The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Silhouette]

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).

Yes, and so as my last post points out, their Upholding of states' rights to consensus on gay marriage means that any law, judgment or code below that Decision that tries to take that consensus away is illegal and unconstitutional.

In fact, in its language, the CA constitution in its preamble it declares itself subdominant in law to the US Constitution. That Constitution was just interpreted this last June to allow each state to form a consensus [a choice of the masses] on gay marriage. That's PRECISELY what Prop 8 did. Therefore it is fully protected, constitutionally guaranteed law in California.

[My last post]

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..

 

[Silhouette]

What AG Harris & Gov. Brown did in that state was and is gross sedition. They ordered the county clerks to disobey State Law and illegally issue false marriage certificates. And they did so using duress; threatening clerks with pressure or termination if they did not comply.

200 years ago they would be hung by the neck until they were dead. But I do smell a political hanging in the near future.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Sil, for finally admitting your failure.

 

[Silhouette]

Be specific or else that's an ad hominem. Are they allowed here?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Supreme Court noted that New York acted from its own voices to "allow" same-sex marriages.

True.

They said that if New York said "Yes" that the Federal government could not discriminate and say "No". The case invovled federal law and had no bearing on states that said "No".

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.

No they didn't. They clearly indicated that state laws on domestic relations were subject to "Constitutional Guarantees".

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a
virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. "

and again

"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."​

As the Loving case demonstrates, the States do not have soverign ability to discriminate. Now, whether they do in the case of Civil Marriage based on gender, that his not been addressed by the SCOTUS yet. It wasn't int he DOMA decision and it wasn't in the SCOTUS Prop 8 decision.

The status of Prop 8 is that it was unconstitutional because the SCOTUS allowed the District Court Judge's ruling to stand, they did not vacate it.

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.

No it's not and you seem to be the only one making such a claim.

The SCOTUS doesn't support this position as they have denied petitions on the matter since the ruling.

The California Supreme Court (who original ruled Prop 8 was valid) don't agree as they have denied petitions on the matter since the ruling.

Prop 8 was passed by a legal vote.

No one says the vote was "illegal", the content of the vote however has been ruled as unconstitutional.

Prop 8 is the fully potent, fully enforceable law in California.

No it's not, it was ruled unconstitutional and that ruling was allowed to stand by the SCOTUS.

So Said the US Supreme Court, June 2013..

No they didn't. Which is why Same-sex Civil Marriage resumed in California after their ruling.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What AG Harris & Gov. Brown did in that state was and is gross sedition. They ordered the county clerks to disobey State Law and illegally issue false marriage certificates. And they did so using duress; threatening clerks with pressure or termination if they did not comply.

Their actions are perfectly appropriate. Prop 8 was ruled as unconstitutional and the SCOTUS left that ruling in place, therefore Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in California.

Check with most employers, you will find that failure to perform legal prescribed duties of your job is grounds for termination.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

No they didn't. They clearly indicated that state laws on domestic relations were subject to "Constitutional Guarantees".

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a
virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. "

and again

"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."​

As the Loving case demonstrates, the States do not have soverign ability to discriminate. Now, whether they do in the case of Civil Marriage based on gender, that his not been addressed by the SCOTUS yet. It wasn't int he DOMA decision and it wasn't in the SCOTUS Prop 8 decision.

The status of Prop 8 is that it was unconstitutional because the SCOTUS allowed the District Court Judge's ruling to stand, they did not vacate it.
>>>>

Yes, "subject to constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE!

Did you miss that vital part? Nowhere has Loving v Virginia been tried and found parallel to behaviors. A legal case that settled behaviors as equivalent to race would have made the front pages of the major newspapers I'd think. And that reason would be because once you allow one group of behaviors to call themselves a race, you cannot arbitrarily exclude others from doing the same. That would be over the top of the words "landmark case". How could you, for example, argue trying to copulate with another man's anus is somehow more deserving or noble than bulimia? Will bulimics win the rights to vomit at tables in restaurants because their eating orientation [they hurt no one but themselves] no longer belongs in the closet, or bathroom stall, whichever? How long will we oppress them? And cleptomaniacs with a compulsion to steal. Were they not "born that way"?

