The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[WorldWatcher]

Put on the ballot?

Yes, put on the ballot which is the required process for changing the text of the California Constitution, neither the Governor or the Attorney General can summarily change the text.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.​

You mean, like a federally protected constitutional right of a consensus initiative defining marriage for the state of CA? An initiative like that? And when the 7 million voters there vote again to say "yes, we want that language preserved in our constitution" how will AG Harris, Gov Brown and their whip Senator Leno remove that decision from the People?

There has been no SCOTUS decision which provides that States can say "No", the DOMA decision was about States that said "Yes" and the federal government denied equal protection under the law to Civilly Married couples based on gender.

Newsflash: According to the Decision in the twin case to Prop 8 called the "DOMA" Decision,

Newsflash: DOMA and Prop 8 were not "twin cases", they were heard in separate sessions and separate decisions were issued and had two fundamental different questions. DOMA was about federal law and it's recognition of valid civil marriages issued by the State. Prop 8 was about citizens voting to deprive equal treatment under the law to a specific group of citizens, and even then the SCOTUS punted by dismissing the appeal based on "standing". They vacated the 9th's ruling but left the District Court's ruling as valid in that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Because that's the only way so called "gay marriage" will be legal there. Until then, as now, it is illegal there. According to the same federal authorities and initiative system you cite as "reason" you allege instead that it is "legal".

Psssttt...

Here is the preamble to the California State Constitution...

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution.​

The preamble doesn't say what you said it says.


As a matter of fact the California Constitution says:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.​

Prop 8 was found invalid under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution acknowledges the supremacy of that relationship.

So will you propose next that that language be changed? Because that's the only way so called "gay marriage" will be legal there. Until then, as now, it is illegal there. According to the same federal authorities and initiative system you cite as "reason" you allege instead that it is "legal".

Same Sex Civil Marriage is already legal in California and has been since Prop 8 was found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS ruled that the District Court ruling stands because the did not vacate it.

The SCOTUS says it's legal...

........ The California Supreme Court says it's legal...

..............And while it may burn you bumm, same-sex couples are entering into legal Civil Marriages across the state.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

I hate to break the bad news must neither a politician, the AG, nor the Governor can summarily change the language of the State Constitution. That can only be removed, in this case, by it being put on the ballot and voted on. Whether the language remains or is removed in a future vote, the end result is the same - it is an invalid and unenforceable provision since the standing judicial decision was that it is unconstitutional.

Put on the ballot? You mean, like a federally protected constitutional right of a consensus initiative defining marriage for the state of CA? An initiative like that? And when the 7 million voters there vote again to say "yes, we want that language preserved in our constitution" how will AG Harris, Gov Brown and their whip Senator Leno remove that decision from the People?

Newsflash: According to the Decision in the twin case to Prop 8 called the "DOMA" Decision, states since the founding of our nation have had the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage via consensus. There was no finding of people who practice the behavior called "homosexuality" as a special class exempt from this consensus

When will you learn that it doesn't matter how many people vote for or against an issue if the result of that vote is deemed unconstitutional?

If you want that fact to change, then you need to change the Constitution.

Whether homosexuality is a special class or not is also irrelevant. The fact is, people can marry people, regardless of sex.

Silhouette needs to look up what happened to CA Prop 186.

 

[Silhouette]

the language, Sil, is unconstitutional, period

whether the language is changed matters not, because that part of the Cal constitution is invalid.

Would you also consider that the US Supreme Court's "language" in its decision on the twin case to Prop 8 [DOMA] "unconsitutional"? Remember, in their decision, they cited that gay marraige was only "allowed" "in some states". And they also stated that each state has the "unquestioned authority" to "consensus" on gay marriage.

As such, the most recent and most Dominant declaration on the matter of gay marraige says that:

1. Gay marriage is not a fundamental "right". and

2. The decision on whether or not to allow it is up to a consensus in each state. And that constitutional right upheld June 2013 is retroactive to the founding of the country. So it includes Prop 8 and the earlier one both defining marriage to exclude gays and polygamists.

