The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[bodecea]

Blacks OVERWHEMINGLY supported 8....shhhh!!!!!

That's not been my experience talking to my black friends, nor my hispanic ones. PRIVATELY the "polling data" reflects a very different reality.

Your bringing this up though reminds me of something with respect to the challenges coming back to SCOTUS on the DOMA Prop 8 legal "conundrum". [it isn't really, if you understand how supremacy of law works in the federal system.] I've thought that when it is found that California cannot be the single exception to the recent constitutionaly Upholding by the Supreme Court to have and always have had the right to consensus on gay marriage, that a new ballot initiative for gay marriage in CA would be their remedy for all the illegal gay marriages happening there now. How sad for these people duped into believing what they're doing is "legal" when the Supreme Court just de facto upheld Prop 8 in DOMA...

[For those a little slower to dawn, this is why the conservative justices combined the two cases. Senior Justices know a thing or two about law, procedure and timing]

If, as you are certain, "everyone in CA supports gay marriage" why the hesitation to make it legal there via the consensus [constitutionally Upheld as always being legitimate to decide gay marriage]? Put an initiative on the ballot. Yet in spite of gay propaganda artists laughing and claiming "it's already a done deal, everyone supports gay marriage" we find a very different rendering when it's put to a consensus. Very different. And hence the reason gay litigants prefer propaganda, judicial activism and outright blackmail in some cases to force gay marriage upon the citizenry instead of inviting their consent: They know the real numbers behind "support for gay marriage".

Your anecdotal evidence or....

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

I'll go with the Times.

How many does that add up to be?

 

[Antares]

That's not been my experience talking to my black friends, nor my hispanic ones. PRIVATELY the "polling data" reflects a very different reality.

Your bringing this up though reminds me of something with respect to the challenges coming back to SCOTUS on the DOMA Prop 8 legal "conundrum". [it isn't really, if you understand how supremacy of law works in the federal system.] I've thought that when it is found that California cannot be the single exception to the recent constitutionaly Upholding by the Supreme Court to have and always have had the right to consensus on gay marriage, that a new ballot initiative for gay marriage in CA would be their remedy for all the illegal gay marriages happening there now. How sad for these people duped into believing what they're doing is "legal" when the Supreme Court just de facto upheld Prop 8 in DOMA...

[For those a little slower to dawn, this is why the conservative justices combined the two cases. Senior Justices know a thing or two about law, procedure and timing]

If, as you are certain, "everyone in CA supports gay marriage" why the hesitation to make it legal there via the consensus [constitutionally Upheld as always being legitimate to decide gay marriage]? Put an initiative on the ballot. Yet in spite of gay propaganda artists laughing and claiming "it's already a done deal, everyone supports gay marriage" we find a very different rendering when it's put to a consensus. Very different. And hence the reason gay litigants prefer propaganda, judicial activism and outright blackmail in some cases to force gay marriage upon the citizenry instead of inviting their consent: They know the real numbers behind "support for gay marriage".

Your anecdotal evidence or....

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

I'll go with the Times.

How many does that add up to be?

Let me help you...you seem to be numerically challenged.....

70% of ANY number is a HUGE majority...does that help silly boy/girl/whatever?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Your anecdotal evidence or....

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

I'll go with the Times.

How many does that add up to be?

Let me help you...you seem to be numerically challenged.....

70% of ANY number is a HUGE majority...does that help silly boy/girl/whatever?

Who says blacks can't be bigoted?

 

[Antares]

How many does that add up to be?

Let me help you...you seem to be numerically challenged.....

70% of ANY number is a HUGE majority...does that help silly boy/girl/whatever?

Who says blacks can't be bigoted?

It has nothing to do with bigotry.

 

[bodecea]

Your anecdotal evidence or....

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds.

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds - latimes.com

I'll go with the Times.

How many does that add up to be?

Let me help you...you seem to be numerically challenged.....

