The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Silhouette]

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.

The situation in California isn't some cutesy gay activist "victory". It is a dangerous erosion of American Law. It is sedition of the highest order. To deny people their guaranteed rights by majority to determine their social destiny when no issue of race or creed is involved, instead just deviant behaviors, is the eroson of civil and penal codes and basically all laws if you really think about it. For what do all laws govern if not human behaviors?

 

[Silhouette]

This is why they are keen to say they were "born that way". When all the biological evidence in the field of artificial insemination in farms and zoos shows that sexual orientations and fetishes like homosexuality are adopted. They are skewed, purposeful or otherwise, instincts to reproduce normally with the opposite gender that have by conditioning/reptitition become imprinted behavioral ruts. Just like drug addiction. Any drug addict might report it feels like because they cannot stop, they were "born that way". Instead, they paired in their rat-brains that we all are slave to, the release of powerful endorphines [just like the ones released at orgasm] with a given intake behavior/substance. These patterns once established are nearly impossible to stop. And humans pass on behaviors socially, according to acceptance. No more powerful an age group does this apply to than adolescents, desperate to fit in their peer group. You create a peer group where gay is "OK", you create a situation like...well..

2011
HIV infections increased among young men who have sex with men (MSM) between 2006 and 2009...

...“More than 30 years into the HIV epidemic, about 50,000 people in this country still become infected each year. Not only do men who have sex with men continue to account for most new infections, young gay and bisexual men are the only group in which infections are increasing...

...“While we’re encouraged that prevention efforts have helped avoid overall increases in HIV infections in the United States, and have significantly reduced new infections from the peak in the mid-1980s, we have plateaued at an unacceptably high level,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention CDC ? NCHHSTP Newsroom ? New multi-year data show annual HIV infections in U.S. relatively stable

"plateaued" eh? In 2011?

Report released 2012: Still an escalating problem in 2013.

The numbers spotlight how the spread of HIV/AIDS is heavily concentrated in young males who have sex with other males. The remaining quarter of new infections in this age group are from injecting drugs or heterosexual sex....

...The analysis also found young MSM were also more likely to engage in risky behaviors than their heterosexual male peers, including having sex with four or more partners, injecting illegal drugs and engaging in unprotected sex. Young MSM were also less likely to report being taught HIV or AIDS education at school. CDC: HIV rates high among young gay men, many unaware they're infected - CBS News

The reason they aren't educated about it in schools is that of course since 77% of HIV in young males are contracted sexually, the prevention course would be teaching complete abstinence from anal sex. ie: complete abstinenence from the #1 gay sexual behavior. So don't look for that to happen soon. They would also have to teach how the colon is unusually susceptible to viruses and bacteria entering the bloodstream. The lower digestive tract, which is NOT a reproductive organ, evolved as a survival strategy to resorb large particles and fluids back into the bloodstream. It doesn't know the difference between the last bits of undigested food and large vitamins and HIV infected semen.

If the boys knew this, the numbers would start to drop off drastically. But when gay becomes the new normal via the vehicle of marriage, these facts will "disappear" from any public school text book or AIDS prevention course.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

So why do courts keep finding that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional? Did they all "turn off their brains"?

 

[Silhouette]

So why do courts keep finding that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional? Did they all "turn off their brains"?

The only court that matters on the question is the US Supreme Court. In June this year they described and defined so called "gay marriage" as "allowed" only "in some states".

Then they went on to Aver that the choice on whether or not to allow gay marriage must involve a wide swath of the American Public, in a "consensus" as "the Framers of the Constitution Intended". They did so precisely because of public alarm of activist judges [gay and gay advocating] who were stripping the People in various states of the constitutionally-protected right to weigh in on the question. They indicated that this new and weird concept must have the voices of as many as possible to determine in each state the nature of their social fabric weighed against non-conforming sexual behaviors.

In California, 7 million weighed in in Prop 8 on their opinion of both sexual behavioral groups: homosexuals and polygamists. These 7 million said "no" to them in marriage. That is the binding law. So says the US Supreme Court June 2013.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, same sex marriage continues, so Sil will acknowledge that, I am sure.

Two, judges have acted constitutionally in their decisions, in accordance with the Founders' will.

 

[Seawytch]

So why do courts keep finding that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional? Did they all "turn off their brains"?

The only court that matters on the question is the US Supreme Court. In June this year they described and defined so called "gay marriage" as "allowed" only "in some states".

