The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[Seawytch]

You lost CA, but you could probably hold on to Mississippi or Alabama for a while.

You need to describe how Proposition 8 was made illegal, given that it merely was California's consensus [after the founding of our nation] on gay marriage [and polygamy and minors marrying]. Please cite in either the DOMA or the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision where gay marriage was Upheld as an inaliable "right" that is mandated in California. Bear in mind that any lower court ruling, opinion etc. that predates June 2013's Findings that each sovereign state has had since the time of the founding of our country, the constitutional right to consensus on marriage, that is in direct conflict with that constitutional right, is null and void.

I don't "need" to do anything except sit here and enjoy the benefits of being legally married in CA.

 

[bodecea]

That's impossible to kill an appeal for good. That would be taking away a person's rights to due process. There are many statutes preventing that. Unless you're suggesting California has totally become an autocratic dictatorship?

So...Virginia can appeal Loving v Virginia all they want again and again and again.

 

[bodecea]

You lost CA, but you could probably hold on to Mississippi or Alabama for a while.

You need to describe how Proposition 8 was made illegal, given that it merely was California's consensus [after the founding of our nation] on gay marriage [and polygamy and minors marrying]. Please cite in either the DOMA or the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision where gay marriage was Upheld as an inaliable "right" that is mandated in California. Bear in mind that any lower court ruling, opinion etc. that predates June 2013's Findings that each sovereign state has had since the time of the founding of our country, the constitutional right to consensus on marriage, that is in direct conflict with that constitutional right, is null and void.

I don't "need" to do anything except sit here and enjoy the benefits of being legally married in CA.

Same here....plus finally my wife and I getting each other on our Survivor Benefits paperwork for the military.

 

[Silhouette]

That's impossible to kill an appeal for good. That would be taking away a person's rights to due process. There are many statutes preventing that. Unless you're suggesting California has totally become an autocratic dictatorship?

So...Virginia can appeal Loving v Virginia all they want again and again and again.

You know it's funny. The Supreme Court in the DOMA Opinion actually cited Loving v Virginia. And still they made no determination of constitutionality as to gay marriage. That had to be a blow for gay activists. Probably the worst one of the whole document if you wanted to look ahead and anticipate cases marching back there...

The only thing they did determine was that only 12 states and not California as the 13th had legal gay marriage and that gay marriage was not a right, but subject to each sovereign state's consensus to determine.

Ouch. Read it. Cite where you find I am "wrong".

Like I said, if you think you're legally married in California, you need to take the DOMA Opinion to your lawyer and sort things out. Just to be sure, you might want to go to one of the only 12 states SCOTUS recognizes as having legal marriage and get married there instead.

Don't say I didn't warn you. Christie/Paul will be in the Whitehouse soon likely and you'll want to be prepared for that eventuality. "Be prepared" if you're a good boy/girl scout!

 

[Silhouette]

Same here....plus finally my wife and I getting each other on our Survivor Benefits paperwork for the military.

Were you married in CA and are you a woman? You might want to check with your attorney for the longevity of those expectations and the DOMA Opinion.

I personally think that when the GOP pulls the plug on the CA charade, gays who thought they were "legally" married there...ever..[remember the retroactive to the founding of the country statements in DOMA as to state's right to consensus on gay marriage] would have a sound base for a class-action lawsuit against people like AG Kamala Harris and Gov. Jerry Brown for grossly misleading them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is particularly unforgivable for a lawyer to willfuly misinterpret the law and be in contempt of the US Supreme Court and their own state's constitutional guarantees as to the power of the initiative system....

...to mislead people for the purposes of shining politically in a select demographic's eyes. It's like your parents telling you "yes, Santa is abolutely real" and then dropping the bomb on reality after they leave office. Yes, if I were a gay person looking to marry the same gender in California, I'd switch plans just to be sure and do it in one of the 12 states SCOTUS recognized in DOMA.

 

[Seawytch]

Same here....plus finally my wife and I getting each other on our Survivor Benefits paperwork for the military.

Were you married in CA and are you a woman? You might want to check with your attorney for the longevity of those expectations and the DOMA Opinion.

I personally think that when the GOP pulls the plug on the CA charade, gays who thought they were "legally" married there...ever..[remember the retroactive to the founding of the country statements in DOMA as to state's right to consensus on gay marriage] would have a sound base for a class-action lawsuit against people like AG Kamala Harris and Gov. Jerry Brown for grossly misleading them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is particularly unforgivable for a lawyer to willfuly misinterpret the law and be in contempt of the US Supreme Court and their own state's constitutional guarantees as to the power of the initiative system....

...to mislead people for the purposes of shining politically in a select demographic's eyes. It's like your parents telling you "yes, Santa is abolutely real" and then dropping the bomb on reality after they leave office. Yes, if I were a gay person looking to marry the same gender in California, I'd switch plans just to be sure and do it in one of the 12 states SCOTUS recognized in DOMA.

You are a moron if you think DOMA only applies to the 12 states that had recognized marriage equality at the time of the ruling. All legal marriages are recognized, including those in CA.

Besides, Bod got married, as I did, prior to the passage of the unconstitutional Prop 8.

 

[Silhouette]

[page 17 of the Opinion]

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens....

...[page 18]...

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice)....

[page 19]

...it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

...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 theirown 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...

...North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid

. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”). Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Were any of you "gay married' in California after the adoption of the US Constitution? If so, then you were not legally "gay" married in California. Nobody is.

Read the parts above in bold from the DOMA Opinion. Central to the entire Ruling was the question of authority of states to determine marriage for themselves in the larger quesiton of gay marriage. They said on page 14 that only 12 states had legal gay marriage according to their own definition of how that law is arrived at by state consensus, back to the founding of the country.