Ergo, gay marriage is illegal in California. THAT is why CA Senator Leno has not introduced an initiative to change the wording of the constitution; or to amend that statement by another one that modifies it. He knows full well what the definition of sedition is. If he felt gay marriage was truly, actually legal in that state, he would push like a ox on meth to rewrite the constitution there. Odd, that he isn't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Would you also consider that the US Supreme Court's "language" in its decision on the twin case to Prop 8 [DOMA] "unconsitutional"?

DOMA and Prop 8 were not "twin cases", they were heard in separate sessions and separate decisions were issued and had two fundamental different questions. DOMA was about federal law and it's recognition of valid civil marriages issued by the State. Prop 8 was about citizens voting to deprive equal treatment under the law to a specific group of citizens, and even then the SCOTUS punted by dismissing the appeal based on "standing". They vacated the 9th's ruling but left the District Court's ruling as valid in that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Remember, in their decision, they cited that gay marraige was only "allowed" "in some states". And they also stated that each state has the "unquestioned authority" to "consensus" on gay marriage.

No they didn't. They said...

"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.​

They don't have "unquestioned authority in the realm of Civil Marriage.

1. Gay marriage is not a fundamental "right". and

The SCOTUS didn't address that issue at all.

2. The decision on whether or not to allow it is up to a consensus in each state. And that constitutional right upheld June 2013 is retroactive to the founding of the country. So it includes Prop 8 and the earlier one both defining marriage to exclude gays and polygamists.

No it didn't. The court examined federal law and said that if the State says "Yes" then there was no other reason then a wish to discriminate against gays and therefore the federal is required to recognize Civil Marriages for same-sex couples when the State says "Yes", they did not address at all States that said "No". That will be a different case.

Ergo, gay marriage is illegal in California.

Wrong again, the SCOTUS allowed the ruling of Prop 8 being unconstitutional to stand, they did no vacate it. This is recognized by both the SCOTUS and the California Supreme Courts who refused motions to prevent Same-sex Civil Marriages from resuming after the decision.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Chief, I admire your perseverance. I don't think Sill is ever going to get it, but he's not the only one that reads the thread. Bravo Zulu.

 

[Silhouette]

Would you also consider that the US Supreme Court's "language" in its decision on the twin case to Prop 8 [DOMA] "unconsitutional"?

DOMA and Prop 8 were not "twin cases", they were heard in separate sessions and separate decisions were issued and had two fundamental different questions. DOMA was about federal law and it's recognition of valid civil marriages issued by the State. Prop 8 was about citizens voting to deprive equal treatment under the law to a specific group of citizens, and even then the SCOTUS punted by dismissing the appeal based on "standing". They vacated the 9th's ruling but left the District Court's ruling as valid in that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Re-read the OP's quotes from the DOMA Opinion. In it and by following the link you will find where the court said that New York "allowed" gay marriage and that gay marriage was legal "in some states". It did not say "upheld" and "in all states". It said "allowed" "in some states".... Ah the difference direct quotes make. That you left that part out does not affect it's potency in law.

As to your "point" above, "punting" means "kicking something away from oneself and creating a distance between". That does not mean "agreeing with what one kicked away" by default. The fact that gay marriage was referred to in legal ease as "allowed" "in some states" by an "unquestioned authority" of each state to its constitutionally protected "consensus" as "in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended", means that the fully binding and legal vote of California on Prop 8 is the LAW. Period.

There is no lower court decision that was "punted" that can stand in complete diametric opposition to the DOMA finding in June 2013 that attempt to strip just this one state away from its rights to consensus on the matter of gay marriage. Sorry to have to break the news to you. And as one has said here, just because a law is written or a lower judicial decision "punted" or existing somewhere collecting dust, doesn't mean it's the enforceable law.

