The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Silhouette]

double post.

 

[Silhouette]

Care to place a little wager? I'll bet my legal marriage in CA allows me to file joint federal taxes this year...just as I have been filing my state taxes for years.

Misinterpretations will be cleared up with a GOP majority or Oval Office. Mark my words. The conservative Justices of the Court very cleverly Ruled on Prop 8, making it valid to the foundation of the country.

When a challenge comes before them, and it will, they will make plain the language in DOMA for those wishful thinkers who believe that there are exceptions to constitutional protections for some states. [consensus on gay marriage]

There are not any exceptions...as any poli-sci average student can tell you; let alone your attorney. All 50 states enjoy the Ruling in June 2013 asserting their constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage back to the founding of the country. That includes prop 8 and prop 22.

 

[Seawytch]

Care to place a little wager? I'll bet my legal marriage in CA allows me to file joint federal taxes this year...just as I have been filing my state taxes for years.

Misinterpretations will be cleared up with a GOP majority or Oval Office. Mark my words. The conservative Justices of the Court very cleverly Ruled on Prop 8, making it valid to the foundation of the country.

When a challenge comes before them, and it will, they will make plain the language in DOMA for those wishful thinkers who believe that there are exceptions to constitutional protections for some states. [consensus on gay marriage]

There are not any exceptions...as any poli-sci average student can tell you; let alone your attorney. All 50 states enjoy the Ruling in June 2013 asserting their constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage back to the founding of the country. That includes prop 8 and prop 22.

So bet. Sig lines or avatars. I'm betting marriage equality in CA isn't changing. It is legal and will remain so. I'll give you until a Republican sits in the Oval Office.

 

[Silhouette]

So bet. Sig lines or avatars. I'm betting marriage equality in CA isn't changing. It is legal and will remain so. I'll give you until a Republican sits in the Oval Office.

You're right. It isn't changing. It's the same as it was when prop 22 & prop 8 passed with a FULLY LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED CONSENSUS on the matter.
For your scenario to "come true", there would have to be an abortion of US Law that spans from the destruction of the California constitution all the way up to contempt of the US Supreme Court and the Constitution itself.

I like my odds.

 

[Seawytch]

So bet. Sig lines or avatars. I'm betting marriage equality in CA isn't changing. It is legal and will remain so. I'll give you until a Republican sits in the Oval Office.

You're right. It isn't changing. It's the same as it was when prop 22 & prop 8 passed with a FULLY LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED CONSENSUS on the matter.
For your scenario to "come true", there would have to be an abortion of US Law that spans from the destruction of the California constitution all the way up to contempt of the US Supreme Court and the Constitution itself.

I like my odds.

Does this mean you accept the bet? Sig lines or avatars? I say gays are married and will, forever, be able to legally marry in CA. You say that will change when?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette clearly accepted the bet.

She is as loony on fact and evidence as are birthers and truthers. Amazing.

I said last year that if DOMA was denied, then the IRS would inevitably rule that it would accept lesbian and gay and transgender couple tax returns as legitimate regardless of state law.

Guess what?

Utah is in a tizzy because its income tax is based on the federal form, which recognizes universal marriage.

Every other state with income tax is in the same pickle.

 

[Katzndogz]

When laws are passed that the people refuse to accept they take direct action. It should be expected.

 

[Seawytch]

When laws are passed that the people refuse to accept they take direct action. It should be expected.

But there hasn't been any "direct action" as a result of Prop 8 being found unconstitutional...except gaggles of married gays.

 

[Silhouette]

When laws are passed that the people refuse to accept they take direct action. It should be expected.

But there hasn't been any "direct action" as a result of Prop 8 being found unconstitutional...except gaggles of married gays.

Illegally "married" gays. Do be specific.

The US Supreme Court [the last word on the matter] found June 2013 that Prop 8's consensus and any other state's consensus on gay marriage was constitutional and protected that way since the founding of the country. Continuing to cite an overruled lower court opinion is getting a bit daft at this point.

