The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Silhouette]

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.[/indent][/indent]



>

Homosexuals are neither a race nor a gender. They are made up of all races and both genders. They are behaviors; sexual orientations, like polygamy. So I'll ask again:

How is gay marriage "legal" in California while polygamy is not? And what law bans polygamy? Proposition 8? Or the federal one you brought up?

The question of consensus has not been sufficiently answered by you. You have not said why the DOMA Opinion included langauge carefully crafted to say that gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states". You have not said why the DOMA Opinion found that each state's sovereign right to consensus is constitutionally-protected while gay marriage clearly is not.

You can sing day and night about your lower court position that you like to vacillate on saying "it was punted' to the outright lie "it was upheld". The problem with citing that lower decision is that it is

1. Stale

2. Inferior to the latest one in June 2013 and

3. Diametrically opposed to the latest one June 2013 and therefore null and void.

It was punted precisely to kick it away from American Law and in it's place was put the constitutional-protection for consensus. You cannot read the DOMA Opinion and walk away with anything other than the conclusion that SCOTUS meant and means for the largest swath of the American public to have a say so on the question of gay marriage. And that this say so renders in a constitutionally-protected consensus, the right to say "yes" or "no" in broad majority of the Populace. That is exactly, completely and totally what Prop 8 was. The stark and clear definition of the June 2013 Finding from DOMA. And it is THE LAW.

I dare you to say this is not the conclusion and to say your are intellectually honest in the same breath. You know where I can quote the parts about how the Court wants this to be a conversation for the general public. You know how that can be used to overturn coups in oligarchy-legislative decisions behind the backs of the "large-swath". You know what the Intent was and is of this landmark decision, protecting the rights of the governed to set the fabric of their social structure by each having a direct voice in that decision.

What is going on in California is outright sedition. It is the erosion of American Law at its foundation. The initiative system was created there precisely, as the other poster said, to circumvent a potential dictatorship. Right now, AG Harris and Gov Brown are in violation of federal law, the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court, the CA constitution. Their seditiuos behavior is aggravated by the fact that they ordered others to perform the sedition. The County Clerks of California were essentially threatened if they did not participate in denying the rights of the voting public and the Will of the CA initiative law.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is something they would be hanged by the necks until they were dead 200 years ago. Their crimes are that grave.

Is polygamy legal in CA? Why not since both it and homosexuality are behaviors, sexual orientations of which all races and both genders participate in?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Homosexuals are neither a race nor a gender. They are made up of all races and both genders.

Check every state law, they are written in terms of gender.

Fell free to cite any state law that is written in terms of sexual orenation.

So I'll ask again:

And you'll get the same answer. The fact you don't like the answer is not my propblem.

#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.​

>>>>

 

[kaz]

#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.​

Just like "gay marriage!" There is no discrimination.

This thread is like watching grass grow...​

 

[WorldWatcher]

#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.​

Just like "gay marriage!" There is no discrimination.

This thread is like watching grass grow...​

Incorrect, a polygamist isn't denied Civil Marriage, what is denied is multiple Civil Marriages.

On the other hand same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage when there is no compelling government interest in treating like situated couples differently. Those couples being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults.


>>>>​

 

[kaz]

#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.​

Just like "gay marriage!" There is no discrimination.

This thread is like watching grass grow...​

Incorrect, a polygamist isn't denied Civil Marriage, what is denied is multiple Civil Marriages.

On the other hand same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage when there is no compelling government interest in treating like situated couples differently. Those couples being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults.


>>>>​

A gay isn't denied civil marriage either. The same rules are applied to them the same way as straights. You have yet to provide any counter example where a gay may not marry exactly the same people as a straight could without using formulas, which are irrelevant.​

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just like "gay marriage!" There is no discrimination.

This thread is like watching grass grow...

Incorrect, a polygamist isn't denied Civil Marriage, what is denied is multiple Civil Marriages.

On the other hand same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage when there is no compelling government interest in treating like situated couples differently. Those couples being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults.


>>>>

A gay isn't denied civil marriage either. The same rules are applied to them the same way as straights. You have yet to provide any counter example where a gay may not marry exactly the same people as a straight could without using formulas, which are irrelevant.

Anti-miscegenation used that same logic, didn't fly then either. "Coloreds" aren't denied Civil Marriage, they can marry other Coloreds just like whites can marry other whites.

How did that tactic fair?


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Incorrect, a polygamist isn't denied Civil Marriage, what is denied is multiple Civil Marriages.

On the other hand same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage when there is no compelling government interest in treating like situated couples differently. Those couples being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults.