You get the picture.

A more dangerous precedent couldnt' be set to unravel American Law as we know it than to allow behaviors the status of race and exclusive protection.

If the Court's intention was to equate gay behaviors to black people or other races, instead of merely inserting the reference to Loving v Virginia to falsely placate the liberal Justices, why then did they use language like "allowed" "in some states"? You know the answer to that rhetorical question, don't you? It's because they do not see gay marriage as equal to Loving v Virginia. If they did, they would've said so plainly and without any couching of words.

What they DID say clearly and plainly was that each sovereign state has a constitutionally-protected right to choose on gay marriage, to "allow" or not "allow" it as their Collective Will sees fit. Gay marriage is not a protected right equivalent to Loving v Virginia. It is subject instead to being allowed or not allowed per each state via consensus. Just like polygamy, another sexual orientation and behavior that is currently banned in all 50 states.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, "subject to constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE!

We don't know that yet. The SCOTUS has not ruled on that issue.

Under the DOMA case the SCOTUS ruled that the Fed's can't not recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage if the state says "Yes", they did not address States that have said "No".

Under the Prop 8 case they "punted" on that core issue and instead dismissed it based on standing but did not vacate the District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, so in California that is the final ruling and therefore Same-sex Civil Marriage remains valid.



Currently States have said no and those laws are in effect, just as anti-interracial laws were valid and remained in effect - until the SCOTUS accepted and ruled on such a case directly. The first court overturning of anti-interracial statutes occurred in 1947 (or '48 I'm not sure which), yet the SCOTUS didn't make a Constitutional ruling until 1967. The MA case that started SSCM from a legal perspective was in 2004. Well it's only 9-years since that ruling, to match the interracial timeline we've got about 11 years to go. I would expect the SCOTUS though to take a case well before that.

If the Court's intention...

I wouldn't be so confident about your position (which is legally wrong anyway) as to the "courts intention" for two reasons:

#1 If as you claim the court's intention was to make a national level ruling in DOMA about an issue that wasn't before the court (i.e. State saying "no") then they would have vacated the District Court Judges ruling in the Prop 8 case. But they didn't. This dismissed the case on standing, they vacated the 9th Circuit Courts ruling, but left in tact the District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. If the situation was as you claim, which it's not, then the SCOTUS would have vacated BOTH the 9th and District Court rulings and remained the case back to the District Court for readdress. They didn't, they let the Prop 8 decision as unconstitutional stand.

#2 The second idea that the court "made a mistake" and didn't realize what they did - which would be silly. There have been petitions to the SCOTUS (and the California Supreme Court) to halt the resumption of Civil Marriages for same-sex couples and the SCOTUS turned it down. They on purpose have allowed the ruling that it was unconstitutional to stand. If as you claim the intent of the court was for the DOMA ruling to really be a ruling in Prop 8, then they would have granted the stay. They didn't, they let the Prop 8 decision as unconstitutional stand and for Civil Marriages to resume.​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, "subject to constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE!

We don't know that yet. The SCOTUS has not ruled on that issue.

Under the DOMA case the SCOTUS ruled that the Fed's can't not recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage if the state says "Yes", they did not address States that have said "No".



>>>>

Wrong. They guaranteed a constitutionally-protected CONSENSUS on gay marriage for each of the 50 states. A consensus is not defined as "a mandate to say yes". A consensus is a CHOICE to EITHER say yes OR NO. Of which California did to gay marriage, polygamy and minors with the passing of legally binding Proposition 8's simple language.

California said "no". You agree by stating that gay marriage is not a constitutionally-protected guarantee then as legally inferior to California's right to say "no" to it. At least you concede that superiority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Be specific or else that's an ad hominem. Are they allowed here?

What ad hom? When you are attacking the concept because you don't have the facts or the law on your side, that is an admission of failure.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, "subject to constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE!

We don't know that yet. The SCOTUS has not ruled on that issue.