I can pretend I'm the captain of a ship, but that doesn't make me one. I can even steer the ship around for awhile until I'm caught. I can tell everyone I know that I'm the captain. But the day will come when people will discover that I'm not. And the house of cards will fall.

Like I said, take the DOMA Ruling to your attorney and get married in another state.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When laws are passed that the people refuse to accept they take direct action. It should be expected.

But there hasn't been any "direct action" as a result of Prop 8 being found unconstitutional...except gaggles of married gays.

Illegally "married" gays. Do be specific.

The US Supreme Court [the last word on the matter] found June 2013 that Prop 8's consensus and any other state's consensus on gay marriage was constitutional and protected that way since the founding of the country. Continuing to cite an overruled lower court opinion is getting a bit daft at this point.

I can pretend I'm the captain of a ship, but that doesn't make me one. I can even steer the ship around for awhile until I'm caught. I can tell everyone I know that I'm the captain. But the day will come when people will discover that I'm not. And the house of cards will fall.

Like I said, take the DOMA Ruling to your attorney and get married in another state.

I think you and Seawytch should communicate off board and sign a contract:

1. Each of you will place $1000 in an escrow account.
2. Each of you will take the DOMA ruling (which is about the federal government not recognizing legal Civil Marriages) to 3 different layers.
3. If the lawyers say that Same-sex Civil Marriage remains valid in California, Seawytch gets the money from your account to cover the consultation fees and her own account is returned to her.
4. If the lawyers say that Same-sex Civil Marriage is invalid in California, You get the money from her account to cover the consultation fees and your own account is returned to you.



(Personally I come up with an excuse not to take the bet, you'd loose $1000 in the process. I think out of 310,000,000 people in this country you are one of the only that thinks SSCM isn't legal in California.)



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

When laws are passed that the people refuse to accept they take direct action. It should be expected.

And you will pay the fine and or go to jail.

It should be expected.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette would lose the best.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette would lose the best.

And you would be wrong...

The US Supreme Court found in June 2013 that Prop 8 was a legal consensus on the topic of gay marriage. They found this in DOMA. California as one of the 50 states in the union formed a legal consensus on gay marriage in Prop 8 and that consensus was "no". SCOTUS found this to be true retroactive to the founding of the country. No lower court, entity, government official or tribunal may strip California of the right to its consensus in prop 8. The word "consensus" here is pivotal. Consensus means the majority choice of a gathering of the many. It does not mean a mandate to say yes. It does not mean an authoritarian dictate from one person or an oligarchy of the few or minority.

The US Supreme Court June 2013 did not hold that gay marriage was a constitutional right. Did it say that outright? No. But it said it loud and clear nevertheless in constitutionally-interpreting states the right to an up or down consensus on it. You aren't allowed an up or down vote in each state on a constitutionally protected right. Nor are you allowed to circumvent that right by a lower court.

Ergo, gay marriage is not legal in California.

To convince me that it is, you would first have to convince me that either/and

1. California no longer belongs to the Union.

2. California no longer has a state initiative system.

3. California's Constitution does not subordinate itself to the US Constitution.

4. California no longer is a democracy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Silhouette would lose the best.

And you would be wrong...

The US Supreme Court found in June 2013 that Prop 8 was a legal consensus on the topic of gay marriage. They found this in DOMA. California as one of the 50 states in the union formed a legal consensus on gay marriage in Prop 8 and that consensus was "no". SCOTUS found this to be true retroactive to the founding of the country. No lower court, entity, government official or tribunal may strip California of the right to its consensus in prop 8. The word "consensus" here is pivotal. Consensus means the majority choice of a gathering of the many. It does not mean a mandate to say yes. It does not mean an authoritarian dictate from one person or an oligarchy of the few or minority.