70% of ANY number is a HUGE majority...does that help silly boy/girl/whatever?

There are many many people in CA of all races, creeds, etc. Only about 50% of them vote tho....how black voters were there? then we can figure out 70% of them....compared to all the other millions of voters in CA.

Oh...and Prop H8 barely passed....so, 70% wasn't some overwhelming wave now, was it?

 

[bodecea]

How many does that add up to be?

Let me help you...you seem to be numerically challenged.....

70% of ANY number is a HUGE majority...does that help silly boy/girl/whatever?

Who says blacks can't be bigoted?

Oh course they can.


But the fun part now is the President as come out for Gay marriage....there was a tiny wave of Black Preachers' outrage...then it died away....Uh Oh.

 

[Silhouette]

[
Oh...and Prop H8 barely passed....so, 70% wasn't some overwhelming wave now, was it?

Which makes you wonder why gays etc. don't want to make gay marriage legal there the only way it legitimately can be now? If there is such a state of certainty about the "real" numbers behind gay marriage, why won't they put it to a consensus?

Hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is where the will of the court trumps the will of the people. That shouldn't be. The people voted for this law, but somehow their collective voices were silenced. Just imagine what kind of legal precedent this sets for the next set of justices.

 

[Seawytch]

[
Oh...and Prop H8 barely passed....so, 70% wasn't some overwhelming wave now, was it?

Which makes you wonder why gays etc. don't want to make gay marriage legal there the only way it legitimately can be now? If there is such a state of certainty about the "real" numbers behind gay marriage, why won't they put it to a consensus?

Hmm?

Because civil rights should never be subject to the "will of the majority".

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070816i.gif

 

[Seawytch]

This is where the will of the court trumps the will of the people. That shouldn't be. The people voted for this law, but somehow their collective voices were silenced. Just imagine what kind of legal precedent this sets for the next set of justices.

When a law passed by legislature or initiative violates the Constitution, the courts are supposed to step in.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is where the will of the court trumps the will of the people. That shouldn't be. The people voted for this law, but somehow their collective voices were silenced. Just imagine what kind of legal precedent this sets for the next set of justices.

When a law passed by legislature or initiative violates the Constitution, the courts are supposed to step in.

So, how does it violate the Constitution? All because an overly corrupt Supreme Court says it does? Just what civil rights were denied? You can own a home, a car, have children, vote, get a good paying job, not be discriminated based on age, sex, or skin color, but you worry about marriage? You have the same basic freedoms that I have.

If California had an initiative in which people voted FOR gay marriage, and the minority sued on the basis of constitutionality, where would you be exactly? Yes, by no means would you think it violates anyone else's Constitutional rights. It would never be unconstitutional if it fell in line with what you agreed with. What a colossal double standard.

One other thing. Marriage is and always will be a religious institution, not something a government of men can dictate the meaning of.

 

[Seawytch]

This is where the will of the court trumps the will of the people. That shouldn't be. The people voted for this law, but somehow their collective voices were silenced. Just imagine what kind of legal precedent this sets for the next set of justices.

When a law passed by legislature or initiative violates the Constitution, the courts are supposed to step in.

So, how does it violate the Constitution? All because an overly corrupt Supreme Court says it does? Just what civil rights were denied? You can own a home, a car, have children, vote, get a good paying job, not be discriminated based on age, sex, or skin color, but you worry about marriage? You have the same basic freedoms that I have.

If California had an initiative in which people voted FOR gay marriage, and the minority sued on the basis of constitutionality, where would you be exactly? Yes, by no means would you think it violates anyone else's Constitutional rights. It would never be unconstitutional if it fell in line with what you agreed with. What a colossal double standard.

One other thing. Marriage is and always will be a religious institution, not something a government of men can dictate the meaning of.

Read the court ruling in Prop 8:

the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.

Wiki: Prop 8

And the DOMA Ruling:

On December 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[109] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]:25

Wiki: DOMA

 

[Silhouette]

Read the court ruling in Prop 8:

the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.