Under the DOMA case the SCOTUS ruled that the Fed's can't not recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage if the state says "Yes", they did not address States that have said "No".



>>>>

Wrong. They guaranteed a constitutionally-protected CONSENSUS on gay marriage for each of the 50 states.

Wrong, they require that such concensus was "subject to constitutional guarantees".

They have not ruled in anyway what the guarantees are for same-sex couples (if any) to date.

A consensus is not defined as "a mandate to say yes". A consensus is a CHOICE to EITHER say yes OR NO.

They didn't address states that said "no" at all. The DOMA case was a about a State (New York) that said "Yes" and whether the federal government could discriminate by choosing to recognize valid Civil Marriages entered into under State law but not others for no compelling interest other then the desire to discriminate against a class of persons - in this case homosexuals.

The SCOTUS rules that they couldn't.

legally binding Proposition 8's simple language.

Prop 8 isn't legally binding, the standing ruling in the case was that it was unconstitutional, the SCOTUS did not vacate that ruling.

You agree by stating that gay marriage is not a constitutionally-protected guarantee then as legally inferior to California's right to say "no" to it. At least you concede that superiority.

I said no such thing.

#1 I've never said Same-sex Civil Marriage isn't a Constitutionally protected guarantee, we don't know yet as the SCOTUS has made no ruling on that direct question.

#2 California's right to say "no" is contingent on such "no" being based on a compelling government interest (of which none has been presented), if in fact States that have said "no" are found to be in violation of the Constitution, then those laws are invalid.

#3 I don't "concede" that the State can violate to Constitution. They can't. Even California's Constitution says it is subordinate to the United States Constitution.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

They didn't address states that said "no" at all. The DOMA case was a about a State (New York) that said "Yes" and whether the federal government could discriminate by choosing to recognize valid Civil Marriages entered into under State law but not others for no compelling interest other then the desire to discriminate against a class of persons - in this case homosexuals.


>>>>

Are you seriously trying to sell to the public that the US Supreme Court Justices chose the word "consensus" ,arbitrarily, to define what states have a right to do on the quesiton of gay marriage?

Are you suggesting that the Justices do not know the definition of consensus as the choice yes or no on any given topic?

Here is the definition:

con·sen·sus
[kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA

noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
1.
majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2.
general agreement or concord; harmony. Consensus | Define Consensus at Dictionary.com

California voted, via their protected right to consensus, via a 7 million + majority to exclude gay and polygamy marriage from California. Ergo it is legally binding law. The majority opinion spoke. And that Speaking is protected as a constitutional right, while gay marraige IS NOT.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you seriously trying to sell to the public that the US Supreme Court Justices chose the word "consensus" ,arbitrarily, to define what states have a right to do on the quesiton of gay marriage?

Not in the least why? Are you again trying the strawman approach and attributing arguments to me that I didn't make and then debating the creations of your own mind?

The "consensus" of the State is still, and to quote the SCOTUS, subject to "constitutional guarentees".

The State of California could pass a State Constitutional Amendment banning interracial marriage by 80% - doesn't mean it is a valid law under the United States Constitution. In such a case the State reached "consensus", just not a legally valid one.

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed that ruling to stand, therefore Prop 8 was not a constitutionally valid "consensus".

Are you suggesting that the Justices do not know the definition of consensus as the choice yes or no on any given topic?

Not in the least.

I do point out that such consensus, per the SCOTUS, is subject to Constitutional Guarantees.

California voted, via their protected right to consensus, via a 7 million + majority to exclude gay and polygamy marriage from California. Ergo it is legally binding law.

California could vote to ban interracial marriage - doesn't mean it's Constitutionally valid.

California could vote to ban firearm ownership in the state - doesn't mean it's Constitutionally valid.

California could vote to make Islam the state religion and for everyone to pay a 20% tithe - doesn't make it Constitutionally valid.

And that Speaking is protected as a constitutional right, while gay marraige IS NOT.

#1 I've not said marriage is a right, however Equal treatment under the law is a Constitutional right, see the 14th Amendment. If the state is going to offer Civil Marriage then there must be a compelling reason for them to discriminate against a targeted group - if not, then such actions are unconstitutional. See Romer v. Evans for such a case.