To find out what the enforceable law is on any legal question such as this one debated in this thread, one has to look to the highest authority in the legal system. That, as you already know before I write this, is the US Supreme Court. No lower decision punted or otherwise may stand that defies their position on a given matter. On the given matter of gay marriage, the US Supreme Court has just Found that each state has a right to say yes or no to it. And that they see it only as "allowed" "in some states". Further, they expound in DOMA over and over to the point of redundancy that the question of gay marriage weighed against the social fabric of each state means that each state has a vested interest in setting the standards of marriage for itself and not to have the federal goverment tell it what to do about the question of gay marriage.

Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE is it Upheld that gays have the "unquestioned authority" to become married in each and all of the 50 states. They did Conclude however that each state needs a voice in this debate. They iterated and reiterated that gay marriage is a new and odd idea; one that each state has a right to weigh in on via consensus. THAT is the overall conclusion of the DOMA Opinion and THAT is the reason they teamed it up with Prop 8 at the same legal Sitting.

Nobody made a big deal about the two cases being heard at the same time. But that was on purpose. Yet nervous lawyers for the gay agenda knew there was a significance to it. All DOMA found was that ONCE A STATE HAD DECIDED FOR ITSELF VIA CONSENSUS their position on gay marriage, the fed had to acknowledge that and abide by it. It in no way Found that gay marriage is a protected right across all 50 states.

>>The entirety of the DOMA Opinion is that it supports Proposition 8<< It supports and Upholds Proposition 8.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Re-read the OP's quotes from the DOMA Opinion.

I've read them multiple times, doesn't change a thing. DOMA was about Federal law and States that said "Yes", it had and has no bearing on States that have said "No".

As to your "point" above, "punting" means "kicking something away from oneself and creating a distance between".

Eactly, instead of address the core issue of whether States can discriminate based on gender in terms of Civil Marriage, the SCOTUS punted on the Prop 8 case dismissing the case based on "Standing" and leaving the District Court Judges ruling as the final legal authority. The ruling was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and therefore it was overturned.

means that the fully binding and legal vote of California on Prop 8 is the LAW. Period.

False.

The final determination was that Prop 8 was overturned as unconstitutional. The federal government recognizes this, the California government recognizes this, the California Supreme court has recognized this (because they denied further appeals/injunctions), and the United States Supreme Court has recognized this (because they denied further appeals/injunctions).

There is no lower court decision that was "punted"

Correct, the SCOTUS allowed the lower court ruling (i.e. Prop 8 is unconstitutional) to stand.

To find out what the enforceable law is on any legal question such as this one debated in this thread, one has to look to the highest authority in the legal system. That, as you already know before I write this, is the US Supreme Court.

Correct, and it was the SCOTUS that allowed Prop 8 to remain unconstitutional in their Prop 8 decision because they allowed the Disctrict Court Judges ruling to stand without vacating it...

and...

When further request for injunctive relief were send to them THEY TURNED THEM DOWN. If the SCOTUS ruling were to be interpreted as you claim then the SCOTUS would have granted the request to stay the resumption of Same-sex Civil Marriage - but they didn't.

>>The entirety of the DOMA Opinion is that it supports Proposition 8<< It supports and Upholds Proposition 8.

#1 - No it doesn't, the DOMA decision doesn't address states that say "no" at all. The DOMA decision was about states that said "Yes" and federal discrimination. That's it.

#2 - Some things that should really make you worry as they repersent the sense of the majority opinion is that...

