Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. When you accept that homosexuality is about behavior and not a person's identity, you learn that it isn't being a "bigot" to disagree with it. We discriminate against all manner of behaviors that society finds objectionable. Is someone a "bigot" for finding polygamy objectionable? No. It's another sexual behavior that society has found repugnant to promote as "normal". We can do that. It's called "democracy", not "bigotry".Take away the tax breaks and DOMA is still discrimination and still unconstitutional (just like Prop 8)...and you still don't think it is discrimination. That makes you a bigot.
Y'all aren't a race. You're not a religion [but that's as close as you'll come]. You're not a gender. And your not from a country of origin. You don't qualify. So when someone disagrees with your behaviors, that's not bigotry. Being disagreed with is something you're going to have to get used to.
...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California. It's also called "a democracy".
...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California.
...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California.
That is false. Legal Same-sex Civil Marriage performed in June, July, August, September, October, and prior to November 5th 2008 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. Prop 22 (statutory alaw) was invalidated,not by the Federal government, but by the State because it conflicted with the States Constitution.
>>>>
...like the fact that gay marriage has never been legal in California.
That is false. Legal Same-sex Civil Marriage performed in June, July, August, September, October, and prior to November 5th 2008 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. Prop 22 (statutory alaw) was invalidated,not by the Federal government, but by the State because it conflicted with the States Constitution.
>>>>
But according to federal law that trumps CA law, the consensus barring gay marriages were allowed since the founding of the country. In the CA constitution, there is a reference to its subordination to the US constitution. June 2013 the US Supreme Court found as constitutional, each state's right to consensus on gay marriage. See the OP for details and quotes. As such, no lower law may interfere with the 7 million who voted for Prop 8 and their protected right to choose "yes" or "no" on gay marriage.
And the consensus under California law would have not become effective until November 5th, 2008, notice the use of "would", since it was overturned and the decision not vacated by the SCOTUS it remains overturned. The (the SCOTUS) had their chance to overturn the District Court, but didn't.
You can hang your hat on dicta from the DOMA case used in the descriptive, but the fact remains that he decision of the court in the PROP 8 case was "Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction."
The fact remains that the SCOTUS vacated the 9th's ruling and ordered dismissal of the appeal. Therefore the District Court decision remains in effect because the SCOTUS DID NOT over turn the District Court. The State chose not to appeal the District Courts ruling and therefore became binding. Even if later administrations wished to reopen the case for appeal, they won't be able to because I believe there are certain time frames after the initial decision in which appeals can be filed. That time frame has long past.
Now if you think that the consensus of the vote in Prop 8 was that it invalidated Civil Marriages back to the beginning of time, feel free to show the text of the amendment that provides such a time frame? Otherwise the amendment would have been effective on the 5th and the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution validated those Civil Marriages that had already ocurred.
You would need a new vote to invalidate them and times have continued to change, good luck with winning that at (removing legal Civil Marriages that were already in place) the polls.
>>>>
And the consensus under California law would have not become effective until November 5th, 2008, notice the use of "would", since it was overturned and the decision not vacated by the SCOTUS it remains overturned. The (the SCOTUS) had their chance to overturn the District Court, but didn't.
You can hang your hat on dicta from the DOMA case used in the descriptive, but the fact remains that he decision of the court in the PROP 8 case was "Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction."
The fact remains that the SCOTUS vacated the 9th's ruling and ordered dismissal of the appeal. Therefore the District Court decision remains in effect because the SCOTUS DID NOT over turn the District Court. The State chose not to appeal the District Courts ruling and therefore became binding. Even if later administrations wished to reopen the case for appeal, they won't be able to because I believe there are certain time frames after the initial decision in which appeals can be filed. That time frame has long past.
Now if you think that the consensus of the vote in Prop 8 was that it invalidated Civil Marriages back to the beginning of time, feel free to show the text of the amendment that provides such a time frame? Otherwise the amendment would have been effective on the 5th and the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution validated those Civil Marriages that had already ocurred.
You would need a new vote to invalidate them and times have continued to change, good luck with winning that at (removing legal Civil Marriages that were already in place) the polls.
>>>>
In your "time of validity" calculations, don't forget Prop 22...
And don't forget that SCOTUS tied the two cases legally together by hearing them at the same time. Can you think of a time when the US Supreme Court has ever done this and why?