 

[Seawytch]

[page 17 of the Opinion]

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens....

...[page 18]...

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice)....

[page 19]

...it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

...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 theirown 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...

...North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid

. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”). Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Were any of you "gay married' in California after the adoption of the US Constitution? If so, then you were not legally "gay" married in California. Nobody is.

Read the parts above in bold from the DOMA Opinion. Central to the entire Ruling was the question of authority of states to determine marriage for themselves in the larger quesiton of gay marriage. They said on page 14 that only 12 states had legal gay marriage according to their own definition of how that law is arrived at by state consensus, back to the founding of the country.

You just confirmed you're a moron.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you resorting to ad hominem, or would you like to discuss the parts in bold above from the DOMA Opinion this last June?

 

[Seawytch]

Are you resorting to ad hominem, or would you like to discuss the parts in bold above from the DOMA Opinion this last June?

Nope. I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy the benefits of being legally married. Got an email from benefits today saying they would be stopping the additional tax I pay for my spouses health care AND I hear they're now issuing dependent IDs to same sex partners. Gotta make that appointment!

 

[Silhouette]

You're either saying you enjoy fascism and the disruption of law and due process or your saying gay marriage is "legal" in CA.

I think if we had to choose the lesser of two evils we'd do well to choose the rule of law. You may enjoy your make believe world of "gay marriage" in CA and other places the new GOP administration will soon set you straight on, but the rest of us would like to rely on a system where the Will of 7 million voters and their constitutional right to consensus are respected.

For those just tuning in, now New Mexico is experiencing the tyranny of judicial activism. Keep it up. Pretty soon the slumbering and their attorneys are going to draw a line in the sand.

 

[Seawytch]

You're either saying you enjoy fascism and the disruption of law and due process or your saying gay marriage is "legal" in CA.

I think if we had to choose the lesser of two evils we'd do well to choose the rule of law. You may enjoy your make believe world of "gay marriage" in CA and other places the new GOP administration will soon set you straight on, but the rest of us would like to rely on a system where the Will of 7 million voters and their constitutional right to consensus are respected.

For those just tuning in, now New Mexico is experiencing the tyranny of judicial activism. Keep it up. Pretty soon the slumbering and their attorneys are going to draw a line in the sand.

My marriage is legal and I'm enjoying the benefits of it. You can try and take them away, but you're tilting at windmills.

 

[bodecea]

[page 17 of the Opinion]

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens....

...[page 18]...

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful— such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice)....

[page 19]

...it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism...

...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 theirown 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...

...North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid

. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”). Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Were any of you "gay married' in California after the adoption of the US Constitution? If so, then you were not legally "gay" married in California. Nobody is.

Read the parts above in bold from the DOMA Opinion. Central to the entire Ruling was the question of authority of states to determine marriage for themselves in the larger quesiton of gay marriage. They said on page 14 that only 12 states had legal gay marriage according to their own definition of how that law is arrived at by state consensus, back to the founding of the country.

We most certainly are legally married. And now, because of DOMA being shot down, have all the federal rights and benefits as well. Now we can file married federal tax returns as well as married state tax returns. And now each others' veteran survivor benefits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette is flatly wrong morally and legally.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette is flatly wrong morally and legally.

If you want to get technical, parading people having sex with each other's colons and thereby enhancing the transmission of HIV 18-fold over vaginal sex to kids as "normal through marriage" is morally wrong.

It is also legally wrong in California where that state has enjoyed the constitutional right to say "no" to gay marriage since the founding of the country, as just recently Upheld in DOMA June 2013.

Check with your attorneys if you think your make-believe marriage is "real" in California. Just because the AG and governor think they have power over the SUPREME Court of the US doesn't mean their fantasies are real. I understand California's penchant for thinking fantasies are "real" from its obsession with Hollywood but law is law. The Supreme Court is the last stop and they just said that California's consensus on prop 8 was and is legal. They reiterated that "gentle let down" for gays by saying they only recognize 12 states as having legal gay marriage. They purposefully left out the 13th gays believe in their minds has "legal gay marriage".

Sorry to disappoint you. Take DOMA to your attorney ASAP. Get married in one of the 12 states that has legal gay marriage or it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette wants to impose her beliefs and morals on others.

SCOTUS and many other courts and legislatures say "no".

Silhouette, this is over.

Your civil and religious liberty is not threatened by same-sex marriage, but you are threatening the civil and religious liberty of everyone with your craziness.

 

[bodecea]

As a side note, NPR reported this morning that Wal-Mart will finally begin providing health care benefits to same-sex couples due to the Supreme Court's decision on DOMA.

 

[Silhouette]

A lot of people misundertsand the DOMA Opinion. Very few, not even Walmart executives, have taken the time to read that in DOMA, The US Supreme Court Upheld Prop 8 by Upholding that each state has a constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage.

That will all change when the GOP takes Office.

 

[Seawytch]

A lot of people misundertsand the DOMA Opinion. Very few, not even Walmart executives, have taken the time to read that in DOMA, The US Supreme Court Upheld Prop 8 by Upholding that each state has a constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage.

That will all change when the GOP takes Office.

Yes, you do misunderstand the DOMA ruling.

 

[Redfish]

A lot of people misundertsand the DOMA Opinion. Very few, not even Walmart executives, have taken the time to read that in DOMA, The US Supreme Court Upheld Prop 8 by Upholding that each state has a constitutional right to consensus on gay marriage.

That will all change when the GOP takes Office.

Yes, you do misunderstand the DOMA ruling.

No, wytchey, you refuse to because it makes a sham of your "marriage".

Your civil union or mutual support contract is fine and would give your the rights that you want (and deserve). But what you have is not, and never will be, a marriage.