(A) The federal government does have jurisdiction over State marriage laws to further valid need:

"Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage
in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA
should be considered as the beginning point in deciding
whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and
tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will
be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being
within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet
it is further established that Congress, in enacting dis
crete statutes, can make determinations that bear on
marital rights and privileges. Just this Term the Court
upheld the authority of the Congress to pre-empt state
laws, allowing a former spouse to retain life insurance
proceeds under a federal program that gave her priority,
because of formal beneficiary designation rules, over the
wife by a second marriage who survived the husband.
Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U. S. ___ (2013); see also
Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U. S. 46 (1981); Wissner v.
Wissner, 338 U. S. 655 (1950). This is one example
of the general principle that when the Federal
Government acts in the exercise of its own proper
authority, it has a wide choice of the mechanisms
and means to adopt. See McCulloch v. Mary*land,
4 Wheat. 316, 421 (1819). Congress has the power
both to ensure efficiency in the administration of its
programs and to choose what larger goals and policies to
pursue."​

(B) The sense of the court is that unequal treatment for same-sex couples is fundamentally a violation of the principles of the 5th Amendment (which applies to the Federal government) which mirrors the protection of the 14th Amendment (which applies to the states). They punted this time based on "standing", but the signals are clear that discrimination based on sexual orientation (which is what DOMA did) is not looked on variably by a significant portion of the SCOTUS.​

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.

<<SNIP>>

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their
lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible
and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many
aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to
the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples
from obtaining government health care benefits they would
otherwise receive.

<<SNIP>>

the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against
denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the
Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the
power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth
Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more
specific and all the better understood and preserved.

<<SNIP>>

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose
overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and
to injure those whom the State, by its marriage
laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.
By seeking to displace this protection and treating those
persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages.​

>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

1) Constitutions have no legitimacy if not based on the will of the people. If the people had known that the 14th amendment included gay marriage rights, it would not have passed and blacks would be disadvantaged too. The gender issue of women voting wasnt solved by 14th so then than neither should the gay marriage issue.

2) The correct way to approach this is to have civil unions with perhaps marriage as a "stare decisis" subcategory of civil union. No civil unions could carry with them tax benefits.

3) For the dubious advancement of going from full-benefit civil unions to "marriage" in California, the gay community has perhaps done major damage to Our Republic/Democracy. The initiative and referendum is one of the few methods left to get around a purchased government. Scalia is probably chuckling to himself yet.

4) It is unfair to those going to court to not know they dont have standing except after 3 layers of court.
IF those defending prop8 had known they would be denied standing they would not have defended the law in the fist place. That is another part of the joke that is the federal court system along with gimmicky rules on standing that say a case already won, in DOMA, could continue on to Supreme court, and yet a whole states voters could be essentially denied standing.

5) California should have been punished in some way for not defending their voters in court. Not doing so violates the basic principles of our Republic/Democracy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1) Constitutions have no legitimacy if not based on the will of the people. If the people had known that the 14th amendment included gay marriage rights, it would not have passed and blacks would be disadvantaged too. The gender issue of women voting wasnt solved by 14th so then than neither should the gay marriage issue.

2) The correct way to approach this is to have civil unions with perhaps marriage as a "stare decisis" subcategory of civil union. No civil unions could carry with them tax benefits.

3) For the dubious advancement of going from full-benefit civil unions to "marriage" in California, the gay community has perhaps done major damage to Our Republic/Democracy. The initiative and referendum is one of the few methods left to get around a purchased government. Scalia is probably chuckling to himself yet.

4) It is unfair to those going to court to not know they dont have standing except after 3 layers of court.
IF those defending prop8 had known they would be denied standing they would not have defended the law in the fist place. That is another part of the joke that is the federal court system along with gimmicky rules on standing that say a case already won, in DOMA, could continue on to Supreme court, and yet a whole states voters could be essentially denied standing.

5) California should have been punished in some way for not defending their voters in court. Not doing so violates the basic principles of our Republic/Democracy.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and that case law has no legitimacy if it is not applied consistently. Among other things, 14th Amendment jurisprudence requires that all persons be afforded equal protection of the law, and equal access to all the laws of a given state, including marriage law. Therefore, laws prohibiting same-sex couples access to marriage are invalid because they lack a rational basis, seek no legitimate legislative end, and are enacted solely to make homosexuals different from everyone else, this the states cannot do.

The notion of ‘civil unions’ as some sort of ‘alternate marriage’ is also invalid, where separate but equal remains un-Constitutional.

