The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

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

Yup...and will be filing joint Federal taxes too!

 

[Seawytch]

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". <<

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, it's all better with a cartoon.

Meanwhile kids are dying from the new fad, iconized in "marriage"....

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, it's all better with a cartoon.

Meanwhile kids are dying from the new fad, iconized in "marriage"....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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..

At least you concede you’re motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples, having nothing to do with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, you demonstrate one again the importance of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, protecting all persons from the hate and ignorance you so flagrantly exhibit.

 

[dcraelin]

Indeed, you demonstrate one again the importance of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, protecting all persons from the hate and ignorance you so flagrantly exhibit.

Reading something into the 14th amendment that obviously isnt there breeds contempt for lawyers, judges, the constitution and the rule of law. Judges should not base decisions on emotional appeals.

If the 14th addressed gender concerns it would have addressed women's suffrage...but it didnt.

Constitutions only have legitimacy if based on the will of the people. It is dangerous to argue otherwise.

 

[Silhouette]

At least you concede you&#8217;re motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples, having nothing to do with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, you demonstrate one again the importance of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, protecting all persons from the hate and ignorance you so flagrantly exhibit.

In order for that statement to be true, you'd have to show that homosexuality wasn't a behavior, a post-natally skewed sexual rut. To date, nobody has shown that in any measure that refutes centuries-old science and industry practice that has shown that across warm blooded animals, sexual fetishes like homosexuality can be conditioned or trained; and once so, fixed stubbornly as that individual's new orientation. Like drug addiction, repetition and reward create rutted/habitual behaviors that feel "impossible to change" from the perspective of the afflicted.

So since homosexuality is a behavior, I have every right in the world, according to the 1st Amendment, to speak out exactly how I feel about that behavior. And more particularly, not only do I have the right, but I am compelled by my state and federal laws to notice that if that behavior causes rising statistics in child death, to speak out about it and tell as many people as I can.

Literally, since the rise in boys coming down with HIV just since the gay media blitz and so called "gay marriage" have been slamming hard into the public against their will [see the title of this thread], I would be subject to criminal charges if I did not point out what I just suspect even as the source of that child death.

When it comes to child protection laws in most states, you do not have to even have a conviction. Citizens are supposed to err on the side of caution even if they just have a reasonable inkling that "behavior x" is causing harm to children. If you neglect that duty, you can face misdemeanor or felony charges. Look up your local penal codes to see if your silence in the face of compelling statistics is actually a criminal offense...

Challenge me to post those laws and I will.

Meanwhile note that in the years posted below, these are the same precise years almost lockstep that you've also been seeing an alarming increase in children's shows & advertisements on TV, Video games etc where gay behaviors are celebrated and emulated. And also the same years so-called "gay marriage" has been "allowed" "in some states" behind the backs of the wide swath of their voters.. Just in the same exact years

Alarming increase among young, black gay and bisexual men requires urgent action

CDC Press release:
The CDC&#8217;s first multi-year estimates from its national HIV incidence surveillance find that overall, the annual number of new HIV infections in the United States was relatively stable at approximately 50,000 new infections each year between 2006 and 2009. However, HIV infections increased among young men who have sex with men (MSM) between 2006 and 2009...

...Young MSM of all races are heavily affected. By race/risk young, black MSM were the only group to experience a statistically significant increase in new infections over the four-year time period studied. CDC estimates that new HIV infections among young, black MSM increased 48 percent during that period (from 4,400 HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009). ...

...&#8220;We are deeply concerned by the alarming rise in new HIV infections in young, black gay and bisexual men and the continued impact of HIV among young gay and bisexual men of all races,&#8221; said Jonathan Mermin, M.D., director of CDC&#8217;s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. &#8220;We cannot allow the health of a new generation of gay men to be lost to a preventable disease....

...Announced by White House officials in July 2010, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy seeks to reduce HIV incidence in the United States and prioritizes HIV prevention efforts in the populations where HIV is most heavily concentrated http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html

That most heavily affected population would be the alarming increase in young boys coming down with HIV. And what causes new trends in young boys and men? Answer to rhetorical and obvious question: "monkey see, monkey do"... In my opinion, the US CDC is remiss in its duties to protect the human population from disease by neglecting obvious pyschological contributors to the young getting a sudden jump in new HIV cases in just the same time frame as "gay" becoming a new forced social fad. It's obvious. Kids ape what society presents to them as "cool". If you "aren't at least open to the idea of gay sex, you're not "cool". That's the message being pumped at kids on TV while HIV/AIDS education in schools is slowly, almost imperceptibly being "reduced due to funding issues"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

dcraelin and silhouette continue to pant and chant and rant: and end up where they began with nothing done.

