The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Silhouette]

Don't tell me that your lower court ruling is superior to CA's recently Upheld and reaffirmed retroactive constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage either. We put that one to bed. Prop 8 is the law of the land and gay marriage has never been legal in CA.

That is false. Legal Same-sex Civil Marriage performed in June, July, August, September, October, and prior to November 5th are still legal in California.

As previously pointed out to you, the California Constitution requires that all Amendments are effective the day after the election unless another date is specified, Prop 8 contained no such provision therefore it only became effective November 5th, 2008 and later.

So according to California law, ya - they are still valid.

Glad we could put that to bed.
>>>>

You're forgetting about Prop 22. That was years before November 5th, 2008. Don't forget, in DOMA the Ruling said that each state, including California's CONSTITUTIONAL right to CONSENSUS on gay marriage was RETROACTIVE to the founding of our country. That pushes the illegality of gay marriage back even further.

Gay marriage has never been legal in California by the definition of the highest law in the land as of June, 2013. Any previous or lower ruling/interpretation etc. that was arrived at in defiance of CA's consensus is null and void.

Go back and study poli sci. The US Supreme Court is the last train stop. What they say is THE LAW. Period. Both Prop 22 and Prop 8 were arrived at by legal, constitutionally protected consensus. There is no legal ground at all to invalidate them. None. Gays DO NOT have a federally protected and established "right" to marry anywhere. It's up to each state. And California's consensus decided the matter.

Go see an attorney about it. Take the DOMA Ruling with you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Don't tell me that your lower court ruling is superior to CA's recently Upheld and reaffirmed retroactive constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage either. We put that one to bed. Prop 8 is the law of the land and gay marriage has never been legal in CA.

That is false. Legal Same-sex Civil Marriage performed in June, July, August, September, October, and prior to November 5th are still legal in California.

As previously pointed out to you, the California Constitution requires that all Amendments are effective the day after the election unless another date is specified, Prop 8 contained no such provision therefore it only became effective November 5th, 2008 and later.

So according to California law, ya - they are still valid.

Glad we could put that to bed.
>>>>

You're forgetting about Prop 22. That was years before November 5th, 2008. Don't forget, in DOMA the Ruling said that each state, including California's CONSTITUTIONAL right to CONSENSUS on gay marriage was RETROACTIVE to the founding of our country. That pushes the illegality of gay marriage back even further.

Not in the least. Prop 22 was an initiative passed in 2000 through voter initiative that created a STATUTORY law that conflicted with the California State CONSTITUTION and was struct down by the California Supreme Court which then allowed for legal Same-sex Civil Marriages in 2008.

Prop 22 was invalidated by the legal process of the State of California and not invalidated by the Federal government.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Bigot redo...

welfare whore.

You don't ever care about the arguments for gay marriage, it's about the $$$.

Someone that spends a career in the military is now a "welfare whore"?


Wow, nice.



>>>>

Deflection, I'm referring to her argument on gay marriage. That and that she called me a "bigot." You might have noticed, it was in the quote... I made it red since we've established your history of laziness.

Not to mention that she's unable to differentiate between a government hating libertarian and a socon. But the path to liberalism sure isn't built on brains whether you were in the military or not.

 

[kaz]

#1

I'm sorry, your argument makes no logical sense and is simply a repeat of what the State of Virginia attempted to argue in the Loving case.

1. Virginia argued that each person could marry the same people, just that those people had to be of the same race. The SCOTUS didn't buy it.

That "just" is what fundamentally changes the entire argument. They didn't argue the same thing. Black Steve could not marry the same people white you can. No buts. Gay Steve can. No buts. You have no argument.

The structure of the argument presented by Virginia is exactly the same you present to support discrimination by the government based on gender. It made not sense then, it doesn't now and the SCOTUS didn't buy it then either. Personally I think the SCOTUS will continue to dodge the question for another 10-years or so before accepting a case directly on that issue.


>>>>

Fact, black Steve in Virginia in the early 60s could not marry the same people as you. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Fact, gay Steve can marry the same people you can. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Your argument that they "just" had one additional qualifier changes the entire argument. It makes it "unequal" because there is a "just" which is a qualifier which makes it unequal.

Spin all you want, your "just" clause changes everything. And with gays, there is no "just." They can marry the same people. Period. It's equal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That "just" is what fundamentally changes the entire argument. They didn't argue the same thing. Black Steve could not marry the same people white you can. No buts. Gay Steve can. No buts. You have no argument.

The structure of the argument presented by Virginia is exactly the same you present to support discrimination by the government based on gender. It made not sense then, it doesn't now and the SCOTUS didn't buy it then either. Personally I think the SCOTUS will continue to dodge the question for another 10-years or so before accepting a case directly on that issue.