Wiki: Prop 8

And the DOMA Ruling:

On December 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[109] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]:25

Wiki: DOMA

C'mon, Wikipedia?....lol.. Did you write the conclusion on those yourself?

Read the court ruling in Prop 8:

the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.

And then the US Supreme Court [not the court you just cited] just Upheld on page 19 of the DOMA Opinion that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and always has had that right, long before prop 8 was passed... Giving each state the right to consensus on gay marriage is taking away any definition of gay marriage as a protected right constitutionally. Did you not get that memo?

And the DOMA Ruling:

On December 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[109] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]:25

A chopped statement out of context never beats one that is whole and in context. You left out one part: the repeated mantra that states have the unquestioned authority when determining via consensus that gay marriage is legal or not in their borders. They threw out Section III [but not Section II]. All they were saying is that the fed could not treat people found to be legally married in each separate state that arrived there by consensus as "inequal to other marriages from that same state".

So good when you know things in context. Wikipedia is like citing a grandmother for her "subjective opinion" on whether or not her grandkids are cute and lovable...lol..

 

[Seawytch]

Read the court ruling in Prop 8:

the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.

Wiki: Prop 8

And the DOMA Ruling:

On December 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[109] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]:25

Wiki: DOMA

C'mon, Wikipedia?....lol.. Did you write the conclusion on those yourself?

Read the court ruling in Prop 8:

the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.

And then the US Supreme Court [not the court you just cited] just Upheld on page 19 of the DOMA Opinion that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and always has had that right, long before prop 8 was passed...

Giving each state the right to consensus on gay marriage is taking away any definition of gay marriage as a protected right constitutionally. Did you not get that memo?

I'm sorry you don't understand that the constitutionality of anti-gay marriage laws has not been ruled upon by the SCOTUS...but you will eventually.

And the DOMA Ruling:

On December 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[109] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]:25

A chopped statement out of context never beats one that is whole and in context. You left out one part: the repeated mantra that states have the unquestioned authority when determining via consensus that gay marriage is legal or not in their borders. They threw out Section III [but not Section II]. All they were saying is that the fed could not treat people found to be legally married in each separate state that arrived there by consensus as "inequal to other marriages from that same state".

Rinse, repeat.

So good when you know things in context. Wikipedia is like citing a grandmother for her "subjective opinion" on whether or not her grandkids are cute and lovable...lol..

Links to rulings and opinions within cited article.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm sorry you don't understand that the constitutionality of anti-gay marriage laws has not been ruled upon by the SCOTUS...but you will eventually.

Proposition 8 was not and is not an "anti-gay marriage law". It does not say "we disallow gay marriage in our state" [though the Supreme Court in DOMA just upheld each sovereign state, including CA's, constitutional ability to declare that] Proposition 8 says, as you well know, "marriage is between a man and a woman". No gays singled out. It simply defines marriage in that state in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors cannot get married there. That is their constitutional right, Reaffirmed by SCOTUS June, 2013.

What you mean by "you will eventually" I assume is your declaration that a case will be brought, maybe even the Gutierrez et al v Brown et al that forces SCOTUS to reverse all the findings in DOMA this June to instead say that states do not have the constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and other oddballs like the ones they cited, 13 year olds in New Hampshire, 16 year olds in Vermont, first cousins etc. Good luck with that. From the syllabus all through the Opinion in DOMA a person loses count of the number of times the High Court affirms, reaffirms, re-reaffirms, iterates and reiterates that each sovereign state has the power to define marriage for itself within the context of the question of legality of gay marriage. That number and vast swath of reaffirmations of that as a Constitutional Fact [so Interpreted] is going to be a hard bear to wrestle. Best of luck to you.

The conservative Justices didn't word it that way by accident. They were saying to the general public, "look, just in case you get any ideas that you can wedge this thing at the federal level for a carte blanche on gay marriage, think again. We will give you the carte blanche the same day we give 13 year olds the carte blanche." And I'm pretty sure that I will never "understand... that eventually"...