Then they went on to Aver that the choice on whether or not to allow gay marriage must involve a wide swath of the American Public, in a "consensus" as "the Framers of the Constitution Intended". They did so precisely because of public alarm of activist judges [gay and gay advocating] who were stripping the People in various states of the constitutionally-protected right to weigh in on the question. They indicated that this new and weird concept must have the voices of as many as possible to determine in each state the nature of their social fabric weighed against non-conforming sexual behaviors.

In California, 7 million weighed in in Prop 8 on their opinion of both sexual behavioral groups: homosexuals and polygamists. These 7 million said "no" to them in marriage. That is the binding law. So says the US Supreme Court June 2013.

They didn't rule on the no states, only the yes ones. The no states are coming.

 

[Silhouette]

They didn't rule on the no states, only the yes ones. The no states are coming.

Then what did they mean by avering that each state has the right to consensus on gay marriage as "the Framers of the Constitution intended"? Tell me, do you believe for an instant that the word 'consensus' from a broad swath of people means "the choice to say "yes" or "yes", but never "no"?

Dream on sister. Dream on. Prop 8 is the LAW. In order to make Prop 8 not the law, the US Supreme Court would have to go back and completely rewrite the DOMA Opinion. Because as it stands now, that Opinion says "each state may decide on gay marriage for itself "yes" or "no", and that decision has to be by consensus and that decision has to be respected by the fed". Good luck on short notice getting them to do a complete about-face on the DOMA Opinion and state's constitutional-rights to consensus.

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

So why do courts keep finding that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional? Did they all "turn off their brains"?

I was referring strictly to World Watcher when I said I like him and he's turning his brain off due to emotion. I was not referring to the rest of your motives.

 

[Silhouette]

They didn't rule on the no states, only the yes ones. The no states are coming.

Then what did they mean by avering that each state has the right to consensus on gay marriage as "the Framers of the Constitution intended"?

Well Seawytch??

Do you think in DOMA that the Justices signed off on the word "consensus" as meaning in each sovereign state "only the right to say "yes" to gay marriage"?

And since we all know the answer to that question, the next one begs: If each sovereign state also has the constitutionally-protected right to say "no" to gay marriage, how can the lower court ruling stand?

Gay marriage is not a right. It is only "allowed" in "some states". But the right to approve or deny it via consensus is a constitutional right. How is it again that 7 million people in California have not had their civil rights to consensus stripped away?

All it would take is one, just one of those voters to step up and sue for suppression of their guaranteed-rights per DOMA. Then the US Supreme Court would have to sweat a little under the collar and explain what they meant in DOMA by "consensus" "in a way the Framers of the Constitution intended", and why gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states".... [Those are direct quotes from the US Supreme Court's DOMA decision]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, the argument is nothing more than nailing the coffin shut on your vision of marriage in America.

The Hawai'i Senate voted to recognize same sex marriage.

The tide is against you.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, the argument is nothing more than nailing the coffin shut on your vision of marriage in America.

The Hawai'i Senate voted to recognize same sex marriage.

The tide is against you.

Was there a broad swath of public involvement in that vote as the US Supreme Court indicated in DOMA that it wanted to support constitutionally as to consensus? No? Well then court challenges to that senate vote might be the new wave of the future.

Protected constitutional rights to broad-swath consensus [democracy] vs little cloisters of purchased or blackmailed gay activism? [tyranny].

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your opinion and feeling, although sincere and strongly felt, are only evidences that you are strongly and sincerely in error.

But if anyone ever is going to marry you to someone of your own sex, send the Jake signal into the sky and I will don my superhero costume and fly to your rescue. I promise you, on my life, no one will ever make you marry anyone of the same sax.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All it would take is one, just one of those voters to step up and sue for suppression of their guaranteed-rights per DOMA. Then the US Supreme Court would have to sweat a little under the collar and explain what they meant in DOMA by "consensus" "in a way the Framers of the Constitution intended", and why gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states".... [Those are direct quotes from the US Supreme Court's DOMA decision]

Didn't you say you lived in CA?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

All it would take is one, just one of those voters to step up and sue for suppression of their guaranteed-rights per DOMA. Then the US Supreme Court would have to sweat a little under the collar and explain what they meant in DOMA by "consensus" "in a way the Framers of the Constitution intended", and why gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states".... [Those are direct quotes from the US Supreme Court's DOMA decision]

Didn't you say you lived in CA?


>>>>

Not here. But then that would be you checking up on my posts elsewhere which I think is against the rules. But yes, I have lived once near San Francisco. I've seen where this stuff is going and it's flat out mental illness. It's coercion. In San Francisco it's a manically coercive "gay or you'll pay" subversion of traditional values once held there, believe it or not.