The US Supreme Court June 2013 did not hold that gay marriage was a constitutional right. Did it say that outright? No. But it said it loud and clear nevertheless in constitutionally-interpreting states the right to an up or down consensus on it. You aren't allowed an up or down vote in each state on a constitutionally protected right. Nor are you allowed to circumvent that right by a lower court.

Ergo, gay marriage is not legal in California.

To convince me that it is, you would first have to convince me that either/and

1. California no longer belongs to the Union.

2. California no longer has a state initiative system.

3. California's Constitution does not subordinate itself to the US Constitution.

4. California no longer is a democracy.

Again, you are taking a small snippet of dicta about the DOMA case and trying to apply it to the Prop 8 as stare decisis. The DOMA case was about FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Same-sex Civil Marriage from a State that choose to recognize it. It had/has no bearing on States that don't recognize it. Such a case has not reached the SCOTUS yet.

1. You complete choose to ignore that in immediately after your out of context cutting that the SCOTUS then says "subject to constitutional guarantees".

2. You try to use the DOMA case to overturn the PROP 8 case but the SCOTUS themselves allowed the Prop 8 District Court ruling to stand. They only vacated the 9th's ruling (which upheld Prop 8), but allowed the District Court ruling to remain as the governing ruling yet it found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.



Sorry, you are incorrect, but refuse to recognize that your opinion is not grounded in legal fact.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

When laws are passed that the people refuse to accept they take direct action. It should be expected.

But there hasn't been any "direct action" as a result of Prop 8 being found unconstitutional...except gaggles of married gays.

Illegally "married" gays. Do be specific.

The US Supreme Court [the last word on the matter] found June 2013 that Prop 8's consensus and any other state's consensus on gay marriage was constitutional and protected that way since the founding of the country. Continuing to cite an overruled lower court opinion is getting a bit daft at this point.

I can pretend I'm the captain of a ship, but that doesn't make me one. I can even steer the ship around for awhile until I'm caught. I can tell everyone I know that I'm the captain. But the day will come when people will discover that I'm not. And the house of cards will fall.

Like I said, take the DOMA Ruling to your attorney and get married in another state.

No need. I'm legally married and have been since October 2008. This year we will file joint federal taxes because of the DOMA ruling. Will my tax return be proof enough for you?

 

[Silhouette]

Again, you are taking a small snippet of dicta about the DOMA case and trying to apply it to the Prop 8 as stare decisis. The DOMA case was about FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Same-sex Civil Marriage from a State that choose to recognize it. It had/has no bearing on States that don't recognize it. Such a case has not reached the SCOTUS yet.

1. You complete choose to ignore that in immediately after your out of context cutting that the SCOTUS then says "subject to constitutional guarantees".

2. You try to use the DOMA case to overturn the PROP 8 case but the SCOTUS themselves allowed the Prop 8 District Court ruling to stand. They only vacated the 9th's ruling (which upheld Prop 8), but allowed the District Court ruling to remain as the governing ruling yet it found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.

They allowed the the lower court ruling to "stand"? Or did they punt? I notice y'all flop around on that quite a bit.

A constitutional finding, retroactive to the founding of the country, avered dozens of times in the dicta in DOMA isn't "a small snippet". It is everything. It is a proclamation of huge gravity.

They found, once again, that each sovereign state has and always has had since the founding of the country, the CONSTITUTIONAL right to consensus on gay marriage.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Now when you say they said all this subject to "constitutional guarantees", NOWHERE in the dicta is there mention of gay marriage as a constitutional guarantee. In fact, the very statement of declaring consensus [a choice] in each state on gay marriage a constitutional right of each state, They were telling the world that the right to say "no" [inherent in the term "consensus"] means that gay marriage is not constitutionally protected.

