending appeal that it had imposed on Judge Walker’s ruling, allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California.

9th Circuit ruling is what stands.. Proof enough I'd say.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They voted to violate the Constitution, just as I answered before. I'll say the same thing the next 500 times you ask, Fishy.

Wrong for the 500th time. You have yet to quote the language in the 14th amendment that addressed homosexuality. You keep citing that as the violation of the constitution, but you can't provide any proof.

What has been violated is the will of the people by some judge's INTERPRETATION of the 14th.

You do realize that it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution, right? This is not "new" information to you?

In an historic ruling in August 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker held that Prop 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Prop 8 proponents appealed to the Ninth Circuit.[...]

Given its ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, leaving Judge Walker’s opinion – that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment – as the final and controlling decision on the merits. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted a stay pending appeal that it had imposed on Judge Walker’s ruling, allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California.

9th Circuit ruling is what stands.. Proof enough I'd say.

Actually Seawytch, the 9th ruling was vacated - meaning their ruling was "null" as if it never happened. The SCOTUS didn't affirm their ruling they vacating their ruling because the 9th incorrectly (in the opinion of the SCOTUS) allowed to the petitioners to have standing to defend the proposition in federal court.

Therefore, it currently reverts back to the next lower courts ruling which was Judge Vaughn's District court ruling.

*************************************

I don't know if there are time limits to appeal so that if the California government decided to reverse it's stance and then appeal the District Court ruling (which occured in August 2010) if they would be deemed to not be making a timely appeal and therefore be dismissed again or if the appeal would be allowed to proceed.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Gay Marriage is inevitable....better get used to it

I agree, which is why ignoring the Constitution and getting it decreed in an illegal judicial fiat was even more pathetic.

 

[Spoonman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLMYaF_Xa8]Gay Marriage : Foamy The Squirrel - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong for the 500th time. You have yet to quote the language in the 14th amendment that addressed homosexuality. You keep citing that as the violation of the constitution, but you can't provide any proof.

What has been violated is the will of the people by some judge's INTERPRETATION of the 14th.

You do realize that it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution, right? This is not "new" information to you?

In an historic ruling in August 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker held that Prop 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Prop 8 proponents appealed to the Ninth Circuit.[...]

Given its ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, leaving Judge Walker’s opinion – that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment – as the final and controlling decision on the merits. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted a stay pending appeal that it had imposed on Judge Walker’s ruling, allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California.

9th Circuit ruling is what stands.. Proof enough I'd say.

Actually Seawytch, the 9th ruling was vacated - meaning their ruling was "null" as if it never happened. The SCOTUS didn't affirm their ruling they vacating their ruling because the 9th incorrectly (in the opinion of the SCOTUS) allowed to the petitioners to have standing to defend the proposition in federal court.

Therefore, it currently reverts back to the next lower courts ruling which was Judge Vaughn's District court ruling.

*************************************

I don't know if there are time limits to appeal so that if the California government decided to reverse it's stance and then appeal the District Court ruling (which occured in August 2010) if they would be deemed to not be making a timely appeal and therefore be dismissed again or if the appeal would be allowed to proceed.


>>>>

I stand corrected, thank you.

The California government reversing its stance and appealing is as likely as pigs flying out the ass of the Queen of England.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay Marriage is inevitable....better get used to it

I agree, which is why ignoring the Constitution and getting it decreed in an illegal judicial fiat was even more pathetic.

Explain how applying the 14th Amendment as it should be applied is "ignoring the Constitution"? Do you not think that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protection under the law?

 

[Silhouette]

Explain how applying the 14th Amendment as it should be applied is "ignoring the Constitution"? Do you not think that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protection under the law?

Not when it comes to marriage. For instance, I believe polygamists [just another sexual behavior outside hetero monogamy] have equal protection when it comes to employment, rights to a trial of a jury of their peers, search and siezure, gun ownership etc. Just not the right to hijack the hetero monogamous term 'marriage'.

If you practice certain behaviors, you don't qualify to marry. If in California if you are not one man and one woman applying for a a marriage license who aren't siblings or parent/child, you do not marry legally. You never have done so.

Quick question: how many people here think that an older lower court decision trumps the Supreme Court's more recent one in June 2013? Remember high school poly sci class now.

 

[kaz]

Gay Marriage is inevitable....better get used to it

I agree, which is why ignoring the Constitution and getting it decreed in an illegal judicial fiat was even more pathetic.

Explain how applying the 14th Amendment as it should be applied is "ignoring the Constitution"? Do you not think that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protection under the law?

Why don't you just go back and re-read the dozen times or so where I already explained it to you. The law isn't algebra where there are variables that you get to assign.

 

[Silhouette]

Question repeated from the previous page:

Which court has the final say on any given issue? An older court ruling from a lower rank or a higher one from a fresher date? Think back to your poli-sci classes now..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree, which is why ignoring the Constitution and getting it decreed in an illegal judicial fiat was even more pathetic.

Explain how applying the 14th Amendment as it should be applied is "ignoring the Constitution"? Do you not think that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protection under the law?

Why don't you just go back and re-read the dozen times or so where I already explained it to you. The law isn't algebra where there are variables that you get to assign.

Actually, you didn’t ‘explain’ anything.

You only expressed your ignorant and irrelevant opinion.

The 14th Amendment is the Constitution, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and 14th Amendment jurisprudence requires the states to allow all persons equal access to their laws, including marriage law.

Eequal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

With regard to marriage law, therefore, the Equal Protection Clause has been violated when a state allows only opposite-sex couples access to marriage law and denies same-sex couples equal access:

A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws…[in violation of] the Equal Protection Clause…

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Consequently, it’s ignorant nonsense to refer to the courts following this precedent as “illegal judicial fiat.”

With regard to:

The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application.

This explains why laws prohibiting bigamy or incestuous marriage are Constitutional, and why allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law won’t result in laws prohibiting bigamy or incestuous marriage being invalidated.

“[T]he laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.” Because marriage law in all 50 states can accommodate both opposite- and same-sex couples, to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is indeed un-Constitutional.

 

[Redfish]

you gay marriage advocates can play all the word games that you want to play, but the basic truths of biology will invalidate your position every time.

Homosexuality is not normal

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you gay marriage advocates can play all the word games that you want to play, but the basic truths of biology will invalidate your position every time.

Homosexuality is not normal

In your subjective, ignorant, and thankfully irrelevant opinion.

You have every right to hate homosexuals – and yes, claiming that homosexuals are not “normal” is a manifestation of hate, regardless how much you might deny it – but you have no right to attempt to codify that hate.

The Constitution and its case law are not ‘word games,’ they express fundamental principles of individual liberty and freedom no state may deny, and the Constitution and its case law were specially designed to protect citizens from the hate and ignorance you exhibit, including citizens who are same-sex couples.