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

And it shall be closed when Juan Doe [the catholic church and all the potential voters it has in its fold] v The State of California for voter disenfranchisement walks before the Supreme Court.

If republicans were smart, they'd be all over urging that case. Because the real tyranny of the democratic party's far far left will show its ugly face. It will lash out in predictable ways that will shine a very unfavorable light on democrats in general. The vote harvest for 2014 will be like heavy grapes on the vine. It's too bad the dems had to walk right into this bear trap so cleverly set and so cleverly laid and pried open by the conservative "swing vote" in the Supreme Court. But when you force the tyranny of gay marriage down the throat of just one state, that's the stage that is set. Blinded by the smudgy goggles of political correctness and sappy sentiment, the democrats have not clue one who their true friends or foes really are..

 

but doesn't understand it.

they're not. read the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing decision.

no

 

In ruling on DOMA, they DID rule on Prop 8. The clever senior conservative judges slipped this one by the liberal freshmen there. And by you too apparently rahl.. The lack of standing was in claiming gay marriage harmed hetero marriage. The proper standing is voter disenfranchisement. ie "Juan Doe & the state initiative system v The State of California.

They said in DOMA that the fed has to abide by what each state has determined is "legally married". Since this says that gay, polygamy and minor marriage are not civil rights, they left it up to states to decide. California cannot be the one exception. And since the High Court "said" gay marriage is up to each state in this clever way, then Prop 8 is valid. The officials at any level, state, state AG, Governor, lower federal courts, may not circumvent this constitutional interpretation at their whim. "Legally" in California means through the initiative process. And that was done already: twice.

Any "determinations", "concerns" "invalidating" etc. the lower officials may fancy themselves as having power to carry out and act on are null and void. California cannot be the one exception to the 50 in being able to choose yes or no on gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. That fact was upheld. The Court made its Ruling last week expecting it to be challenged in this way.

Can you imagine how in "Juan Doe v California" democrats will have to hem and haw explaining to hispanic catholics and other catholics how the power of their vote doesn't count in the blue state?..lol... what a tightrope to walk! What a number of voters they will turn away from their party... Will California go purple again?

 

Nothing in your post is correct

 

Then please explain how the Court just mandated that gay marriage not be denied to anyone in the 50 states? Please be specific if you can. I know that's asking a lot of you rahl.

 

Because if they did allow states to decide, that means that so-called gay marriage was just declared "not a constitutional right". And thusly Declaring, the Supreme Court has made that the Law of the Land. Since it isn't a constitutional right, California voters may not be suppressed in their initiative system by rogue public servants as to Prop 8's excluding gays, polygamists and minors from marrying. Those officials are in violation of law and must be sued to come into compliance with California's seven million that voted for excluding gay marriage: twice.

Unless constitutional scholars are arguing that California is the singular exception to last week's Court Ruling that gay marriage is not a constitutional right?...lol... Good luck with that one.

 

I find it ironic that uber left liberals in my democratic party scream foul with last week's voter's rights shot down, while simultaneously celebrating the removal of the power of Californian's votes in the initiative system, illegally.

 

Septimine, the standing that lost was "gay marriage harms straight marriage"...not "there is no possibility for standing at all". They just created a loophole for standing in California to reinstate Prop 8 based on the grounds of voter disenfranchisement. The Supreme Court in allowing that each state may decide yes or no on gay marriage, so Declared that it is not a constitutional right. Therefore, local public servants at the state level do not have the luxury in California to declare [in violation of the High Court's Ruling] that saying 'no' to gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The standing that is valid and viable is "voter disenfranchisement". California cannot be the one state of 50 who has to consider gay marriage a constitutional right, while the other 49 do not...

...Juan Doe v The State of California.

 

read the decision. I'm done refuting your repetitions.

- - - Updated - - -

nothing in your post is correct.

- - - Updated - - -

nothing correct here either

 

As usual your understanding and interpretation is just laughably wrong.

Proposition 8 has been struck down.

Couples in love are getting married.

Life is good.

 

Proposition 8 has been struck down.

No law suit will be filed about it. The case is closed.

But you can continue to pretend otherwise.

 

Jeff, specifically and exactly how was that duly enacted law nullified completely? [Not just who it was nullified by, nor just when, or where, but HOW was it nullified? On what specific grounds?

 

By the Federal Court, on the grounds that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the substance but instead stated that they denied the appeal based upon standing.

Which left the lower courts ruling intact, and Prop 8 nullified. The Appeals court reversed its injunction and people in love have been getting married ever since.

The case is over. There is no law suit. There will be no lawsuit that makes it past being filed and the first hearing.

 

What was declared unconstitutional? ...lol..

...On the standing that the proponents of Prop 8 at the kangaroo gay-judge hearing couldn't [were suppressed from/weren't allowed to] demonstrate harm to straight marriage. The issue of standing as to voter disenfranchisement has not been tried yet. Not on substance: ie: Prop 8 still has substance. The denial of voters' constitutional right, just Upheld last week, to say "no" to gay marriage is still fruit ripe for the picking..

 

Proposition 8- which is null and void.

And people in love are getting married.

 

nothing correct in your post

 

Jeff, you said disqualifying gay marriage was made unconstitutional by the federal court. Which federal court? And if the lower court's declaration is in conflict with the Supreme Court saying each state can decide yes or no on gay marriage, which court trumps which? [Hint, you know one state cannot be singled out among the 50, right?..lol..]

It's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. Prop 8 is valid and enforceable. Anyone who promotes differently is in violation of Law.

