Will California Voter Suppression On Gay Marriage Happen In Other States? MOD ALERT

MOD EDIT
As of this notice/warning, posters engaged in deliberate rule violations will be subject to thread bans and/or infractions. Chose your response to others wisely, you are solely responsible for your post.

Shangrila
Site Moderator



Could what's happening in California be your state's business? The answer is "Yes". If oligarcy-attrition is allowed to rule over the Will of your voters with respect to gay marriage, this will set the stage for a national assumtion that "gay marriage is OK to do, even if it's illegal". This will bring another case before the Supreme Court and it will give more weight to gay marriage as "being inevitable".

Oligarchies are tiny groups of people drunk with power who trample the will of the people they reign over with an iron fist. Attrition is the gradual wearing down via harassment and/or from lack of opposition [anti gay marriage apathy or feeling of impotence to change the momentum] over time of something that shouldn't be worn down. That being marriage as between a man and a woman. Many religious and secualr people believe this is the natural state of affairs and our right to set as a social icon for kids to look up to; even with its imperfections. An icon is a beacon you never achieve but must always try to for the sake of keeping on the right road.

This attrition is dangerous. Next on deck as you read this is polygamy...which will be shoved down your throats by this slow encroachment on the last vestige of traditional values that define our country: marriage between a man and a woman.

In California, the "law" officials there are relying on to disenfranchise the Voters there is one that was enacted by a singular gay judge, who, while he sat on the trial hearing for Prop 8's legality, wanted to marry his boyfriend. He did not recuse himself. He practiced open witness suppression by threatening to air the hearing on youtube, in violation of court rules. After being shut down by Justice Kennedy at the last minute, the damage had already been done. Many witnesses did not show at the hearing for fear of gay-militant retaliation. It was a kangaroo court. And officials are citing IT as the law of the land there....

...only it isn't...

Officials are claiming that anyway, Prop 8 was found unconstitutional. Again, they cite the prejudiced & gay judge's ruling at the state level... However, the Supreme Court just upheld that each state may decide either for OR AGAINST gay marriage as it sees fit. California already saw fit. And yet gay activist officials there refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court's declaration of a state's right to decide, and cite their own local prejudiced judge's decision to arbitrarily [and illegally] define "constitutional" in defiance of the Supreme Law of the Land.

Gay hopefuls cite that the Court struck down proponents of prop 8 because they misinterpret that Prop 8 has no standing. When in fact, the Supreme Court struck down those defenders because of the angle they chose: to say gay marriage harms traditional marriage. A stunning lack of frightened witnesses, and a shakey case [one religion vs another: "gay"] forced the High Court to make this declaration.

Defending Prop 8 still has teeth. And as it turns out, big ones. It's just that as yet, voters didn't try to challenge the gay judge's ruling and the officials relying on it to defy initiative law there. Traditional marriage people did, and failed on that standing. Very different legal issue. And that's what SCOTUS was hinting about when they told everyone that the pro-Prop 8 people didn't have standing. They needed to bark up another tree. Barking up voter disenfranchisement is the right tree. SCOTUS just told everyone that each state has the right to decide yes OR NO on gay marriage. Constitutionally, California cannot be the single exception to that rule. SCOTUS' recent rulings in no way granted powers to the officials in California to overturn a state iniative based on alleged unconstitutionality of not allowing gay marriage. To not allow gay marriage IS CONSTITUTIONAL. The Court JUST said so. So officials in California are in violation of duely enacted law in that state.

We now have a case in Brown v Utah marching its way to the High Court to decriminalize polygamy; just as sodomy was decriminalized and paved the way for the inroads in so-called "gay marriage" today. Next, a mormon or muslim judge wanting to marry another wife will have the same leverage against the Will of the People. It's going to happen in the identical way because people watch and they learn. They know that precedents in smashing rights can be followed legally unless a stop is put to them.

We need to nip this in the bud. Not just Californians, but the entire nation should be in shock of what is being done to them. Because everyone else's state is next...if the oligarchy gay-activist officials in your state haven't already slammed gay marriage in behind your backs...

There's the right tree...

 

Civil Rights are not up for a vote.

 

They just were and the Supreme Court upheld that each state can decide yes OR NO on gay marriage. So there is not question of civil rights because for gays, they don't exist with respect to marriage.

Sorry. SCOTUS just said so.