The only threat to our Constitutional Republic would manifest if we abandoned the rule of law and allowed the tyranny of the majority, such as Proposition 8. One’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Referenda, like legislative acts, are subject to the rule of law and judicial review, and when found to be offensive to the Constitution, invalidated.

Advocates of Proposition 8 were well aware of their lack of standing from the outset, when the State wisely and correctly elected to not defend a measure its officers believed to be un-Constitutional.

The officers of a given state cannot be compelled to defend a measure they believe in good faith to be un-Constitutional; indeed, they have a responsibility to the residents of their state to not waste time and resources defending a measure the people clearly enacted in error.

 

[dcraelin]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and that case law has no legitimacy if it is not applied consistently. Among other things, 14th Amendment jurisprudence requires that all persons be afforded equal protection of the law, and equal access to all the laws of a given state, including marriage law. Therefore, laws prohibiting same-sex couples access to marriage are invalid because they lack a rational basis, seek no legitimate legislative end, and are enacted solely to make homosexuals different from everyone else, this the states cannot do.

No, the Constitution has no legitimacy unless based in the will of the people. This is what the revolution was based on. The founders wanted to do away with the common law because they saw its abuses. I agree case law should be consistent to the extent you need it. But in this case you didnt, The people in the Republic of California had spoken. Like I said, if the 14th was seen as applying to gender issues it would have solved women's suffrage...it didn't.

"enacted solely to make homosexuals different" Marriage laws are a relic of the church-state of England. They certainly werent enacted to make homosexuals feel different.

The only threat to our Constitutional Republic would manifest if we abandoned the rule of law and allowed the tyranny of the majority, such as Proposition 8. One’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Referenda, like legislative acts, are subject to the rule of law and judicial review, and when found to be offensive to the Constitution, invalidated.

The Bill of Rights came thru the "tyranny of the majority", (a dangerous and idiotic phrase only used by elitists). Once The courts of California had ruled it constitutional that should have been the end of it.

Advocates of Proposition 8 were well aware of their lack of standing from the outset, when the State wisely and correctly elected to not defend a measure its officers believed to be un-Constitutional.

NO, The state of California led them to believe they had standing. And they should have had also, given that its was an error of either California or a federal court.

The officers of a given state cannot be compelled to defend a measure they believe in good faith to be un-Constitutional; indeed, they have a responsibility to the residents of their state to not waste time and resources defending a measure the people clearly enacted in error.

Who says they cant be compelled, Lawyers defend multi-murderers in court they should be either compelled to defend with the assistance of a measure's supporters OR they should resign their office and let someone with a sense of duty to the state take the job.

 

[Silhouette]

1) Constitutions have no legitimacy if not based on the will of the people. If the people had known that the 14th amendment included gay marriage rights, it would not have passed and blacks would be disadvantaged too. The gender issue of women voting wasnt solved by 14th so then than neither should the gay marriage issue.

2) The correct way to approach this is to have civil unions with perhaps marriage as a "stare decisis" subcategory of civil union. No civil unions could carry with them tax benefits.

3) For the dubious advancement of going from full-benefit civil unions to "marriage" in California, the gay community has perhaps done major damage to Our Republic/Democracy. The initiative and referendum is one of the few methods left to get around a purchased government. Scalia is probably chuckling to himself yet.

4) It is unfair to those going to court to not know they dont have standing except after 3 layers of court.
IF those defending prop8 had known they would be denied standing they would not have defended the law in the fist place. That is another part of the joke that is the federal court system along with gimmicky rules on standing that say a case already won, in DOMA, could continue on to Supreme court, and yet a whole states voters could be essentially denied standing.

5) California should have been punished in some way for not defending their voters in court. Not doing so violates the basic principles of our Republic/Democracy.

Excellent points, all, dcraelin. Excellent.