Prop 8 and DOMA are over, forever, guys.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Indeed, you demonstrate one again the importance of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, protecting all persons from the hate and ignorance you so flagrantly exhibit.

Reading something into the 14th amendment that obviously isnt there breeds contempt for lawyers, judges, the constitution and the rule of law. Judges should not base decisions on emotional appeals.

If the 14th addressed gender concerns it would have addressed women's suffrage...but it didnt.

Constitutions only have legitimacy if based on the will of the people. It is dangerous to argue otherwise.

It was the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment that all persons residing within a state be allowed access to the laws of his state, and afforded due process should a state seek to deny any person his civil liberties. Judges and justices follow 14th Amendment jurisprudence out of respect for the rule of law, and with the understanding that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Article VI of the US Constitution, having nothing to do with ‘emotional appeals.’

The issue of women’s suffrage was not a 14th Amendment issue because it was rendered moot by the 19th Amendment.

The Constitution is based on the rule of law, and derives its legitimacy from centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that makes the rule of law supreme, and all persons, justices, judges, and elected officials are subject to the rule of law. And when the people act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, such as with Proposition 8, such acts are appropriately invalidated in accordance with the rule of law.

Consequently, what you advocate is the tyranny of the majority, at odds with the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted and reviewed only in the context of the subjective, capricious whims and prejudices of the people devoid of facts, evidence, or a legitimate legislative end – resulting only in the loss of our civil liberties and the Republic itself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At least you concede you’re motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples, having nothing to do with the Constitution and its case law.

Indeed, you demonstrate one again the importance of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, protecting all persons from the hate and ignorance you so flagrantly exhibit.

In order for that statement to be true, you'd have to show that homosexuality wasn't a behavior, a post-natally skewed sexual rut.

Incorrect.

In Lawrence the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental Constitutional tenet that in the context of individual liberty, one’s acts of self-expression are afforded protection whether naturally occurring or voluntary:

[T]he fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Again, whether one is born a homosexual or ‘decides’ to be a homosexual, either manifestation is a form of protected self-expression, and is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant when considering a claim of an Equal Protection Clause violation.

 

[dcraelin]

Reading something into the 14th amendment that obviously isnt there breeds contempt for lawyers, judges, the constitution and the rule of law. Judges should not base decisions on emotional appeals.
If the 14th addressed gender concerns it would have addressed women's suffrage...but it didnt.
Constitutions only have legitimacy if based on the will of the people. It is dangerous to argue otherwise].

The issue of women’s suffrage was not a 14th Amendment issue because it was rendered moot by the 19th Amendment.

19 comes after 14 doesnt it? If the 14th was to be read as you read it then women's suffragists should just have taken their case to court...They didnt. They fought for their rights in the only legitimate fashion available to them in a Republic

The Constitution is based on the rule of law, and derives its legitimacy from centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that makes the rule of law supreme, and all persons, justices, judges, and elected officials are subject to the rule of law. And when the people act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, such as with Proposition 8, such acts are appropriately invalidated in accordance with the rule of law.

Consequently, what you advocate is the tyranny of the majority, at odds with the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted and reviewed only in the context of the subjective, capricious whims and prejudices of the people devoid of facts, evidence, or a legitimate legislative end – resulting only in the loss of our civil liberties and the Republic itself.

Your concept of rule of law is misguided. Rule of law is legitimate only if based on the will of the people. Otherwise it can be determined by might (or position) makes right. Our written constitution was largely a rejection of the British "Anglo-American judicial tradition" were judges lorded it over the common people.

 

[Silhouette]

Your concept of rule of law is misguided. Rule of law is legitimate only if based on the will of the people. Otherwise it can be determined by might (or position) makes right. Our written constitution was largely a rejection of the British "Anglo-American judicial tradition" were judges lorded it over the common people.

Exactly. The gay agenda is literally dragging our country backwards legally speaking to the very thing we formed the country in order to escape. Thank you for pointing out that judicial and oligarchy activism at the detriment of the Will of the People were the very persecutions we fought very hard, suffered and died for many generations to escape.

You are right. The gay agenda is very dangerous and a politically seditious and subversive cabal.

Any group that with one wave of their magic wands [Gov. Brown, Senator Leno & AG Harris in CA] can strip away both the civil rights of 7 million voters AND reduce the CA intiative system to ashes is by definition a domestic terrorist cell whose goal is to subvert democracy. We need to understand at the hub of this wheel is the fact that whether or not people want to admit it, own up to it or publicly discuss it, "gay" is simply a fetish sexual B-E-H-A-V-I-O-R. Behaviors don't dictate to the majority "how it's going to be".

