Today may be The Day for California!

[Si modo]

NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Likely because there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is only marriage, as written by a given state, where both same-sex and opposite-sex couples have the right to avail themselves of that law.

I can agree with that...however some Third World attitude states discriminate based on gender still.

Your "Third World" reference includes California.

 

[USwings]

And now?

I believe you are waiting for a ruling on weather the will of the people of California will stand or be overturned by a court.

Civil liberties are not determined by majority rule; and one does not forfeit his civil rights as a consequence of his state of residence. The people of California do not have the right to deny same-sex couples access to their state’s marriage law.

Indeed, Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government...

In a republic citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable ruling justly. Prop 8 is a clear example of the inability of men to rule justly, and the supremacy of the rule of law.

Prop 8 affirms what marriage has always been. Civil liberties don't give people the right to redefine marriage. Everyone in California is free to marry, redefining marriage is different.

 

[Seawytch]

I believe you are waiting for a ruling on weather the will of the people of California will stand or be overturned by a court.

Civil liberties are not determined by majority rule; and one does not forfeit his civil rights as a consequence of his state of residence. The people of California do not have the right to deny same-sex couples access to their state’s marriage law.

Indeed, Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government...

In a republic citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable ruling justly. Prop 8 is a clear example of the inability of men to rule justly, and the supremacy of the rule of law.

Prop 8 affirms what marriage has always been. Civil liberties don't give people the right to redefine marriage. Everyone in California is free to marry, redefining marriage is different.

Was marriage "redefined" when courts FORCED interracial marriage on the populace decades before popular opinion approved?

It does not redefine civil marriage by recognizing ALL non-familial consenting adult couples equally. This is a legal issue, not a religious one.

If it is a "marriage" license that is issued by the state, then tax-paying gay and lesbian couples should be able to get one. If you don't like us getting the SAME EXACT license you get from the state, change the name of your state's license for EVERYBODY.

(We'll still call it a marriage though )

 

[bodecea]

I believe you are waiting for a ruling on weather the will of the people of California will stand or be overturned by a court.

Civil liberties are not determined by majority rule; and one does not forfeit his civil rights as a consequence of his state of residence. The people of California do not have the right to deny same-sex couples access to their state’s marriage law.

Indeed, Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government...

In a republic citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable ruling justly. Prop 8 is a clear example of the inability of men to rule justly, and the supremacy of the rule of law.

Prop 8 affirms what marriage has always been. Civil liberties don't give people the right to redefine marriage. Everyone in California is free to marry, redefining marriage is different.

Prop H8 did no such thing. It took away a right that was in place with no explanation. That is what the lawsuit is about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe you are waiting for a ruling on weather the will of the people of California will stand or be overturned by a court.

Civil liberties are not determined by majority rule; and one does not forfeit his civil rights as a consequence of his state of residence. The people of California do not have the right to deny same-sex couples access to their state’s marriage law.

Indeed, Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government...

In a republic citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable ruling justly. Prop 8 is a clear example of the inability of men to rule justly, and the supremacy of the rule of law.

Prop 8 affirms what marriage has always been. Civil liberties don't give people the right to redefine marriage. Everyone in California is free to marry, redefining marriage is different.

Prop 8 denied same-sex couples access to marriage law, the law remained unchanged. Civil liberties allow citizens the right to access all the laws of the state, including marriage.

Indeed, same-sex couples are not only opposed to ‘redefining’ marriage,’ but they rightfully seek access to marriage exactly as it exists for opposite-sex couples.

 

[Si modo]

Civil liberties are not determined by majority rule; and one does not forfeit his civil rights as a consequence of his state of residence. The people of California do not have the right to deny same-sex couples access to their state’s marriage law.

Indeed, Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government...

In a republic citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable ruling justly. Prop 8 is a clear example of the inability of men to rule justly, and the supremacy of the rule of law.

Prop 8 affirms what marriage has always been. Civil liberties don't give people the right to redefine marriage. Everyone in California is free to marry, redefining marriage is different.

Prop H8 did no such thing. It took away a right that was in place with no explanation. That is what the lawsuit is about.

What right was that? The explanation is clear, though; Californians didn't want it.

 

[USwings]

And now?

I believe you are waiting for a ruling on weather the will of the people of California will stand or be overturned by a court.

By the Supreme Court of the United States. Because that is where it is at right now. Do you think the Supreme Court should let the lower court's ruling stand?

Do you think the lower court should have let the California Supreme Court ruling stand? I guess it depends on what answer your looking for. No I don't think they should. I don't think something like this should be backed into.

 

[bodecea]

I believe you are waiting for a ruling on weather the will of the people of California will stand or be overturned by a court.

By the Supreme Court of the United States. Because that is where it is at right now. Do you think the Supreme Court should let the lower court's ruling stand?