#2 We don't know if Same-sex Civil Marriage is a right or not, the SCOTUS hasn't made a ruling one way or the other. DOMA was about federal law, not State law. And Prop 8 was dismissed for standing while leaving the ruling as unconstitutional in place. We'll just have to wait and see.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Are you suggesting that the Justices do not know the definition of consensus as the choice yes or no on any given topic?

Not in the least.

I do point out that such consensus, per the SCOTUS, is subject to Constitutional Guarantees.

Very good. Now let me remind you that the only constitutional guarantee rendered out of either the Prop 8 or its twin case DOMA was the guarantee of each state's right to consensus, to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage.

If the Court's intention was to covertly support the lower court opinion that gay marriage cannot be denied anyone, they would not have said that each state has a right to consensus on it. Are you following me? Reasonable, yes?

Instead, what they did was use language like "allowed" "in some states" and assured the Public that each state can choose on gay marriage and that choice is constitutionally protected...the only constitutionally-supported conclusion that rendered out of either Prop 8or its twin DOMA. The attorneys that carefully chose the language of the DOMA Opinion selected the worlds "allowed" "in some states" and "consensus" in the way "the Framers of the Constitution" intended on purpose. They chose that wording on purpose. The more you read DOMA, the clearer it becomes that the Court has in mind each state's right to weigh in on the question of gay marriage with the largest swath of the Public involved in the various decisions being made on the matter. They did not iterate or reiterate that gay marraige is an inaliable right. My guess is that they did this knowing full well that if they potently backed gay marriage and removed consensus on it, then polygamy would quickly follow legally on its heels. They did not and do not want to be the Court that inadvertently let polygamy slip under the door.


Unless you can point out where the Court specifically guaranteed gay marraige as a right superior to each state's right to choose yes or no on it, Prop 8 in California is legally valid. If you are insisting that Prop 8 is invalid, then it is wholly invalid and polygamists also may marry there legally. Do you deny this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Worldwatcher continues to trump everyone of Sil's points.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

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

No they don't.

The decision was issued Jun2 26th, 2013. After the decision those opposing Same-sex Civil Marriage filed and emergency petition with the United States Supreme Court to stop Same-Sex Civil Marriages from resuming.

The SCOTUS denied the request and allows Civil Marriages for same-sex couples to resume.

Under your theory, that the DOMA ruling is that states can say "No" (not yet known, but that's your theory), the SCOTUS would have (a) vacated the District Court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, and (b) granted the stay pending further legal actions - which they didn't.


SCOTUS left Prop 8 has unconstitutional and SCOTUS denied petitions to halt Civil Marriages.

So no, the SCOTUS does not share you legal opinion.

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

#1 No it's not, unconstitutional laws are not potent or enforceable.

#2 The SCOTUS did not say that at all.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you suggesting that the Justices do not know the definition of consensus as the choice yes or no on any given topic?

Not in the least.

I do point out that such consensus, per the SCOTUS, is subject to Constitutional Guarantees.

Very good. Now let me remind you that the only constitutional guarantee rendered out of either the Prop 8 or its twin case DOMA was the guarantee of each state's right to consensus, to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage.

No it wasn't. The DOMA decision was about federal law not whether states could say "yes" or "no". It was about a State saying "yes" and the federal government saying "no" to discriminate with no compelling government reason against perfectly valid Civil Marriages.


The SCOTUS has not addressed whether States can discriminate based on gender for no compelling reason in terms of Civil Marraige, they only ruled on the federal law not recognizing valid marriages.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Worldwatcher continues to trump everyone of Sil's points.

He hasn't presented any valid "points". He's trying to twist dicta from one ruling into stare decisis for a completely different case.

Doesn't work.

The California Supreme Court didn't buy it when it turned down post decision requests to stay the resumption of Civil Marriages for same-sex couples.

The United States Supreme Court didn't buy it when it turned down post decision requests to stay the resumption of Civil Marriages for same-sex couples.