>>>>

Fact, black Steve in Virginia in the early 60s could not marry the same people as you. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Fact, gay Steve can marry the same people you can. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Your argument that they "just" had one additional qualifier changes the entire argument. It makes it "unequal" because there is a "just" which is a qualifier which makes it unequal.

Spin all you want, your "just" clause changes everything. And with gays, there is no "just." They can marry the same people. Period. It's equal.

Steve can marry the same person I can, however Mary cannot marry the same person that Steve can. Therefore Mary and Steve are not treated the same with no compelling government interest as a basis for such treatment.


If you think there is a basis, then please articulate a legal, secular compelling government interest in why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states) are treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same sex couples that are not allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?


Give it a shot, and no "tradition" is not a compelling government reason for continuing discrimination and "religion" is not a compelling government reason as people - if those are their religious views - are free not to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Bigot redo...

welfare whore.

You don't ever care about the arguments for gay marriage, it's about the $$$.

How many times do I have to tell you (who gets the cash and prizes) to go ahead, take 'em away? We'll still want equal access to legal, civil marriage.

You have no valid arguments against marriage equality.

 

[Seawytch]

welfare whore.

You don't ever care about the arguments for gay marriage, it's about the $$$.

Someone that spends a career in the military is now a "welfare whore"?


Wow, nice.



>>>>

Deflection, I'm referring to her argument on gay marriage. That and that she called me a "bigot." You might have noticed, it was in the quote... I made it red since we've established your history of laziness.

Not to mention that she's unable to differentiate between a government hating libertarian and a socon. But the path to liberalism sure isn't built on brains whether you were in the military or not.

Were the people who actively discriminated against interracial couples, to the point of arguing it was not discrimination because it applied equally to both races, bigots in your mind? They were in mine.

 

[kaz]

The structure of the argument presented by Virginia is exactly the same you present to support discrimination by the government based on gender. It made not sense then, it doesn't now and the SCOTUS didn't buy it then either. Personally I think the SCOTUS will continue to dodge the question for another 10-years or so before accepting a case directly on that issue.


>>>>

Fact, black Steve in Virginia in the early 60s could not marry the same people as you. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Fact, gay Steve can marry the same people you can. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Your argument that they "just" had one additional qualifier changes the entire argument. It makes it "unequal" because there is a "just" which is a qualifier which makes it unequal.

Spin all you want, your "just" clause changes everything. And with gays, there is no "just." They can marry the same people. Period. It's equal.

Steve can marry the same person I can, however Mary cannot marry the same person that Steve can. Therefore Mary and Steve are not treated the same with no compelling government interest as a basis for such treatment.

Your arguments get exponentially lamer. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Wow, there's a magical Constitutional prohibition that government cannot even recognize the sexes. Amazing how that's never come up before.

You, Steve and Mary can all enter into a man woman marriage. Mary plays the part of the woman, you or Steve the man in such a relationship.

But wow, it's unequal treatment because a gay man (or a straight man) can't marry the same people a woman can. You're making your old pathetic argument look good now, I see why you lead with that if this is the back up plan.

If you think there is a basis, then please articulate a legal, secular compelling government interest in why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states) are treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same sex couples that are not allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?


Give it a shot, and no "tradition" is not a compelling government reason for continuing discrimination and "religion" is not a compelling government reason as people - if those are their religious views - are free not to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.

What a stupid question to ask a libertarian who opposes all government marriage. You might want to debate that with a socon who cares about government recognition at all. I do have a solution for you though if you don't like it. I'll give you a hint. It starts with an "L" and ends with "egislature." That is where laws are debated. The courts are there to adjudicate, not legislate. Sorry that's more work, but yeah, it's more work.

 

[kaz]

Bigot redo...

welfare whore.

You don't ever care about the arguments for gay marriage, it's about the $$$.

How many times do I have to tell you (who gets the cash and prizes) to go ahead, take 'em away? We'll still want equal access to legal, civil marriage.

You have no valid arguments against marriage equality.

And you have no valid reason you can't address my actual position but you insist on arguing endless liberal socon talking points. Which is why I don't respond to most of your replies since you don't address what I said.

 

[kaz]

Someone that spends a career in the military is now a "welfare whore"?


Wow, nice.



>>>>

Deflection, I'm referring to her argument on gay marriage. That and that she called me a "bigot." You might have noticed, it was in the quote... I made it red since we've established your history of laziness.

Not to mention that she's unable to differentiate between a government hating libertarian and a socon. But the path to liberalism sure isn't built on brains whether you were in the military or not.

Were the people who actively discriminated against interracial couples, to the point of arguing it was not discrimination because it applied equally to both races, bigots in your mind? They were in mine.