It is true that in order to deny standing to the defenders of Prop 8 they have de facto denied standing for 7 million majority voters to their constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage. Which is the same thing as saying that federal courts have denied standing to the California State initiative system. By saying defenders of a legally-enacted initiative that is constitutionally-protected as such "lacked standing", the federal government declared open warfare on the initiative system. They declared that it is defunct and no longer applicable law.

Next you will see oil companies moving into that state where initiative law now bans offshore drilling. They will declare that initiative law is non-enforceable there and simply begin negotiating federal contracts to drill offshore.

All it will take legally is one, just one California voter to step up and assert their constitutionally-protected right to say "no" to gay marriage via their initiative vote and the crap will hit the fan. March that puppy right up to SCOTUS and pull out the DOMA Opinion, the California Constitution and remind the Court that consensus on gay marriage is legally protected back to the founding of the country.

As long as California is a sovereign state and their Constitution is valid and the initiative system is also valid, gay marriage is ILLEGAL in California until the fed steps in and declares formally that the initiative system [consensus to govern themselves] is dead and defunct.

Force the fed back on its heels on the matter and watch them squirm.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As long as California is a sovereign state and their Constitution is valid and the initiative system is also valid, gay marriage is ILLEGAL in California until the fed steps in and declares formally that the initiative system [consensus to govern themselves] is dead and defunct.

Wrong on multiple points:

#1 - The California is soverign within Constitutional limits, Prop 8 was found unconstitutional and even the California Constitution expresses those limits as does the DOMA decision:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

and

Windsor v. United States
The States&#8217; 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.​

#2 - Same Sex Civil Marriage is legal in California because Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution which the California Constitution points out that state laws are subordinate to the Federal Constitution.


#3 - Just because the text is still on the State Constitution does not mean the passage is still valid. Since it was ruled to be unconstitutional it is no longer operative. Just like the Loving decision making anti-miscegenation Civil Marriage bans unconstitutional. That decision occurred in 1967, yet Alabama did not remove the language for about 12,000 days. It has only been 101 days since the SCOTUS ruling and the California has not acted yet to amend the State Constitution nor has their been a vote by the people remove the text. That still doesn't mean the text is operative. For your claim to be valid, then you would have to argue that interracial marriages remained illegal in Alabama for 33 years until the people actually voted to remove the language from their constitution - a silly premise.


#4 - The Federal government does not need to rule that the entire initiative/referendum process is unconstitutional to invalidate Prop 8. Just as the federal government did not have to rule that the entire Colorado initiative/referendum process was unconstitutional when it struck down the anti-gay initiative in Romer v. Evens. They only need to rule that that one specific usage was unconstitutional, not the whole process.​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

#2 - Same Sex Civil Marriage is legal in California because Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution which the California Constitution points out that state laws are subordinate to the Federal Constitution.


#3 - Just because the text is still on the State Constitution does not mean the passage is still valid. Since it was ruled to be unconstitutional it is no longer operative. Just like the Loving decision making anti-miscegenation Civil Marriage bans unconstitutional. That decision occurred in 1967, yet Alabama did not remove the language for about 12,000 days. It has only been 101 days since the SCOTUS ruling and the California has not acted yet to amend the State Constitution nor has their been a vote by the people remove the text. That still doesn't mean the text is operative. For your claim to be valid, then you would have to argue that interracial marriages remained illegal in Alabama for 33 years until the people actually voted to remove the language from their constitution - a silly premise.


#4 - The Federal government does not need to rule that the entire initiative/referendum process is unconstitutional to invalidate Prop 8. Just as the federal government did not have to rule that the entire Colorado initiative/referendum process was unconstitutional when it struck down the anti-gay initiative in Romer v. Evens. They only need to rule that that one specific usage was unconstitutional, not the whole process.[/indent]


>>>>

#2. Same sex marriage is not legal in California because Prop 8 was found TO be constitutional. Not only constitutional, but protected as such since the founding of the country. The twin Prop 8/DOMA Hearing rendered no, as in ZERO status for gays as a protected class whose hopes for marriage must be entertained in every state. As you know full well by now, the Supreme Court Justices instead said that each state gets to decide by consensus on the question of gay marriage, and then AFTER that, the fed has to abide by whatever they say. That is precisely the same stamp as saying "Prop 8 was a valid consensus". Unless you're arguing that California's initiative system is now defunct?