Do you think the lower court should have let the California Supreme Court ruling stand? I guess it depends on what answer your looking for. No I don't think they should. I don't think something like this should be backed into.

Hardly backed into when you have the top Constitutional Law people making a decision on this.

 

[bodecea]

Prop 8 affirms what marriage has always been. Civil liberties don't give people the right to redefine marriage. Everyone in California is free to marry, redefining marriage is different.

Prop H8 did no such thing. It took away a right that was in place with no explanation. That is what the lawsuit is about.

What right was that? The explanation is clear, though; Californians didn't want it.

The right to legally marry which was in place for 4 months in California. We ourselves got married during that time period and are legally married. So...there is this established right...that civil marriage will not be denied based on gender....then Prop H8 takes away that right from a minority of law-abiding tax-paying California citizens with no reason stated. Even the California Constitution says they cannot do that. And that is the basis of the Constitutional argument in front of the US Supreme Court....can the state of CA, thru vote or otherwise, take away an established right of its citizens with no stated reason.

 

[Si modo]

Prop H8 did no such thing. It took away a right that was in place with no explanation. That is what the lawsuit is about.

What right was that? The explanation is clear, though; Californians didn't want it.

The right to legally marry which was in place for 4 months in California. We ourselves got married during that time period and are legally married. So...there is this established right...that civil marriage will not be denied based on gender....then Prop H8 takes away that right from a minority of law-abiding tax-paying California citizens with no reason stated. Even the California Constitution says they cannot do that. And that is the basis of the Constitutional argument in front of the US Supreme Court....can the state of CA, thru vote or otherwise, take away an established right of its citizens with no stated reason.

Obviously, then...once again...it's a STATE issue. It's none of the federal government's business.

You're conflating what your STATE says about "reasons" for why folks voted the way they did (just looked at Article II of your state constitution and I'm not seeing that) with what the US Constitution says. Regardless, it's California's business.

The SCOTUS won't touch this, as they shouldn't from what I am seeing. Does anyone have a copy of the writ or petition for this case? I really am curious what the Constitutional (US) argument would be.

 

[Seawytch]

What right was that? The explanation is clear, though; Californians didn't want it.

The right to legally marry which was in place for 4 months in California. We ourselves got married during that time period and are legally married. So...there is this established right...that civil marriage will not be denied based on gender....then Prop H8 takes away that right from a minority of law-abiding tax-paying California citizens with no reason stated. Even the California Constitution says they cannot do that. And that is the basis of the Constitutional argument in front of the US Supreme Court....can the state of CA, thru vote or otherwise, take away an established right of its citizens with no stated reason.

Obviously, then...once again...it's a STATE issue. It's none of the federal government's business.

You're conflating what your STATE says about "reasons" for why folks voted the way they did (just looked at Article II of your state constitution and I'm not seeing that) with what the US Constitution says. Regardless, it's California's business.

The SCOTUS won't touch this, as they shouldn't from what I am seeing. Does anyone have a copy of the writ or petition for this case? I really am curious what the Constitutional (US) argument would be.

And if they send it back then marriage becomes legal in the most populous state in the US. They can "kick the can" with Prop 8, but they will have to rule on the, clearly unconstitutional, DOMA one of these days soon.

 

[Si modo]

The right to legally marry which was in place for 4 months in California. We ourselves got married during that time period and are legally married. So...there is this established right...that civil marriage will not be denied based on gender....then Prop H8 takes away that right from a minority of law-abiding tax-paying California citizens with no reason stated. Even the California Constitution says they cannot do that. And that is the basis of the Constitutional argument in front of the US Supreme Court....can the state of CA, thru vote or otherwise, take away an established right of its citizens with no stated reason.

Obviously, then...once again...it's a STATE issue. It's none of the federal government's business.

You're conflating what your STATE says about "reasons" for why folks voted the way they did (just looked at Article II of your state constitution and I'm not seeing that) with what the US Constitution says. Regardless, it's California's business.

The SCOTUS won't touch this, as they shouldn't from what I am seeing. Does anyone have a copy of the writ or petition for this case? I really am curious what the Constitutional (US) argument would be.

And if they send it back then marriage becomes legal in the most populous state in the US. They can "kick the can" with Prop 8, but they will have to rule on the, clearly unconstitutional, DOMA one of these days soon.

Did you know that we are called the United STATES of America for a reason? Kicking the can, as you call it,back to a state should be the default action taken by the SCOTUS except for clearly unconstitutional (that's the US Constitution) issues.

Thankfully, that's the way the SCOTUS views it, too...for now. Ginsberg is still a dingbat, but whatever.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What right was that? The explanation is clear, though; Californians didn't want it.