>>>>

A gay isn't denied civil marriage either. The same rules are applied to them the same way as straights. You have yet to provide any counter example where a gay may not marry exactly the same people as a straight could without using formulas, which are irrelevant.

Anti-miscegenation used that same logic, didn't fly then either. "Coloreds" aren't denied Civil Marriage, they can marry other Coloreds just like whites can marry other whites.

How did that tactic fair?


>>>>

I've answered this question in detail, and it's still evading the question.

Give an example of any difference in who I can marry than gays can. Don't say their partner because I can't marry their partner either.

You can't do that because there is no difference. Sorry, you lose.

Here's how you win, go to the legislature. Get it passed Constitutionally, I'll be in solid don't give a shit territory once you move away from advocating government commit crimes against the people by Unconstitutionally usurping power.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A gay isn't denied civil marriage either. The same rules are applied to them the same way as straights. You have yet to provide any counter example where a gay may not marry exactly the same people as a straight could without using formulas, which are irrelevant.

Anti-miscegenation used that same logic, didn't fly then either. "Coloreds" aren't denied Civil Marriage, they can marry other Coloreds just like whites can marry other whites.

How did that tactic fair?


>>>>

I've answered this question in detail, and it's still evading the question.

Give an example of any difference in who I can marry than gays can. Don't say their partner because I can't marry their partner either.

You can't do that because there is no difference. Sorry, you lose.

Here's how you win, go to the legislature. Get it passed Constitutionally, I'll be in solid don't give a shit territory once you move away from advocating government commit crimes against the people by Unconstitutionally usurping power.

Glad you support Same-sex Civil Marriages, of the 16 legal entities 11 have achieved equality through legislative or ballot actions.

Ya, gatta hate that the government usurped the power of those people that voted for anti-miscegenation laws and amendments.


You, Julie, and Jane - assuming you are male, then you can marry Jane or Julie. So ya you could marry the partner if she'd agreed. But there is no compelling government reason to deny Jane the ability to marry Julie if they both agree.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Anti-miscegenation used that same logic, didn't fly then either. "Coloreds" aren't denied Civil Marriage, they can marry other Coloreds just like whites can marry other whites.

How did that tactic fair?


>>>>

I've answered this question in detail, and it's still evading the question.

Give an example of any difference in who I can marry than gays can. Don't say their partner because I can't marry their partner either.

You can't do that because there is no difference. Sorry, you lose.

Here's how you win, go to the legislature. Get it passed Constitutionally, I'll be in solid don't give a shit territory once you move away from advocating government commit crimes against the people by Unconstitutionally usurping power.

Glad you support Same-sex Civil Marriages, of the 16 legal entities 11 have achieved equality through legislative or ballot actions.

Ya, gatta hate that the government usurped the power of those people that voted for anti-miscegenation laws and amendments.


You, Julie, and Jane - assuming you are male, then you can marry Jane or Julie. So ya you could marry the partner if she'd agreed. But there is no compelling government reason to deny Jane the ability to marry Julie if they both agree.



>>>>

That argument only works under discrimination. You failed that test, there is no discrimination you've been able to establish. If Julie and Jane are straight or gay is irrelevant, whether they are straight or gay they are treated the same. You can't think of anyone who is treated differently under marriage laws because they are gay. So it's irrelevant.

To understand my point, read your argument on polygamy. That you stated the argument that you are wrong about gay marriage so well was how you drew me back into this cutting a potato in half and watching it turn brown debate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've answered this question in detail, and it's still evading the question.

Give an example of any difference in who I can marry than gays can. Don't say their partner because I can't marry their partner either.

You can't do that because there is no difference. Sorry, you lose.

Here's how you win, go to the legislature. Get it passed Constitutionally, I'll be in solid don't give a shit territory once you move away from advocating government commit crimes against the people by Unconstitutionally usurping power.

Glad you support Same-sex Civil Marriages, of the 16 legal entities 11 have achieved equality through legislative or ballot actions.

Ya, gatta hate that the government usurped the power of those people that voted for anti-miscegenation laws and amendments.


You, Julie, and Jane - assuming you are male, then you can marry Jane or Julie. So ya you could marry the partner if she'd agreed. But there is no compelling government reason to deny Jane the ability to marry Julie if they both agree.



>>>>

That argument only works under discrimination.

Which it is. There is no doubt that it is discrimination.

Denying Drivers Licenses to blind people is discrimination, the real question is whether there is a compelling government interest to warrant such discrimination.