This isn't that complicated to understand. SCOTUS worded their Opinion on DOMA to aver that Prop 8 is in fact legal without actually saying so. They wanted someone else to challenge it so they would "have to" uphold any proposition enacted by consensus, and to make the Upholding retroactive. It was cowardly to be sure, or smart; however you want to look at it. In the end, they knew challenges were going to come to these twin cases and they wanted the language, the dicta, to refer back to when they have to write future decisions.

They just didn't want a bunch of gays killing themselves or throwing fits and tantrums or blackmailing people like usual because they didn't get to usurp the core values of a society they happened to find themselves in. They always seem to do that when they aren't successful and forcing their behavioral mores on others to see as "normal" so that they don't have to question themselves. If your memories are too painful to confront, better to change the whole of society to see what your odd behaviors are as "normal". Such is the gravity and motivation of the suppressed and disturbed psyche.

That all still doesn't change the reality of the law. Gay marriage is not a constitutionally supported right. The ability to say yes or no to it, state by state, all 50 of them however IS a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

Back to the founding of the country.

Prop 22 and Prop 8 are fully potent and binding laws.

 

[dcraelin]

I believe in these state constitutional amendment disputes, a state law declared "unconstitutional" still stays on the books, and could I think be enforced by newly elected officers.

 

[Silhouette]

I believe that is the case. However, the Highest Court in the land declared that Prop 8 was a constitutionally-protected consensus for the state of California and all other of the 50 states. It MUST be enforced. It isn't up to local discretion. Constitutional rights never are.

There could be some serious punishments for those rogue officials in CA currently in contempt of the US Supreme Court.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again, you are taking a small snippet of dicta about the DOMA case and trying to apply it to the Prop 8 as stare decisis. The DOMA case was about FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Same-sex Civil Marriage from a State that choose to recognize it. It had/has no bearing on States that don't recognize it. Such a case has not reached the SCOTUS yet.

1. You complete choose to ignore that in immediately after your out of context cutting that the SCOTUS then says "subject to constitutional guarantees".

2. You try to use the DOMA case to overturn the PROP 8 case but the SCOTUS themselves allowed the Prop 8 District Court ruling to stand. They only vacated the 9th's ruling (which upheld Prop 8), but allowed the District Court ruling to remain as the governing ruling yet it found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional.



Sorry, you are incorrect, but refuse to recognize that your opinion is not grounded in legal fact.


>>>>

How can a state choose to ignore a signed Federal law concerning DOMA? Are we setting new precedence where a state can also decide for themselves whether or not they care to recognize Federal Law concerning immigration? Last I checked any state challenge to go against Federal law and determine their OWN state policies was rejected? So which is it? Do we now pick and choose which Federal laws are followed and which can be ignored because the state chooses not to accept it?

Personally I find that gay marriage should be a state issue anyways, but Congress would have to write new legislation countering DOMA .... not simply say we don't like it so we're not going to defend it in court. If that's the case, expect Obamacare to be treated in much the same way from the states.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They allowed the the lower court ruling to "stand"?

Correct, the District Court's ruling that Prop 8 was unconsitutional stands because the SCOTUS didn't vacate it, as a matter of fact they vacated the 9th's ruling that would have allowed Prop 8 to remain in place.

Or did they punt?

Yes, they also punted in the Prop 8 case because they chose to not accept the California Supreme Courts answer to the question on whether proponents had standing (which IIRC their response was "yes, they do") and punted on the core constitutionality question of Same-sex Civil Marriage and instead vacated the 9th's ruling based on standing.

I notice y'all flop around on that quite a bit.

No flip flop at all. The SCOTUS had basically four choices:

1. Rule on the core issue of the Constitutionality of SSCM bans and creating a decision with national impact - that being that - Civil Marriage is a right to be extended to same-sex couples.
2. Rule on the core issue of the Constitutionality of SSCM bans and creating a decision with national impact - that being that - Civil Marriage is not a right to be extended to same-sex couples.
3. Punt on the core issue and craft a narrowly tailored (i.e. it only applies to California) decision that allowed Prop 8 to stand.
4. Punt on the core issue and craft a narrowly tailored (i.e. it only applies to California) decision that allowed Prop 8 to be overturned.