 

[dcraelin]

Your concept of rule of law is misguided. Rule of law is legitimate only if based on the will of the people. Otherwise it can be determined by might (or position) makes right. Our written constitution was largely a rejection of the British "Anglo-American judicial tradition" were judges lorded it over the common people.

Exactly. The gay agenda is literally dragging our country backwards legally speaking to the very thing we formed the country in order to escape. Thank you for pointing out that judicial and oligarchy activism at the detriment of the Will of the People were the very persecutions we fought very hard, suffered and died for many generations to escape.

You are right. The gay agenda is very dangerous and a politically seditious and subversive cabal.

I didnt say that last part and wouldn't go that far. It was and is misguided in so far as it tries to use the courts for what is better decided by the people.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Is Silly the One-Note Troll still beating this long-dead horse?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Reading something into the 14th amendment that obviously isnt there breeds contempt for lawyers, judges, the constitution and the rule of law. Judges should not base decisions on emotional appeals.
If the 14th addressed gender concerns it would have addressed women's suffrage...but it didnt.
Constitutions only have legitimacy if based on the will of the people. It is dangerous to argue otherwise].

The issue of women’s suffrage was not a 14th Amendment issue because it was rendered moot by the 19th Amendment.

19 comes after 14 doesnt it? If the 14th was to be read as you read it then women's suffragists should just have taken their case to court...They didnt. They fought for their rights in the only legitimate fashion available to them in a Republic

The Constitution is based on the rule of law, and derives its legitimacy from centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that makes the rule of law supreme, and all persons, justices, judges, and elected officials are subject to the rule of law. And when the people act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, such as with Proposition 8, such acts are appropriately invalidated in accordance with the rule of law.

Consequently, what you advocate is the tyranny of the majority, at odds with the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted and reviewed only in the context of the subjective, capricious whims and prejudices of the people devoid of facts, evidence, or a legitimate legislative end – resulting only in the loss of our civil liberties and the Republic itself.

Your concept of rule of law is misguided. Rule of law is legitimate only if based on the will of the people. Otherwise it can be determined by might (or position) makes right. Our written constitution was largely a rejection of the British "Anglo-American judicial tradition" were judges lorded it over the common people.

Incorrect.

The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic, its citizens subject to the rule of law, not the will of the people, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 is proof of that.

It is incumbent upon the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, to enact laws and like measures that comport with Constitutional case law; and when the people err and enact measures offensive to the Constitution, it is the role of the judiciary to invalidate those measures.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your concept of rule of law is misguided. Rule of law is legitimate only if based on the will of the people. Otherwise it can be determined by might (or position) makes right. Our written constitution was largely a rejection of the British "Anglo-American judicial tradition" were judges lorded it over the common people.

Exactly. The gay agenda is literally dragging our country backwards legally speaking to the very thing we formed the country in order to escape. Thank you for pointing out that judicial and oligarchy activism at the detriment of the Will of the People were the very persecutions we fought very hard, suffered and died for many generations to escape.

You are right. The gay agenda is very dangerous and a politically seditious and subversive cabal.

I didnt say that last part and wouldn't go that far. It was and is misguided in so far as it tries to use the courts for what is better decided by the people.

Ideally and in theory, if the people obey the Constitution and its case law, and enact measures that comport with that case law, there is no need for the courts to be involved at all.

Unfortunate human beings are neither ideal or perfect; they are often motivated by fear and animus toward those they perceive to be ‘different,’ and seek to use the power and authority of the state to disadvantage those perceived to be ‘different.’

This the states cannot do.

And when the people of a given state act in a manner that seeks to make a particular class of persons different from everyone else motivated by fear and animus, such as disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage law, those so disadvantaged have no other recourse than to pursue relief in the Federal courts.

If conservatives are tired of being sued and dragged into yet another court battle, there’s a simple solution: stop taking action to violate the civil liberties of your fellow Americans.

 

[dcraelin]

The issue of women’s suffrage was not a 14th Amendment issue because it was rendered moot by the 19th Amendment.

19 comes after 14 doesnt it? If the 14th was to be read as you read it then women's suffragists should just have taken their case to court...They didnt. They fought for their rights in the only legitimate fashion available to them in a Republic

The Constitution is based on the rule of law, and derives its legitimacy from centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that makes the rule of law supreme, and all persons, justices, judges, and elected officials are subject to the rule of law. And when the people act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, such as with Proposition 8, such acts are appropriately invalidated in accordance with the rule of law.