To understand my point, read your argument on polygamy. That you stated the argument that you are wrong about gay marriage so well was how you drew me back into this cutting a potato in half and watching it turn brown debate.

Where is polygamy denied based on a couples race, national origin, or gender?
Answer:It's not. Civil Marriage isn't denied on any of those conditions. Any race, national origin, gender, religion, etc. can enter into Civil Marriage - only the number of simultanious Civil Marriages is limited.


Where is Same-sex Civil Marriage denied?
Answer: In most states based on the gender of the couple.


In one case Civil Marriage isn't being denied, in another case it is being denied. I'm sorry you don't see the difference.


What potato's have to do with anything I don't get.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

That argument only works under discrimination.

Which it is. There is no doubt that it is discrimination.

Denying Drivers Licenses to blind people is discrimination

Yes, because if you are blind you cannot do the same thing as someone exactly like you who is not blind. That is not the case with gay, someone exactly like you except gay can do exactly what you can. When you can give an example where that is not true, then get back to me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That argument only works under discrimination.

Which it is. There is no doubt that it is discrimination.

Denying Drivers Licenses to blind people is discrimination

Yes, because if you are blind you cannot do the same thing as someone exactly like you who is not blind.

Exactly, there is a compelling government reason for discriminating against blind people in terms of operating multi-ton vehicles at high rates of speed on public roads.

That is not the case with gay, someone exactly like you except gay can do exactly what you can. When you can give an example where that is not true, then get back to me.

Already gave you an example, sorry you don't like it.

If I were male and there was a gay woman named Jane and there another woman named Julie...

I can marry Julie, the homosexual woman cannot (in most states).



What is the compelling government interest in treating two like situated couples differently? Like situated couples in terms of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults who already do not have a family relationship.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Which it is. There is no doubt that it is discrimination.

Denying Drivers Licenses to blind people is discrimination

Yes, because if you are blind you cannot do the same thing as someone exactly like you who is not blind.

Exactly, there is a compelling government reason for discriminating against blind people in terms of operating multi-ton vehicles at high rates of speed on public roads.

That is not the case with gay, someone exactly like you except gay can do exactly what you can. When you can give an example where that is not true, then get back to me.

Already gave you an example, sorry you don't like it.

If I were male and there was a gay woman named Jane and there another woman named Julie...

I can marry Julie, the homosexual woman cannot (in most states).



What is the compelling government interest in treating two like situated couples differently? Like situated couples in terms of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults who already do not have a family relationship.



>>>>

I searched the Constitution for "unisex" and didn't find it, can you help me?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, because if you are blind you cannot do the same thing as someone exactly like you who is not blind.

Exactly, there is a compelling government reason for discriminating against blind people in terms of operating multi-ton vehicles at high rates of speed on public roads.

That is not the case with gay, someone exactly like you except gay can do exactly what you can. When you can give an example where that is not true, then get back to me.

Already gave you an example, sorry you don't like it.

If I were male and there was a gay woman named Jane and there another woman named Julie...

I can marry Julie, the homosexual woman cannot (in most states).



What is the compelling government interest in treating two like situated couples differently? Like situated couples in terms of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults who already do not have a family relationship.



>>>>

I searched the Constitution for "unisex" and didn't find it, can you help me?

Sure, but first you have to quote where I said "unisex" was in the Constitution.

However, the fact that States cannot discriminate against Citizens without a compelling interest is contained is the concepts embodies in the 14th Amendments Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Instead of looking for "unisex" you might want to check the 14th for "ALL CITIZENS".

>>>>

 

[kaz]

Exactly, there is a compelling government reason for discriminating against blind people in terms of operating multi-ton vehicles at high rates of speed on public roads.



Already gave you an example, sorry you don't like it.

If I were male and there was a gay woman named Jane and there another woman named Julie...

I can marry Julie, the homosexual woman cannot (in most states).



What is the compelling government interest in treating two like situated couples differently? Like situated couples in terms of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults who already do not have a family relationship.



>>>>

I searched the Constitution for "unisex" and didn't find it, can you help me?

Sure, but first you have to quote where I said "unisex" was in the Constitution.

OK, see red. Because otherwise you have no discrimination. All men and women, gay or straight can enter into man/woman government marriage.

However, the fact that States cannot discriminate against Citizens without a compelling interest is contained is the concepts embodies in the 14th Amendments Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Instead of looking for "unisex" you might want to check the 14th for "ALL CITIZENS".

>>>>

Right, good thing there is no discrimination in government marriage for gays because then that would be an issue. Gays have the exact same rights as straights. Which is why ... drum roll ... no discrimination.