The opted for #4.

A constitutional finding, retroactive to the founding of the country, avered dozens of times in the dicta in DOMA isn't "a small snippet". It is everything. It is a proclamation of huge gravity.

Hyperbole. The word "consensus" appears once in the finding. The word "founding" doesn't appear at all. The work "framer" appears once in the finding.

And yes, your snippet is "small and out of context". The DOMA case is not about the core issue of whether states can allow or ban Same-sex Civil Marriage, the DOMA case is about whether the federal government can deny equal treatment under the law to legally married couples entered into under state law when that state achieved a consensus (as reflected by the legislative body elected by the people).

They found, once again, that each sovereign state has and always has had since the founding of the country, the CONSTITUTIONAL right to consensus on gay marriage.

No they didn't, see below. They did NOT say that there is a constitutional right for States to exclude same-sex couples from Civil Marriage. They said that when a State does choose to include them, that the Federal government must recognize it. A very different thing.

"The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other.

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality."​

Now when you say they said all this subject to "constitutional guarantees", NOWHERE in the dicta is there mention of gay marriage as a constitutional guarantee.

Didn't say it was, never made that case.

What I've said consistently is the court did not rule on that issue in the DOMA case. What they ruled on was the Federal government ignoring legally valid Civil Marriages under State law. That is what the court ruled on.

In fact, the very statement of declaring consensus [a choice] in each state on gay marriage a constitutional right of each state,

They didn't make that statement (see quote above).

Read in context, they are talking about the State reaching consensus to authorize Civil Marriages and then the federal government discriminating by not recognizing them equally.

They were telling the world that the right to say "no" [inherent in the term "consensus"] means that gay marriage is not constitutionally protected.

No.

What they were telling the federal government is that government entities can't single out same-sex couples for discrimination.

Also dicta and not star decisis is...

"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535 (1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."​

So while the DOMA case applies to the federal government not recognizing valid Civil Marriaged entered into under State law, it's dicta does point out that the SCOTUS views laws targeting homsexuals and denying their equal relationships under the law as a violation of "basic due process and equal protection principles ".

This isn't that complicated to understand. SCOTUS worded their Opinion on DOMA to aver that Prop 8 is in fact legal without actually saying so.

No they didn't.

They wanted someone else to challenge it so they would "have to" uphold any proposition enacted by consensus, and to make the Upholding retroactive. It was cowardly to be sure, or smart; however you want to look at it. In the end, they knew challenges were going to come to these twin cases and they wanted the language, the dicta, to refer back to when they have to write future decisions.

And yet those challenges have already occurred and been denied but at the State level and Federal level. The 9th lifted it stay which allowed legal SSCM to resume in California and the SCOTUS received and emergency request to allow the stay to remain in place. The request was denied and the SCOTUS then allowed marriages to resume.

If the SCOTUS was being so sneaky, then they would have granted the emergency stay putting further marriages on hold. They didn't.

That all still doesn't change the reality of the law. Gay marriage is not a constitutionally supported right.

That question has not been answered because the SCOTUS has never taken a case and issued a decision on the matter. DOMA was a federal Civil Marriage recognition case and Prop 8 was decided on standing. (Baker v. Nelson [1972] was not a case heard with a written decision, it was a dismissal based on the legal landscape of the time.)

The SCOTUS has punted on taking a stand on that question. But given their recognition that such laws against a targeted group violate due process and equal protection (See the DOMA ruling quoted above and the Romer v. Evans ruling), you shouldn't hold your breath.

Prop 22 and Prop 8 are fully potent and binding laws.

Prop 22 overturned by the California Supreme court.

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional by the Federal District Court, a decision left in place by the SCOTUS as it wasn't vacated.


Sorry, both are dead.



>>>>