 

So you believe that the lower federal courts have superiority in Law over the Supreme Court? Last week the Supreme Court declared in their DOMA revision that the fed has to abide by what each state decides on gay marriage. Carefully note that the Supreme Court did not say "gay marriage cannot be denied in any state". Therefore, denying gay marriage is constitutional. So any rogue public servants in California declaring Prop 8 is illegal citing "unconstitutional" as their reason, are flat out wrong in that assessment.

Citizens of that state need to sue their government to come into compliance with the CA initiative system.

 

and of course another today is another day in CA where same sex couples are once again marrying, because prop 8 was declared unconstitutional in federal court.

your psychotic obsession with gays has caused you to have a mental breakdown

 

and of course the Supreme Court said no such thing. meanwhile, today is yet another day that CA same sex couples are getting married, since prop 8 was declared unconstitutional

 

No, Prop 8 was declared constitutional by THE Federal Court, not "a" lower federal court. You cannot allow the states to choose yes or not on gay marriage and then say California only is the exception to that. Prop 8 is still the law in California. And a warning was issued right after last week's Decision to people trying to marry in California that their "marriages" are not valid. Apparently some attorneys have read the US Constitution and the equality of states clauses.

Rahl, straight up question. Did the Supreme Court in their Decision on DOMA last week allow that states each one have the right individually to decide yes or no on gay marriage? Did they or did the Supreme Court declare gay marriage can only be approved in all 50 states? Because if it was left up to the states to decide, Prop 8 is valid.

 

nothing in this paragraph is true

no. no such decision was made by the Supreme Court.

meanwhile, the courts are ignoring your complete detachment from reality and total ignorance of the law, and same sex couples are once again getting married in CA because prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.

 

It wasn't. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits for or against Prop 8. It vacated the appeals court ruling and allowed the lower federal court ruling at the district to stand. <- These are indisputable facts.

Which isn't what the Court said. It has only ruled on what federal government must do in recognizing legal marriages; it has not ruled on the question of what states must (or must not) do with regard to recognizing same-sex marriages.

It isn't. The lower court ruling, finding that Prop 8 is constitutional, stands and has the force of law.

Citation?

No. That issue was outside the scope of the case before the Court, which dealt only with DOMA's Section 3 - the federal definition of marriage. That the status quo is maintained regarding state actions is a very different thing from a legal standpoint than the Court affirming that states can ban recognition of same-sex marriages. Get it through your head already - the Court did NOT address that question.

No. They ruled that the federal government can't use a statute like DOMA's Section 3 to refuse recognition to marriages the states recognize. They didn't say anything about what states may or may not recognize.

It wasn't. The DOMA case only considered a question of federal law, and its ruling only applies to that question. It does not have any application to the separate question of whether or not Prop 8 or other state amendments are valid - an issue the Court completely sidestepped when it found that that those seeking to appeal the lower court's decision had no standing to do so.

It makes no difference how many threads are created in order to deny the reality that Prop 8 has ceased to be enforceable law.

 

One more time:

Did the Supreme Court in the Prop 8 case uphold Prop 8? No, it did not. The Prop 8 case is the only one that matters concerning the validity and enforceability of that specific initiative. So we look at the FACTS surrounding that specific case:

1) A district court found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional (and it doesn't matter how much speculation you engage in surrounding the specific judge in that case, what you imagine his motivations to be, or how you misrepresent what took place in that trial - the outcome remains that Prop 8 was overturned by the district court).

2) The State of California did not appeal the district court's ruling. Instead, the proponents of the initiative attempted to appeal it.

3) A three judge panel of the appeals court (the 9th Circuit) heard the appeal, and also ruled against the proponents.

4) The proponents made a request for the case to be heard en banc. The judges of the 9th Circuit voted to deny them that hearing.

5) The proponents attempted to appeal the ruling of the 9th Circuit to the Supreme Court.

6) The Supreme Court granted cert to the appeal and heard the case.

7) The Supreme Court ruled that the proponents lacked the standing to bring an appeal of the district court ruling.

The Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit, and remanded the case to them with instructions to dismiss due to appellants lack of standing.

9) The 9th Circuit complied with the Supreme Court's instructions.

10) The actions of the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit - both superior to the district court - allow that lower court's ruling to stand.

Those are the facts. It is disingenuous to suggest that acknowledgment of these facts amounts to believing the lower courts have superiority over the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did its thing. It refused to rule on the merits of the case, and that leaves the lower court's ruling having the force of law.

Misrepresentation. The Supreme Court ruled in the DOMA case that the fed has to accept what a state tells them is a legal marriage. It didn't say that "abide by what each state decides on gay marriage". You will find no such thing in that ruling, the deceptive paraphrasing present in your argument notwithstanding.

That's the only thing you've gotten right. Carefully note that the Supreme Court also did not say that "gay marriage can be denied in any state". It didn't address that question at all. It refused to in the case where it would have been relevant (Prop , and it was outside the scope of the DOMA case, which only dealt with the federal statute.

It makes no sense whatsoever to try to use something that wasn't even said in the DOMA case to argue for a different result from the Prop 8 case than what is the actual outcome.

The Supreme Court didn't address the question of whether states denying recognition to same-sex marriages was constitutional or not. IT DID NOT DO THIS. Claiming they did won't change the outcome.

The lower court ruling, finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, stands and has the force of law. They are not "flat out wrong". You are.

Let 'em try it. I predict the effort will be a waste of their time and money.

 

Exactly- great summary.

Claiming that any federal court has upheld Prop 8 is either delusional or an outright lie.

Prop 8 is dead.

Long live happy couples getting married in California.