You stated it perfectly for polygamy, I know you're capable of understanding it. In the meantime, I'm indifferent between continuing this and painting a wall and watching it dry. But let me know when you come up with any discrimination.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I searched the Constitution for "unisex" and didn't find it, can you help me?

Sure, but first you have to quote where I said "unisex" was in the Constitution.

OK, see red. Because otherwise you have no discrimination. All men and women, gay or straight can enter into man/woman government marriage.

However, the fact that States cannot discriminate against Citizens without a compelling interest is contained is the concepts embodies in the 14th Amendments Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Instead of looking for "unisex" you might want to check the 14th for "ALL CITIZENS".

>>>>

Right, good thing there is no discrimination in government marriage for gays because then that would be an issue. Gays have the exact same rights as straights. Which is why ... drum roll ... no discrimination.

Anything more to add then the failed argument structure used by the Commonwealth of Virginia to try to justify banning interracial marriage?

(And argument that didn't work then either.)

You stated it perfectly for polygamy,...

I know, I showed how bans on polygamy don't discriminate based on protected class they apply equally to everyone.

Ban's on same-sex marriage though do discriminate based on gender, and therefore there needs to be a compelling government interest to warrant overriding the couples right to equal treatment under the law.

I know you're capable of understanding it. In the meantime, I'm indifferent between continuing this and painting a wall and watching it dry. But let me know when you come up with any discrimination.

Already provided an example twice.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Ban's on same-sex marriage though do discriminate based on gender

You just can't come up with an example other than making people unisex, but you're not arguing unisex. And you're arguing it's like blacks who couldn't marry the same people as whites even though gays can marry the same people as straights.

It's an exercise in that freedom is work, so you just want a judge to do it for you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You just can't come up with an example other than making people unisex, but you're not arguing unisex. And you're arguing it's like blacks who couldn't marry the same people as whites even though gays can marry the same people as straights.

Black's coundn't marry the same people as whites, just like gays can't marry the same people as straights.

It's an exercise in that freedom is work, so you just want a judge to do it for you.

Yep, damn those blacks for challenging the law in court instead of working strickly through the legislature.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

You just can't come up with an example other than making people unisex, but you're not arguing unisex. And you're arguing it's like blacks who couldn't marry the same people as whites even though gays can marry the same people as straights.

Black's coundn't marry the same people as whites, just like gays can't marry the same people as straights.

You just can't come up with any examples other than that gay Jane can't marry gay Jill, just like straight Jane can't marry straight Jill. Sorry, my head hit the desk again. I'm going to have to end this before I get a concussion. I like you, I think you're no idiot. You just turned your brain off on this one because of your emotions. It happens.

It's an exercise in that freedom is work, so you just want a judge to do it for you.

Yep, damn those blacks for challenging the law in court instead of working strickly through the legislature.


>>>>

Blacks couldn't marry the same people as whites. Gays can marry the same people as blacks. I will agree I don't get why government marriage is important to anyone, but at least for blacks, the 14th amendment actually did apply.

 

[Silhouette]

You just can't come up with any examples other than that gay Jane can't marry gay Jill, just like straight Jane can't marry straight Jill. Sorry, my head hit the desk again. I'm going to have to end this before I get a concussion. I like you, I think you're no idiot. You just turned your brain off on this one because of your emotions. It happens.

>

Exactly.

Worldwatcher knows the only constitutional finding in the Prop 8 & DOMA twin cases is that each state may come to a consensus on gay marriage and only then can the fed make a determination on its legitmacy. This of course means "no guarantees for gay marriage because we want everyone to weigh in on this because its new, unusual and potentially socially disruptive, or not."

Which of course means Prop 8 is the Law in California and may not be taken away from the 7 million majority consensus who enacted it by a constitutional guarantee of their rights to decide upon it.

Of course Worldwatcher knows this but I suspect s/he is one of those lawyers or legal strategists clogging the internet with disinformation about the Prop 8/DOMA Decisions this year...lest anyone catch on and figure it all out before they can "[illegally] marry their way into legitimacy".

However, this would be a complete and utter circumvention of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution for people to decide via consensus on such a weird and new social ideal that will affect their social fabric from here into the unforseeable future [unforseeable to those who haven't studied Ancient Greece].

The DOMA Opinion states over and again that this new, weird concept of people of the same gender wanting to play act man and wife is a concept that a wide swath of the American Public needs to weigh in on in order to most properly govern themselves and their social fabric. I dare Worldwatcher or anyone else to claim that this is not so. I will happily provide multiple quotes from the DOMA Opinion that iterate and reiterate this conclusion they came to.