#3. Ergo, as long as the state of Calfornia has an initiative system that is operative, the text in the CA constitution banning polygamy and same sex marriage is the law.

#4. Please point me to where the Supreme Court named California as a singular exception to their conclusion that each and every sovereign state had the constitutionally protected consensus to DECIDE "yes" or "no" on gay marriage?

And while you're mulling all that over, remember that no matter what you say about California laws Mr. Leno is trying to shove into kindergarten over there, none of them are applicable if they stand in direct opposition to the June 2013 Supreme Court finding that each state may say "no" to gay marriage via a consensus precisely and exactly like Proposition 8...

 

[Seawytch]

Sil, does ANYONE share your delusion that SSM is not legal in CA?

 

[bodecea]

Sil, does ANYONE share your delusion that SSM is not legal in CA?

Was there for a whole bunch of SSMs in Palm Springs this weekend.

 

[dcraelin]

I think my view is a little different but I haven't studied it all that much. As I understand it, because the Federal judiciary was never intended to interfere with state government, Constitutional amendments like prop8 stay on the books and theoretically can be enforced by another officer or administration. As Jackson was at least rumored to have said on another case. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!".

 

[WorldWatcher]

#2 - Same Sex Civil Marriage is legal in California because Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution which the California Constitution points out that state laws are subordinate to the Federal Constitution.


#3 - Just because the text is still on the State Constitution does not mean the passage is still valid. Since it was ruled to be unconstitutional it is no longer operative. Just like the Loving decision making anti-miscegenation Civil Marriage bans unconstitutional. That decision occurred in 1967, yet Alabama did not remove the language for about 12,000 days. It has only been 101 days since the SCOTUS ruling and the California has not acted yet to amend the State Constitution nor has their been a vote by the people remove the text. That still doesn't mean the text is operative. For your claim to be valid, then you would have to argue that interracial marriages remained illegal in Alabama for 33 years until the people actually voted to remove the language from their constitution - a silly premise.


#4 - The Federal government does not need to rule that the entire initiative/referendum process is unconstitutional to invalidate Prop 8. Just as the federal government did not have to rule that the entire Colorado initiative/referendum process was unconstitutional when it struck down the anti-gay initiative in Romer v. Evens. They only need to rule that that one specific usage was unconstitutional, not the whole process.[/indent]


>>>>

#2. Same sex marriage is not legal in California because Prop 8 was found TO be constitutional.

And there rests your fundamental error. Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional. The current legal ruling on the case is the District Court Judges decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The SCOTUS did not vacate that ruling.

Here is the ruling if you need it -->> https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Not only constitutional, but protected as such since the founding of the country.

No such ruling has been made by the SCOTUS as they have not addressed that issue.

The twin Prop 8/DOMA Hearing…

There was no “twin Prop 8/DOMA Hearing” they were heard on separate days and separate decisions were issues because they addressed two fundamentall different questions:

1 – DOMA: Can the federal government discriminate against legal Civil Marriage with no compelling government interest – the answer was “No”.

2 – Prop 8: Can a State initiative be used to remove a civil liberty once recognized by the State after the fact. The SCOTUS punted on the question denying standing and therefore leaving the District Court Judges ruling of “unconstitutional” in effect.

As you know full well by now, the Supreme Court Justices instead said that each state gets to decide by consensus on the question of gay marriage, and then AFTER that, the fed has to abide by whatever they say.

As you know full well by now, the Supreme Court Justices said no such thing. They did not address whether states could deny Same-sex Civil Marriage, DOMA address federal law no state law.

That is precisely the same stamp as saying "Prop 8 was a valid consensus". Unless you're arguing that California's initiative system is now defunct?