The right to legally marry which was in place for 4 months in California. We ourselves got married during that time period and are legally married. So...there is this established right...that civil marriage will not be denied based on gender....then Prop H8 takes away that right from a minority of law-abiding tax-paying California citizens with no reason stated. Even the California Constitution says they cannot do that. And that is the basis of the Constitutional argument in front of the US Supreme Court....can the state of CA, thru vote or otherwise, take away an established right of its citizens with no stated reason.

Obviously, then...once again...it's a STATE issue. It's none of the federal government's business.

You're conflating what your STATE says about "reasons" for why folks voted the way they did (just looked at Article II of your state constitution and I'm not seeing that) with what the US Constitution says. Regardless, it's California's business.

The SCOTUS won't touch this, as they shouldn't from what I am seeing. Does anyone have a copy of the writ or petition for this case? I really am curious what the Constitutional (US) argument would be.

It concerns a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause issue.

From the Writ of Certiorari:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California
from defining marriage as the union of a man
and a woman.

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2012-07-31-Proponents-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Certainly more so than you.....and I notice you can't give me a yes or a no to my questio

Well let's try it this way The feds says gay marriage is ok and forces North Carolina to accept it. Is it then a state rights issue to you?
YOUR SELECTING CERTAIN PRIVILEGES GOES BEYOND STUPID.

You bitched about Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas and Brown v Board of Ed too...didn't you? They affected all states...and state laws.

You bitched about Loving v Virginia

You want to make another bet?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A mayor in one city does not have the authority to decided the law of the state.

"The issue of same-sex marriage reemerged in 2004, when Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The marriages were quickly annulled by the California Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the California legislature twice passed, and twice received vetos from governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on, bills that would have legalized same-sex marriages in the state."

The act of a rouge Mayor doesn't equal an established right.

OH she never explained it that way. So her fake marriage is really not recognized in her state much less my state?

My marriage is completely legal. You are welcome to try to make it not legal...if you are too stupid to know the Constitution.....and again you attack my legal family.

No you are not married. move your ass to North Carolina and find out if your married.
And where in the Constitution does it give gays a right to marry?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes there was...in California. It was legal. We got married legally. Then that already established right was taken away by Prop H8 with no reasons given for taking that established legal right away. Do you support states being able to do that? Yes or no?

NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Likely because there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is only marriage, as written by a given state, where both same-sex and opposite-sex couples have the right to avail themselves of that law.

Well bod seems to think she has one.

 

[bodecea]

NO there is NO PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE.

Likely because there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage.’

There is only marriage, as written by a given state, where both same-sex and opposite-sex couples have the right to avail themselves of that law.

Well bod seems to think she has one.

Legal in the state of California. We are not a third-world kind of state where it's ok to marry in the family tho.

 

[bodecea]

OH she never explained it that way. So her fake marriage is really not recognized in her state much less my state?

My marriage is completely legal. You are welcome to try to make it not legal...if you are too stupid to know the Constitution.....and again you attack my legal family.

No you are not married. move your ass to North Carolina and find out if your married.
And where in the Constitution does it give gays a right to marry?

I am married. Legally AND religiously. And no thanks of North Carolina. I don't care for places that are as backwards as some third world country like Iran, or Sudan, or Indonesia.

 

[bodecea]

Well let's try it this way The feds says gay marriage is ok and forces North Carolina to accept it. Is it then a state rights issue to you?
YOUR SELECTING CERTAIN PRIVILEGES GOES BEYOND STUPID.

You bitched about Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas and Brown v Board of Ed too...didn't you? They affected all states...and state laws.

You bitched about Loving v Virginia

You want to make another bet?

If you did not bitch about Loving v. Virginia, that just proves you are a hypocrite. Because that court case made states allow inter-racial marriage. I guess you're not THAT much of an advocate of states rights after all. Color me surprised.

 

[Si modo]

The right to legally marry which was in place for 4 months in California. We ourselves got married during that time period and are legally married. So...there is this established right...that civil marriage will not be denied based on gender....then Prop H8 takes away that right from a minority of law-abiding tax-paying California citizens with no reason stated. Even the California Constitution says they cannot do that. And that is the basis of the Constitutional argument in front of the US Supreme Court....can the state of CA, thru vote or otherwise, take away an established right of its citizens with no stated reason.

Obviously, then...once again...it's a STATE issue. It's none of the federal government's business.

You're conflating what your STATE says about "reasons" for why folks voted the way they did (just looked at Article II of your state constitution and I'm not seeing that) with what the US Constitution says. Regardless, it's California's business.

The SCOTUS won't touch this, as they shouldn't from what I am seeing. Does anyone have a copy of the writ or petition for this case? I really am curious what the Constitutional (US) argument would be.

It concerns a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause issue.

From the Writ of Certiorari:

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California
from defining marriage as the union of a man
and a woman.

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2012-07-31-Proponents-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf

"Equal protection" under what law or what fundamental right?