 

[Seawytch]

Patience Sil, the first challenge will be coming soon.

 

[Silhouette]

Patience Sil, the first challenge will be coming soon.

Yes, and when it arrives it will be facing this:

Proposition 8 was not and is not an "anti-gay marriage law". It does not say "we disallow gay marriage in our state" [though the Supreme Court in DOMA just upheld each sovereign state, including CA's, constitutional ability to declare that] Proposition 8 says, as you well know, "marriage is between a man and a woman". No gays singled out. It simply defines marriage in that state in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors cannot get married there. That is their constitutional right, Reaffirmed by SCOTUS June, 2013.

What you mean by "you will eventually" I assume is your declaration that a case will be brought, maybe even the Gutierrez et al v Brown et al that forces SCOTUS to reverse all the findings in DOMA this June to instead say that states do not have the constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and other oddballs like the ones they cited, 13 year olds in New Hampshire, 16 year olds in Vermont, first cousins etc. Good luck with that. From the syllabus all through the Opinion in DOMA a person loses count of the number of times the High Court affirms, reaffirms, re-reaffirms, iterates and reiterates that each sovereign state has the power to define marriage for itself within the context of the question of legality of gay marriage. That number and vast swath of reaffirmations of that as a Constitutional Fact [so Interpreted] is going to be a hard bear to wrestle. Best of luck to you.

The conservative Justices didn't word it that way by accident. They were saying to the general public, "look, just in case you get any ideas that you can wedge this thing at the federal level for a carte blanche on gay marriage, think again. We will give you the carte blanche the same day we give 13 year olds the carte blanche." And I'm pretty sure that I will never "understand... that eventually"...

Patience Seawytch, The Justices will carefully walk the losing party through how in DOMA they Upheld constitutionally that each state gets to decide via consensus whether or not gay marriage is legal, in the same way they do with other oddballs like 13 year olds or first cousins...etc.. Polygamy also comes to mind. If gay marriage becomes an inaliable right, polygamists cannot be arbitrarily denied because their kink is "different or weird"...lol...c'mon. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

And if you think this Court is going to be the first one to accidentally open the precedent floodgates to mandate polygamy across the 50 states, you've got one hell of an imagination there. Gotta give you credit for that.

Long story short for your hopes of gay marriage being a sweeping right: Prognosis grim into the foreseeable future..

 

[Seawytch]

Patience Sil, the first challenge will be coming soon.

Yes, and when it arrives it will be facing this:

Proposition 8 was not and is not an "anti-gay marriage law". It does not say "we disallow gay marriage in our state" [though the Supreme Court in DOMA just upheld each sovereign state, including CA's, constitutional ability to declare that] Proposition 8 says, as you well know, "marriage is between a man and a woman". No gays singled out. It simply defines marriage in that state in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors cannot get married there. That is their constitutional right, Reaffirmed by SCOTUS June, 2013.

What you mean by "you will eventually" I assume is your declaration that a case will be brought, maybe even the Gutierrez et al v Brown et al that forces SCOTUS to reverse all the findings in DOMA this June to instead say that states do not have the constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and other oddballs like the ones they cited, 13 year olds in New Hampshire, 16 year olds in Vermont, first cousins etc. Good luck with that. From the syllabus all through the Opinion in DOMA a person loses count of the number of times the High Court affirms, reaffirms, re-reaffirms, iterates and reiterates that each sovereign state has the power to define marriage for itself within the context of the question of legality of gay marriage. That number and vast swath of reaffirmations of that as a Constitutional Fact [so Interpreted] is going to be a hard bear to wrestle. Best of luck to you.