 

bull s**t. Almost anyone who says that in regards to gay marriage doesn't believe it when it comes to gun rights, the right to self-defense, wearing a Jesus t-shirt etc. I'm calling bull s**t because I doubt you actually believe that, just based on experience with others.

 

Well, without the profanity, it is a fact that gays do not have civil rights with respect to marriage. The High Court just affirmed that in avering that each state has the right to approve OR DENY gay marriage.

 

Marriage is a civil right. The SCOTUS simply punted the question back to the 9th on California. There will be more litigation going to the SCOTUS

 

Well, they are up for a vote, but not for the vote of the public. Justices vote on these things, thankfully.

- - - Updated - - -

I do.

I support freedom of choice when it comes to marriage, guns, drugs, prostitution, abortion, and euthanasia.

Granted, marriage and government need to be separate anyway.

 

Why do you make things up?

- - - Updated - - -

And then back here in reality, the exact opposite is true

 

And they just voted to allow each state to decide whether OR NOT to allow gay marriage. Except California; where the Supreme Court on the surface of things, looks to have allowed just that state to declare what is and what is not Constitutional at the federal level.

The case of the voters of California vs the State of California would be best brought by hispanic conservatives who feel disenfranchised from their vote. Imagine new hispanic catholic citizens in this country finding out their vote doesn't count in California?

Voter Juan Doe vs the State of California. Has a nice ring to it...

 

Which state will be next to nullify the Will of its voters on initiatives?

 

The Supreme Court just told you you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*)

- - - Updated - - -

Voters don't have a right to vote away the rights of others, which is why prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional

 

marriage isn't a right.

 

The supreme also told you that YOU are full of (*)(*)(*)(*) decades ago. See loving v Virginia

 

The Supreme Court said last week that each state may decide whether OR NOT gays may marry. Ergo, the Supreme Court said that marriage is not a right, with respect to gays [also polygamists and minors].

California officials cannot legally declare that gay marriage is a constitutional right [or that prohibiting it is unconstitutional] therefore. And so, any official in California ordering that gay marriage continue is defying the voters' initiative.

Prop 8 voter Juan Doe v The State of California. The standing: voter disenfranchisement. The destination: The Supreme Court of the United States. The likely merit of prevailing: The US Constitutional provision that says all of the 50 states must be treated equally. California cannot be the single exception to the "each state may decide" Ruling handed down last week. State level officials cannot override the Supreme Court's de facto declaration that gay marriage is not a right.

 

If the Supreme Court wants to play politics instead of impartiality, then perhaps that's what people should let them do.

Imagine the following scenario. Plenty of hispanics in California, right? And we know the big battleground in 2014 is going to be the hispanic vote. How many of the some 7 million voters in California who voted to narrow the definition of marriage to "between a [one] man and a [one] woman" were hispanic do you suppose? Quite a large number of conservative catholics there. Suppose a group of them got together to sue California for the right for their vote to have counted in Prop 8? ...

Let's say that instead of focusing the case on just gay marriage, broaden the scope a bit. Say "Juan Doe v The State of California" is a case where Juan wants the State to follow his mandate to exclude gays, polygamists and minors from marriage; and he words his pleadings to reflect such. Then, when it goes before the Supreme Court, to see if just California is not allowed to define marriage with respect to gays, polygamists and minors, it is a case of a broader spectrum: one that illustrates what would happen if the precedent was set for one gay judge and four other gay-activist officials in California to nullify state initiatives at their whim.

Remember: officials in California don't have the luxury to not abide by the laws the People set in the initiative process. In fact, Juan et al could argue that this coup by the gay-oligarchy in that state not only opens the door later to say, a muslim or mormon judge to nullify the "a" [one] part of Prop 8, but also it opens the floodgates for a eensy weensy clique of officials sympathetic to any given cause can simply tell millions of people that their Will doesn't count anymore. Let's say next time it's about green energy getting shot down "just because" [just because three or four people took hefty bribes on the down low from Bigoil]. Or let's say they also approve offshore oil rigs in that state "because the People don't know what's good for them and we need the revenue now"...

This is an assault on the legal Vote of the People of California, AND an unconstitutional singling-out of just California to be able to decide yes OR NO on gay marriage & polygamy marriage.