The Ruling said that the specific petitioners lacked standing to bring the case, not that every single person lacked standing to bring the case. The "appeal" was heard and Ruled upon in a very sneaky way. By combining the two cases and joining them legally at the hip by hearing them at the same Sitting and Ruling on them at the same revelation, SCOTUS actually "Heard" and factually did represent a case of good standing against the overturners of Prop 8: Itself. The Court Itself in one clever legal manuever stood up for the petitioners/defenders of Prop 8 by Ruling in the twin case DOMA that each and EVERY single state had since the start of the country, the unquestioned constitutionally protected authority to decide BY CONSENSUS the legality of gay marriage. That is the Finding as of June 2013.
Again, if you think you're legally "gay" married in CA, think again.
read an article recently that hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases
In Doma the gay couple had already won, yet somehow wound up in Supreme court anyway. The justice department refused to defend Doma which was the will of the people as expressed by Congress,.. that should not be allowed...if they dont want to defend a law, resign, or find someone who does..as in California,
In California the will of the people was expressed in prop8, the Attorney general refused to defend the law, (again...should have resigned,)...but California does have provisions for that...which the Supreme court hypocritically (especially in light of the doma case) refused to recognize.
no doubt Scalia, is chuckling to himself about the outcome
You need to read up on the DOMA and Prop 8 cases. You're wrong on just about every point.
read an article recently that hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases
In Doma the gay couple had already won, yet somehow wound up in Supreme court anyway. The justice department refused to defend Doma which was the will of the people as expressed by Congress,.. that should not be allowed...if they dont want to defend a law, resign, or find someone who does..as in California,
In California the will of the people was expressed in prop8, the Attorney general refused to defend the law, (again...should have resigned,)...but California does have provisions for that...which the Supreme court hypocritically (especially in light of the doma case) refused to recognize.
Scalia knows its coming, just read his dissent.no doubt Scalia, is chuckling to himself about the outcome
"On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012"
(she had already won)
"U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed"
if you arent defending you should not be able to appeal,,..this makes a mockery of the appeals process. Im not sure what the role of the "bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG)" was but if standing wasnt granted in prop8 this group shouldnt have been given standing either. ....
agree with you on most of this but that it was unconstitutional. also attorneys work for their clients, AGs should too, but alongside other group......or resign
Scalia is chuckling to himself cause he doesnt really believe in the initiative process, and the Prop8 ruling may well have damaged that. Even when he made empty noises about Democracy in DOMA case. the LGBT community was used.
It is true that gay marriage is inevitable, as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire was. Therefore, our fall is inevitable as we eat away at the underpinnings of the nation until, like a two legged table, it falls.
It is sad to see. We were once such a great nation and now it's time for someone else's turn.
read an article recently that hypocritical games with standing were played in these cases
In Doma the gay couple had already won, yet somehow wound up in Supreme court anyway. The justice department refused to defend Doma which was the will of the people as expressed by Congress,.. that should not be allowed...if they dont want to defend a law, resign, or find someone who does..as in California,
In California the will of the people was expressed in prop8, the Attorney general refused to defend the law, (again...should have resigned,)...but California does have provisions for that...which the Supreme court hypocritically (especially in light of the doma case) refused to recognize.
no doubt Scalia, is chuckling to himself about the outcome
The winner isn't the one that appeals, duh. The DOJ, as the loser, appealed.
I'm agreeing with you on this except to a small degree that someone from AGs office should have defended alongside drafters.And I disagree. It's a people's initiative. The people that drafted it should defend it and the SCOTUS should have let them.
........I assume Im also disagreeing with you, that you support prop8Oh, and its not me you're disagreeing with on the Constitutionality of Prop 8...it was ruled unconstitutional and since the SCOTUS punted, it's the ruling that stands.
quote]Scalia is chuckling to himself cause he doesnt really believe in the initiative process, and the Prop8 ruling may well have damaged that. Even when he made empty noises about Democracy in DOMA case. the LGBT community was used.
I think you have a few points wrong.
In Windsor, the issue was whether DOMA required the survivor to pay a non-relative's level of tax on her partner's estate. yes, she won in lower courts, but a group representing Congress appealled the lower court rulings. the DOJ also filed to protect parts of DOMA that they were still defending.
In Perry, the problem remains that because CA was issuing Civil Union licenses, banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, period.
A constitution, to have legitimacy, has to reflect the will of the people. The California constitution spoke most recently and directly on the issue. NO to gay marriage (and it has always been the states area of law) ...this case never should have got to the federal courts at all ...the right way to handle this would have been to bring it up again in a few years as an initiative in California
Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is.
It is true that gay marriage is inevitable, as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire was.