The conservative Justices didn't word it that way by accident. They were saying to the general public, "look, just in case you get any ideas that you can wedge this thing at the federal level for a carte blanche on gay marriage, think again. We will give you the carte blanche the same day we give 13 year olds the carte blanche." And I'm pretty sure that I will never "understand... that eventually"...

Patience Seawytch, The Justices will carefully walk the losing party through how in DOMA they Upheld constitutionally that each state gets to decide via consensus whether or not gay marriage is legal, in the same way they do with other oddballs like 13 year olds or first cousins...etc.. Polygamy also comes to mind. If gay marriage becomes an inaliable right, polygamists cannot be arbitrarily denied because their kink is "different or weird"...lol...c'mon. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

And if you think this Court is going to be the first one to accidentally open the precedent floodgates to mandate polygamy across the 50 states, you've got one hell of an imagination there. Gotta give you credit for that.

Long story short for your hopes of gay marriage being a sweeping right: Prognosis grim into the foreseeable future..

Giving equal access to marriage laws to gays and lesbians is not "opening doors to polygamy", but it will be fun to watch your meltdown when the SCOTUS does finally rule on anti gay marriage laws.

 

[rightwinger]

Patience Sil, the first challenge will be coming soon.

Yes, and when it arrives it will be facing this:

Proposition 8 was not and is not an "anti-gay marriage law". It does not say "we disallow gay marriage in our state" [though the Supreme Court in DOMA just upheld each sovereign state, including CA's, constitutional ability to declare that] Proposition 8 says, as you well know, "marriage is between a man and a woman". No gays singled out. It simply defines marriage in that state in such a way that gays, polygamists and minors cannot get married there. That is their constitutional right, Reaffirmed by SCOTUS June, 2013.

What you mean by "you will eventually" I assume is your declaration that a case will be brought, maybe even the Gutierrez et al v Brown et al that forces SCOTUS to reverse all the findings in DOMA this June to instead say that states do not have the constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage and other oddballs like the ones they cited, 13 year olds in New Hampshire, 16 year olds in Vermont, first cousins etc. Good luck with that. From the syllabus all through the Opinion in DOMA a person loses count of the number of times the High Court affirms, reaffirms, re-reaffirms, iterates and reiterates that each sovereign state has the power to define marriage for itself within the context of the question of legality of gay marriage. That number and vast swath of reaffirmations of that as a Constitutional Fact [so Interpreted] is going to be a hard bear to wrestle. Best of luck to you.

The conservative Justices didn't word it that way by accident. They were saying to the general public, "look, just in case you get any ideas that you can wedge this thing at the federal level for a carte blanche on gay marriage, think again. We will give you the carte blanche the same day we give 13 year olds the carte blanche." And I'm pretty sure that I will never "understand... that eventually"...

Patience Seawytch, The Justices will carefully walk the losing party through how in DOMA they Upheld constitutionally that each state gets to decide via consensus whether or not gay marriage is legal, in the same way they do with other oddballs like 13 year olds or first cousins...etc.. Polygamy also comes to mind. If gay marriage becomes an inaliable right, polygamists cannot be arbitrarily denied because their kink is "different or weird"...lol...c'mon. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

And if you think this Court is going to be the first one to accidentally open the precedent floodgates to mandate polygamy across the 50 states, you've got one hell of an imagination there. Gotta give you credit for that.

Long story short for your hopes of gay marriage being a sweeping right: Prognosis grim into the foreseeable future..

If between consenting adults, what interest does the government have in banning polygamy?

 

[Antares]

How many does that add up to be?

Let me help you...you seem to be numerically challenged.....

70% of ANY number is a HUGE majority...does that help silly boy/girl/whatever?

There are many many people in CA of all races, creeds, etc. Only about 50% of them vote tho....how black voters were there? then we can figure out 70% of them....compared to all the other millions of voters in CA.

Oh...and Prop H8 barely passed....so, 70% wasn't some overwhelming wave now, was it?

LOL....why does it bother you so much that 70% of voting blacks supported prop 8?

Are you a black lesbian?