The government of California didn't buy it because those Civil Marriages are now recognized.

The governments of the 14 other states with SSCM didn't buy it because those Civil Marriages are now recognized.

The federal government didn't buy it because those Civil Marriages are now recognized.





I think there is only one person that appears to believes that SSCM isn't legal in California.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, but they have to "buy it" because it's the duly enacted law by a constitutionally-protected consensus majority...

Are you suggesting that the Justices do not know the definition of consensus as the choice yes or no on any given topic?

Not in the least.

I do point out that such consensus, per the SCOTUS, is subject to Constitutional Guarantees.

Very good. Now let me remind you that the only constitutional guarantee rendered out of either the Prop 8 or its twin case DOMA was the guarantee of each state's right to consensus, to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage.

If the Court's intention was to covertly support the lower court opinion that gay marriage cannot be denied anyone, they would not have said that each state has a right to consensus on it. Are you following me? Reasonable, yes?

Instead, what they did was use language like "allowed" "in some states" and assured the Public that each state can choose on gay marriage and that choice is constitutionally protected...the only constitutionally-supported conclusion that rendered out of either Prop 8or its twin DOMA. The attorneys that carefully chose the language of the DOMA Opinion selected the worlds "allowed" "in some states" and "consensus" in the way "the Framers of the Constitution" intended on purpose. They chose that wording on purpose. The more you read DOMA, the clearer it becomes that the Court has in mind each state's right to weigh in on the question of gay marriage with the largest swath of the Public involved in the various decisions being made on the matter. They did not iterate or reiterate that gay marraige is an inaliable right. My guess is that they did this knowing full well that if they potently backed gay marriage and removed consensus on it, then polygamy would quickly follow legally on its heels. They did not and do not want to be the Court that inadvertently let polygamy slip under the door.


Unless you can point out where the Court specifically guaranteed gay marraige as a right superior to each state's right to choose yes or no on it, Prop 8 in California is legally valid. If you are insisting that Prop 8 is invalid, then it is wholly invalid and polygamists also may marry there legally. Do you deny this?

So, I'll ask again. Is polygamy legal in California? Why or why not? Specifically?

[Note, ad hominems and strawmen are not acceptable answers]

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, but they have to "buy it" because it's the duly enacted law by a constitutionally-protected consensus majority...

No, they don't have to "buy it" (as in Prop 8) because Prop 8 was ruled as unconstitutional and the SCOTUS allowed it to remain the governing ruling in California.

So, I'll ask again. Is polygamy legal in California? Why or why not? Specifically?

I don't remember you asking before, but I'll provide the same answer now that I would have then if you did ask me.

#1 Because laws against polygamy do not deny Civil Marriage to anyone, they do not discriminate based on race or gender like interracial Civil Marriage ban's and same-gender Civil Marriage bans - they apply equally to all.

#2 Laws banning polygamy were challenged and the SCOTUS ruled that restricting the number of spouses is a permissible restriction. The case was Reynolds v. United States.​

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

Now it's your turn.

Justice Kennedy authored the DOMA decision. The court did not vacate the District Court Judges ruling in the Prop 8 (authored by Chief Justice Roberts) case allowing the ruling of unconstitutional to stand.

So if the intent of the SCOTUS in the DOMA ruling was to uphold Prop 8 (which it wasn't since the court didn't vacate the District Court Judges ruling), after the decision was issued the California Supreme Court dismissed petitions to halt SSCM from resuming in California. Those petitions were dismissed.

The a petition was filed with the United States Supreme Court and handled by Justice Kennedy (who authored the DOMA decision) and the petition to stay the resumption of SSCM's in California was denied.



So the author of the decision you say upheld Prop 8, denied the petition to prevent the resumption of SSCM's. So if the opinion of the court was as you said - Why didn't the justice who wrote the DOMA decision issue the stay to allow further legal action or issue a permanent stay enjoining California from ever restarting the marriages?

Logic would dictate that if the author of the opinion believed as you do that a stay would have been a logical way of confirming your opinion. But the reality is the exact opposite action was taken - the petition was dismissed.



>>>>