Either we as a nation encourage California to fight back, or we watch gay marriage [and polygamy] become legal in all 50 states because some very well blackmailed, delusional, power hungry or bribed officials decided they know what's best for your state, and you don't.

Gay is not a race. Gay is not a religion [though it sure has all the attributes of evangelizing and intolerance of other religions]. Gay is not an ethnicity. Gay is not a gender. Gay is a behavior and as such is subject to local regulations.

The case is Juan Doe v The State of California. The standing is voter disenfrachisement. The supporting "meat" of the case is California being singled out of the 50 states, as well as the language of Prop 8 NOT singling out gays, but rather saying that gays, more than two people and minors may not marry: "..between a man and a woman"..

If the Supreme Court's conservatives uphold the illegality of California's officials refusing to uphold the Laws of the People there duly enacted, then they risk alienating the conservative hispanic vote. If the democrats uphold the illegality of California's officials refusing to uphold the Laws of the People there duly enacted, then they also risk alienating the conservative hispanic vote..

Hmmm.... Politics it is then.

 

The Supreme Court just said that each state may decide on gay marriage. Judges nor legislators at the state level may not interfere with this Decision. It is Constitutional. SCOTUS just said that it is.

California is in violation of the US Constitution by disenfranchising its People's right to decide on gay or polygamy marriage.

Which is in violation of another provision of the Constitution:

Equal treatment and SCOTUS just ruling that each state may decide yes OR NO on gay marriage means that Prop 8 in California is the Law in that state. Since this [Constitutional] ruling was so recent and the defiance of it so immediate on behalf of 'judges' and 'legislators' at the State level, those officials are now in violation of their sworn duty to uphold the constitution as the Supreme Court just interpreted it.

 

Exactly!!

 

meanwhile, back here in reality, the judicial system is ignoring your ignorance of the law, and prop 8 remains unconstitutional.

it must really suck to be wrong about everything on this issue.

 

The judicial system does not have the luxury to ignore the Supreme Court's de facto declaration that gays have no intrinsic right to marry. By allowing the different states to vote yes OR NO on gay marriage, the Supreme Court said so. Local judges and officials swear to uphold the Constitution [and the Court Decisions that interpret it]. They cannot tell the people of their state "just you can't choose yes or no on gay marriage".

This has to be challenged. And polygamy has to be in the language of the challenge. And it has to be challenged by hispanic catholics. Neither set of judges, GOP or democratic will touch that red hot potato. And the case will win at the highest level.

 

they aren't ignoring that, because the supreme court said no such thing. That's just one of the many things on this issue that you've made up.

meanwhile, the judicial system is going to continue to ignore your total ignorance of the law.

it was. you lost.

irrelevant to the issue. they will have to bring their own case to court.

you've already lost.

 

Tell me, are the states allowed to decide yes OR NO on gay marriage? Did SCOTUS declare all 50 states must ratify gay marriage or did they leave it up to each state?

It's OK. Take your time....

The answer is: they left it up to each state.

Does that establish a class for gays? It's OK...take your time....

The answer is: no, no it doesn't.

Can federal laws discriminate against a particular state? It's OK...take your time.

The answer is: no, no they cannot.

Is there a case for voter disenfranchisement in California? It's Ok...take your time...

The answer is: Yes, yes there is...

 

As with virtually of your analysis- you are of course wrong.

No voter disenfranchisement.

Meanwhile in the real world, the Supreme Court let the lower courts ruling stand, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

The Federal Appeals court reversed its injunction.

And people in love are getting married.

Life is good.

 

You might as well ask "Will voter suppression on minority rights happen in other states?"

You lost.

You are the villain of history.

 

No, I just have the viewpoint that we shouldn't build a cultural more around unexamined child sexual abuse....

At only 2% of the population...

The propensity for gay men to molest boys is astronomical within their tiny demographic. Homosexual pedophiles account for up to 1/3 of all molestation and nearly 100% of molestation against boys. Homosexuals would love you to believe that their demographic is separate from gay pedophiles. However, their choice of a "civil rights icon" [see my signature below] states clearly their position on nudging the age limits lower and lower for new "chicken" to "butcher". [see gay linguistics for "chicken butcher"]

We will return to these scholarly findings again and again throughout this ongoing conversation about gay marriage [and polygamy marriage, its cousin] and rights to adoption...etc..

 

Finding an initiative petition unconstitutional isn't suppression of voters rights, it's upholding constitutional rights.