Consequently, what you advocate is the tyranny of the majority, at odds with the fundamental tenets of our Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted and reviewed only in the context of the subjective, capricious whims and prejudices of the people devoid of facts, evidence, or a legitimate legislative end – resulting only in the loss of our civil liberties and the Republic itself.

Your concept of rule of law is misguided. Rule of law is legitimate only if based on the will of the people. Otherwise it can be determined by might (or position) makes right. Our written constitution was largely a rejection of the British "Anglo-American judicial tradition" were judges lorded it over the common people.

Incorrect.

The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic, its citizens subject to the rule of law, not the will of the people, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 is proof of that.

It is incumbent upon the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, to enact laws and like measures that comport with Constitutional case law; and when the people err and enact measures offensive to the Constitution, it is the role of the judiciary to invalidate those measures.

Check out my pictures to see that dangerous saying "We're a Republic not a Democracy" refuted. The framers had to defer to We the People to pass the Constitution. And the people had recently thrown off the yoke of tyranny that the king and his judges had called rule of law.

You didnt answer the earlier part of my last post.

"Tyranny of the Majority" is an oxymoron. Tyranny is a form of rule of a cruel and oppressive absolute ruler....not by a majority .... There are cultural biases that affect whole societies but these also affect courts. Where were the courts when the Constitution allowed slavery? How wise was the Supreme Court in that era?

The cultural biases now lean more towards gay marriage than away from it. This is why the courts are emotionally ruling against the obvious intent of the 14th amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rule of law is only legitimate if based on the Constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Tyranny of the Majority" is an oxymoron. Tyranny is a form of rule of a cruel and oppressive absolute ruler....not by a majority .... There are cultural biases that affect whole societies but these also affect courts. Where were the courts when the Constitution allowed slavery? How wise was the Supreme Court in that era?

That is false. You are using a narrow definition of the word tyranny. The definition also includes a general oppressive rule.
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others

If 51 percent of the people vote the other 49 percent as slaves you have a tyranny of the majority because that majority is oppressing the minority. That concept is NOT an oxymoron but rather the central theme in our government. We strive to have a government that is ruled by the people but tempered to ensure that the people are not tyrannizing the minority.

It is obvious that our record is not spotless here with slavery and women a glaring black eye in that goal yet here we are with both of those rectified. We are proof IMHO that such a system is quite effective.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

19 comes after 14 doesnt it? If the 14th was to be read as you read it then women's suffragists should just have taken their case to court...They didnt. They fought for their rights in the only legitimate fashion available to them in a Republic

Your concept of rule of law is misguided. Rule of law is legitimate only if based on the will of the people. Otherwise it can be determined by might (or position) makes right. Our written constitution was largely a rejection of the British "Anglo-American judicial tradition" were judges lorded it over the common people.

Incorrect.

The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic, its citizens subject to the rule of law, not the will of the people, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 is proof of that.

It is incumbent upon the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, to enact laws and like measures that comport with Constitutional case law; and when the people err and enact measures offensive to the Constitution, it is the role of the judiciary to invalidate those measures.

Check out my pictures to see that dangerous saying "We're a Republic not a Democracy" refuted. The framers had to defer to We the People to pass the Constitution. And the people had recently thrown off the yoke of tyranny that the king and his judges had called rule of law.

You didnt answer the earlier part of my last post.

"Tyranny of the Majority" is an oxymoron. Tyranny is a form of rule of a cruel and oppressive absolute ruler....not by a majority .... There are cultural biases that affect whole societies but these also affect courts. Where were the courts when the Constitution allowed slavery? How wise was the Supreme Court in that era?

The cultural biases now lean more towards gay marriage than away from it. This is why the courts are emotionally ruling against the obvious intent of the 14th amendment.

You don’t understand.

The people and the government are one in the same, not separate and apart; what government does it does at the behest of the people.

The Framers wisely and correctly avoided direct democracy and opted for a republican form of government because it afforded the people important checks and balances designed to prevent tyranny.

In Congress the people were afforded direct representation in the House and indirect representation in the Senate. The president is elected by an indirect means as well via the Electoral College, representing the people in the many states. And the Federal judiciary is appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.

But however indirect, each branch of government reflects the will of the people and is subject to their concerns.

Each branch of government plays its role in governing the Nation: Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces those laws, and the Judiciary reviews the laws to determine Constitutionality when the people perceive their civil liberties infringed.*

This is our republican form of government, a brilliant and unique governing construct that allows for the expression of the will of the people while at the same time safeguarding their civil liberties.




*This answers your question concerning women's suffrage.