Out of curiosity, are you incapable of reading what I say and responding to my actual view because you're blinded by hate, politics or stupidity? Or is it a combination or all of them?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fact, black Steve in Virginia in the early 60s could not marry the same people as you. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Fact, gay Steve can marry the same people you can. No "but" and no "just" follows that statement.

Your argument that they "just" had one additional qualifier changes the entire argument. It makes it "unequal" because there is a "just" which is a qualifier which makes it unequal.

Spin all you want, your "just" clause changes everything. And with gays, there is no "just." They can marry the same people. Period. It's equal.

Steve can marry the same person I can, however Mary cannot marry the same person that Steve can. Therefore Mary and Steve are not treated the same with no compelling government interest as a basis for such treatment.

Your arguments get exponentially lamer. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Wow, there's a magical Constitutional prohibition that government cannot even recognize the sexes. Amazing how that's never come up before.

Fail.

I didn't say the sexes couldn't be recognized. I spoke to treatment without a compelling government interest.

You, Steve and Mary can all enter into a man woman marriage. Mary plays the part of the woman, you or Steve the man in such a relationship.

Now you are trying to move the goal posts. What you said before was that Steve and I could marry the same person so Steven and I weren't being discriminated against. Not the point since Steve and I are both male. However Mary and Steven can't based on sex which demonstrates the discrimination.

But wow, it's unequal treatment because a gay man (or a straight man) can't marry the same people a woman can.

Yes it is unequal treatment. To continue such treatment by the government they need a compelling reason to do so.

If you think there is a basis, then please articulate a legal, secular compelling government interest in why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different sex couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states) are treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same sex couples that are not allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?


Give it a shot, and no "tradition" is not a compelling government reason for continuing discrimination and "religion" is not a compelling government reason as people - if those are their religious views - are free not to Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.

What a stupid question to ask a libertarian who opposes all government marriage. You might want to debate that with a socon who cares about government recognition at all. I do have a solution for you though if you don't like it. I'll give you a hint. It starts with an "L" and ends with "egislature." That is where laws are debated. The courts are there to adjudicate, not legislate. Sorry that's more work, but yeah, it's more work.

Suprising you have not answer to the serious question being posed. Of course I didn't expect one.

If you are such a Libertarian then and not a SOCON, then you should be arguing for the elimination of ALL Civil Marriage recognition - not keeping the current Civil Marriage structure and supporting discrimination.

That would be a true Libertarian position, not someone hiding behind it to dodge answering a question for which they have no cogent answer.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Now you are trying to move the goal posts. What you said before was that Steve and I could marry the same person so Steven and I weren't being discriminated against.

Apparently you have no long term memory because we've debated this for months and that everyone can enter into a man/woman relationship is and has always been my position.

I only started talking about "Steve" to address your V v. Lover case. Then you brought up Mary.

That you go back and forth and I address each side is now that "I" am moving the goal posts.

You are winning we are becoming a dictatorship. Congratulations. But I have nothing to add since you're doing circular arguments and have no long term memory as to my position.

 

[kaz]

What a stupid question to ask a libertarian who opposes all government marriage. You might want to debate that with a socon who cares about government recognition at all. I do have a solution for you though if you don't like it. I'll give you a hint. It starts with an "L" and ends with "egislature." That is where laws are debated. The courts are there to adjudicate, not legislate. Sorry that's more work, but yeah, it's more work.

Suprising you have not answer to the serious question being posed. Of course I didn't expect one.

If you are such a Libertarian then and not a SOCON, then you should be arguing for the elimination of ALL Civil Marriage recognition - not keeping the current Civil Marriage structure and supporting discrimination.

That would be a true Libertarian position, not someone hiding behind it to dodge answering a question for which they have no cogent answer.


>>>>

Hey dumb ass, it's in your own quote. No wonder you and the seahag can't address my points, you don't even read them. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

 

[EriktheRed]

Here's the bottom line, folks:



Fag-bashers lost.

 

[Seawytch]

Deflection, I'm referring to her argument on gay marriage. That and that she called me a "bigot." You might have noticed, it was in the quote... I made it red since we've established your history of laziness.

Not to mention that she's unable to differentiate between a government hating libertarian and a socon. But the path to liberalism sure isn't built on brains whether you were in the military or not.

Were the people who actively discriminated against interracial couples, to the point of arguing it was not discrimination because it applied equally to both races, bigots in your mind? They were in mine.

Out of curiosity, are you incapable of reading what I say and responding to my actual view because you're blinded by hate, politics or stupidity? Or is it a combination or all of them?

Was their position bigotry or not? The claim was that interracial marriage laws were not discriminatory because they applied equally to blacks and whites. Was it a valid claim or not? Was it based in bigotry or not?