Since you got the previous statement wrong, it’s not surprising that this is wrong also.

The SCOTUS allows the decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand, they did not vacate it.

#3. Ergo, as long as the state of California has an initiative system that is operative, the text in the CA constitution banning polygamy and same sex marriage is the law.

No it’s not, it is inoperative.

Just as the text of the Alabama Constitution was inoperative from 1967 (Loving v. Virginia ruling) and 2000 when Alabama finally got around to removing the text per voter approval as required.

#4. Please point me to where the Supreme Court named California as a singular exception to their conclusion that each and every sovereign state had the constitutionally protected consensus to DECIDE "yes" or "no" on gay marriage?

There is no exception for California as they made no such decision as part of the DOMA case. The DOMA clearly spells out that Civil Marriage laws are a function of the State but that those laws are subject to “constitutional guarantees”.

And while you're mulling all that over, remember that no matter what you say about California laws Mr. Leno is trying to shove into kindergarten over there, none of them are applicable if they stand in direct opposition to the June 2013 Supreme Court finding that each state may say "no" to gay marriage via a consensus precisely and exactly like Proposition 8...

#1 I have no idea who this “Mr. Leno” is nor do I care as he is irrelevant to the issue at hand which is - is did Same-sex Civil Marriage resume it's legal status in California – yes it did.

#2 The SCOTUS made no such finding in either of the June 2013 cases. In the DOMA case they overturned a discriminatory federal law and in the Prop 8 case they vacated the appeal for standing and allowed the District Court Judges ruling to remain in effect. That ruling was that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.



>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think my view is a little different but I haven't studied it all that much. As I understand it, because the Federal judiciary was never intended to interfere with state government, Constitutional amendments like prop8 stay on the books and theoretically can be enforced by another officer or administration. As Jackson was at least rumored to have said on another case. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!".

No.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal judiciary is superior to states and their laws. See: US Constitution, Article VI, Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

 

[dcraelin]

I think my view is a little different but I haven't studied it all that much. As I understand it, because the Federal judiciary was never intended to interfere with state government, Constitutional amendments like prop8 stay on the books and theoretically can be enforced by another officer or administration. As Jackson was at least rumored to have said on another case. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!".

No.
It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal judiciary is superior to states and their laws. See: US Constitution, Article VI, Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

You are absolutely wrong on that. The constitution would never have passed if that was the case. When the federal courts did try to overreach shortly after passage the 11th amendment was passed. I believe the anger was such that it was the quickest amendment ever passed. cooper v aaron??? 1958?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, does ANYONE share your delusion that SSM is not legal in CA?

Yes, the US Supreme Court. You may have heard of them?

From the OP/link to the DOMA Opinion, legal twin and same sitting as the Prop 8 Hearing:

Page 19, DOMA Opinion:

"In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. 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 Supreme Court noted that New York acted from its own voices to "allow" same-sex marriages. The Court went on to note that it had sovereign authority to shape its own destiny in this question of gay marriage. It noted further that this soveriegn authority as intrinsic to the dynamics of state [all of them] government are to "allow the formation of consensus" in a way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.

For the dull of mind and those slow on the uptake, this is a Declaration by the US Supreme Court that gay marriage is only allowed in those states who have enacted it by consensus. That this consensus on the question of gay marriage is a constitutionally-supported right of the citizens of each state.

For those extremely dull of mind, let me remind you that this is the Superior Law of the Land and no other may exist below it in any eschelon of courts, federal or state, that strip voters of their rights to consensus in this way...

Prop 8 was passed by a legal vote. It was a consensus on gay marriage. It disallowed it in that state. Therefore without singular question, it is the undeniable law of the land there. The initiative system is paramount in that state. No, as in "zero" findings of support are given by the US Supreme Court backing any claim that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". It is quite the opposite in fact.

Prop 8 is the fully potent, fully enforceable law in California. So Said the US Supreme Court, June 2013..