If the rest of the world can be measued by the San FranFreakshow yardstick, batton the hatches because the storm has only just started blowing up the first few whisps of what's to come..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not here. But then that would be you checking up on my posts elsewhere which I think is against the rules.

Don't know you from anywhere else, I seemed to remember you mentioning being in California in this tread.


Funny thing is that after the Prop 8 decision was allowed to stand as unconstitutional, Californian's petitioned both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court to hold lifting the stay.

Both courts turned them down.

So the logic is that DOMA upheld Prop 8 (which it didn't) and the author of the DOMA decision (Justice Kennedy) refused to continue the 9th Circuit Courts Stay because he didn't understand the decision that he wrote?

Ya, that makes a lot of sense.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Funny thing is that after the Prop 8 decision was allowed to stand as unconstitutional, Californian's petitioned both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court to hold lifting the stay.

Both courts turned them down.
>>>>

Perhaps they were turned down, without explanation, so that later cases that will challenge the subversion of democracy could be milked at the proper timing for political reasons? I don't know, say, the republican party suddenly "noticing" the subversion of democracy on behalf of the democrats in CA to promote deviant sex to their kids there?

That probably would be good for a few million extra votes if pitched to catholics at the right moment. I don't know, say, on the eve of the 2014 election? The pivotal one? The one that will determine the fate of this country perhaps even?

Note the courts didnt' say why they were turned down.

And the DOMA declaration of state's right to consensus still stands out as a red flag to all that hubris and assurance that "Prop 8 isn't legal"...

How is it that a state has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to consensus on gay marriage but at the same time does not have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to consensus on gay marriage?

 

[bodecea]

Congrats to Illinois and Hawaii...and this just in: California gay couples are still getting married.

 

[ron4342]

The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..

In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.

They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.

Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
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

An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.

In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.

The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:

Page 14 same link as above:
New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry

A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.

Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?

Exactly how does gay marriage affect you? If two men or two women wish to get married why is that a problem with you? Does it affect or change your life in any way? It is their business and only their business. Why do you wish to deny them the same rights that a man and woman get when they marry? As far as I am concerned a man can marry his Buick if he so wishes. As long as the Buick gets regular maintaince, WHO CARES?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Funny thing is that after the Prop 8 decision was allowed to stand as unconstitutional, Californian's petitioned both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court to hold lifting the stay.

Both courts turned them down.
>>>>

Perhaps they were turned down, without explanation, so that later cases that will challenge the subversion of democracy could be milked at the proper timing for political reasons?

So the Justice that authored the DOMA decision - which your incorrect position is that it upholds Prop 8 (which it doesn't) - knowingly didn't issue the stay so that the decision he authored could be properly applied because of possible future "political reasons".

All I can say is...

.......................


The reality is that if the SCOTUS agreed with your (incorrect) interpretation of DOMA as it applies to Prop 8 then they would have issued a permanent stay so that legal Same-sex Civil Marriages would not have resumed.

But they didn't.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Exactly how does gay marriage affect you? If two men or two women wish to get married why is that a problem with you? Does it affect or change your life in any way? It is their business and only their business. Why do you wish to deny them the same rights that a man and woman get when they marry? As far as I am concerned a man can marry his Buick if he so wishes. As long as the Buick gets regular maintaince, WHO CARES?[/SIZE][/FONT]

It's not how it affects me, it's how it affects children. Just since the forced passing of questionable "gay marriage" legislation and its accompanying rainbow-media blitz aimed at kids shows and adult shows alike, without a broad-swath consensus as the Court indicated it wanted, there has been a huge leap in new HIV cases in very young men and boy teens. In the same years.

Gay is a behavior. Behaviors are passed along socially to impressionable youth. This has rendered into a deadly situation for minor boys particularly. The new "try gay, it's OK" message is rendering out in child death.

THAT is who it affects and THAT is why I object to mainstreaming gay marriage as an icon of "acceptable/ergo, "healthy, sanctioned" human behavior.

While nobody should bash so-called "gay teens", gay teens should have every access to respect AND counselling should they be questioning their own gay "orientation" from having been molested or other affective events. Forcing gay teens to embrace their gayness, or teaching other kids to never question what makes a person gay or to never access counseling if they are disturbed by their own gay behaviors is sick, twisted and nothing but forced indoctrinization.

Compassion for those struggling with homosexuality. But never a celebration of homosexuality as a social more. For it is not. So says a 'broad swath' of the American Consensus. At least in California... "Gay marriage" is "celebrating of homsexuality as a social more" de facto. People have issues with that. Sound ones. Ones aimed at protecting children.

Keywords for this post >> "Undue Influence". <<