 

[bendog]

But if all the GBLT folks move to california, which will soon be overrun with illegal immigrant latinos Obama made voters, or perhaps even physically disassociate itself with the continental US with a violant cataclysim of Biblcal proportions, isn't this a win for the folks who don't want equal rights for the GLBT folks? I mean, from their perspective, you'd think this was win win.

 

[kaz]

Fine, I'll answer one more time.

Were the people who actively discriminated against interracial couples, to the point of arguing it was not discrimination because it applied equally to both races, bigots in your mind? They were in mine.

Out of curiosity, are you incapable of reading what I say and responding to my actual view because you're blinded by hate, politics or stupidity? Or is it a combination or all of them?

Was their position bigotry or not?

Yes.

The socons opposition to gay marriage is also based on bigotry, they don't care about small government, they want government based on their morality. So they only oppose it because they condemn gays.

Libertarians oppose gay marriage because it expands marriage and there is no persuasive need for it. As a liberal, you need government validation. You don't grasp that we don't, which is why you never understand the answer to your question.

The claim was that interracial marriage laws were not discriminatory because they applied equally to blacks and whites. Was it a valid claim or not?

No. We just debated this point ad nauseam. Re-read the last several pages. I'm not repeating it for you.

Was it based in bigotry or not?

Is this the same question or a different one?

 

[Seawytch]

Fine, I'll answer one more time.

Out of curiosity, are you incapable of reading what I say and responding to my actual view because you're blinded by hate, politics or stupidity? Or is it a combination or all of them?

Was their position bigotry or not?

Yes.

The socons opposition to gay marriage is also based on bigotry, they don't care about small government, they want government based on their morality. So they only oppose it because they condemn gays.

Libertarians oppose gay marriage because it expands marriage and there is no persuasive need for it. As a liberal, you need government validation. You don't grasp that we don't, which is why you never understand the answer to your question.

The claim was that interracial marriage laws were not discriminatory because they applied equally to blacks and whites. Was it a valid claim or not?

No. We just debated this point ad nauseam. Re-read the last several pages. I'm not repeating it for you.

Was it based in bigotry or not?

Is this the same question or a different one?

You make no sense. It was bigotry when they say bans on interracial marriage weren't discriminatory, but it's not bigotry when you use the same argument to say its not discrimination to prevent gays from marrying?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fine, I'll answer one more time.

Out of curiosity, are you incapable of reading what I say and responding to my actual view because you're blinded by hate, politics or stupidity? Or is it a combination or all of them?

Was their position bigotry or not?

Yes.

The socons opposition to gay marriage is also based on bigotry, they don't care about small government, they want government based on their morality. So they only oppose it because they condemn gays.

Libertarians oppose gay marriage because it expands marriage and there is no persuasive need for it. As a liberal, you need government validation. You don't grasp that we don't, which is why you never understand the answer to your question.

The claim was that interracial marriage laws were not discriminatory because they applied equally to blacks and whites. Was it a valid claim or not?

No. We just debated this point ad nauseam. Re-read the last several pages. I'm not repeating it for you.

Was it based in bigotry or not?

Is this the same question or a different one?

You’ve succeeded in exhibiting the ignorance of libertarians.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law as written by the states. When a given state obeys the 14th Amendment and allows same-sex couples access to their existing marriage law – the exact same marriage law afforded opposite-sex couples – there is no ‘expansion’ of the existing law.

You also exhibit your ignorance as to liberals, as they do not seek ‘validation’ from government, or any other entity for that matter.

Liberals simply seek a consistent application of equal protection rights in accordance with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where all persons have the right to access the laws of their state, including same-sex couples with regard to marriage law.

The libertarian position would be more along the lines of abolishing marriage law altogether, which in theory a state could do. With marriage law gone so too would be the Equal Protection rights violation.

 

[kaz]

Fine, I'll answer one more time.

Was their position bigotry or not?

Yes.

The socons opposition to gay marriage is also based on bigotry, they don't care about small government, they want government based on their morality. So they only oppose it because they condemn gays.

Libertarians oppose gay marriage because it expands marriage and there is no persuasive need for it. As a liberal, you need government validation. You don't grasp that we don't, which is why you never understand the answer to your question.


No. We just debated this point ad nauseam. Re-read the last several pages. I'm not repeating it for you.

Was it based in bigotry or not?

Is this the same question or a different one?

You make no sense. It was bigotry when they say bans on interracial marriage weren't discriminatory, but it's not bigotry when you use the same argument to say its not discrimination to prevent gays from marrying?

How did you get in the military with no reading comprehension? I'm not arguing what I didn't say with you or World anymore. If you can't read, grasp and respond lucidly to what I'm saying, then there's no point.