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

Like I said last page, dont' call me names and infer by doing so that other people are [insert derogatory name here] for wanting the right to determine marriage for their own state...

No, just because you, a governor, an attorney general, and some lower level threatened or coerced clerks are all in violation of Law, doesn't mean you changed the law. For that to be true, you'd have to announce that the California initiative system is now defunct.

Because the Supreme Court avered in its DOMA ruling that each state gets to decide what marriage means with respect to gay or not gay. Listen very carefully to what I say next: THAT MEANS THE SUPREME COURT, THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE LAND OVER ALL THE AUTHORITIES YOU CITE AS REASONS PROP 8 ALLEGEDLY ISN'T VALID, HAS DECLARED THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT AND THAT SAYING "NO" TO IT IS A STATE'S RIGHT TO DO.

And that includes California and its proposition 8. You repeatedly citing lower court and lower authority opinions on the validity of Prop 8 is pissing in the wind in comparison to last month's "states get to decide" DOMA ruling.

California quite simply cannot be the one exception to the other 49. Are you saying that gay marriage is now mandatory across the 50 states? If not, Prop 8 is LEGAL AND THE LAW OF THE LAND IN CALIFORNIA.

 

Who the hell are you talking to?

- - - Updated - - -

That claim is demonstrably false and to continue to make that claim is either delusional or a lie.

- - - Updated - - -

Who the hell are you talking to, and what the hell are you talking about?

 

Keep doing this:

It won't change the fact that same-sex couples can legally marry in California now.

Circuit courts and district courts. The Supreme Court has the final say (contingent on issues of jurisdiction), but they are far from being the only court that interprets how the US Constitution will be applied to a given case. In the case of Prop 8, two other courts interpreted the Constitution before the case reached the Supreme Court, who ruled that neither they nor the Circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the case due to appellants lack of standing to make an appeal.

What do you imagine happens in such a scenario? I've already told you what actually happened, but you're unable apparently to accept the fact that the Supreme Court vacated the circuit court ruling with instructions to dismiss, leaving in place the district court ruling. What do you think happened to the district court ruling? Do you think it just dried up and blew away? Well, it didn't. The Supreme Court didn't vacate that decision, so it stands with the force of law.

Why would the Court use the DOMA case to uphold Prop 8 instead of doing so via the Prop 8 case - the actual case relevant to its fate? How can the Court use the case before them to resolve a controversy from a separate case, one irrelevant to the case before them?

Translation: Anything you think you can infer from what the Court didn't actually say, regardless of how irrelevant it is to the case from which you plucked this non-existent statement, sounds like something decisive and irrefutable to you.

You aren't even trying to address the challenges to your arguments. All you're doing is rewording what you've already said. If it wasn't persuasive the first 50 times, it won't be the next 100 times that you repeat it, either.

Of course, persuasion requires a person who can be persuaded that they have been wrong, whose self-worth is not irrevocably welded to always being right. Obviously you are not a persuadable person.

Which is a deceptive way of basically saying something along the lines of, "A court finding that Prop 8 was constitutional? What court finding? I don't believe the district court exists. You can march me right up to the building, or post a copy of the ruling here, and I still will choose to disbelieve the reality right in front of my face."

The state officials didn't take it upon themselves to determine the law's constitutionality. What they did was accept the ruling of the district court that found it to be unconstitutional. You are simply dead wrong about the Supreme Court being the only court that can determine constitutionality. It is true that when a case reaches the Supreme Court upon appeal from the lower courts, the ruling of the Supreme Court on that appeal has superior force to the rulings of the lower courts.

But you are dead wrong about what the Supreme Court "must" do. The Court doesn't have to hear the case at all. When that happens (and it happens every single term) the ruling of the lower court (generally the circuit court) stands with the force of law. The Supreme Court can also decide that the circuit court erred in agreeing to hear an appeal of a lower court's ruling. Which it did in the Prop 8 case.

So you are wrong, wrong, wrong, 17 x wrong about the Supreme Court being the only one that rules on a law's constitutionality. The only thing that can be truly said is that the Supreme Court is supreme and its rulings - when it rules on a case - are the final say on that case.

The final say of the Supreme Court in the Prop 8 case is that appellants didn't have standing to appeal the circuit court ruling. The circuit court's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional was vacated by the Supreme Court - not because they erred in that declaration, but because they erred in granting appellants a hearing in the first place. So that ruling goes *poof*, as if it never happened. But not so, the ruling of the district court. If the Supreme Court thought the district court erred, they would have vacated that ruling as well. But they did not. They allowed the district court ruling to stand as decisive on Prop 8 with the force of law, while leaving the broader question of states' ability to ban recognition of same-sex marriages open.

The only case that matters in the final outcome of the Prop 8 question is the Prop 8 case. This fantasy you have that the court surreptitiously used DOMA as a means to uphold Prop 8 has zero connection to reality. The Court did not rule on the merits of the Prop 8 case after granting it a hearing, and it did not use the DOMA case to rule on the merits of the Prop 8 case, either.

The Court did not say any such thing, nor can it be reasonably inferred from the things it did say.

Here are some things the Court did say in the DOMA case:

This is the Court acknowledging that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage. It is not, however, a statement that implies the authority of states is absolute and untouchable. It is not even remotely close to declaring that any and every decision a state makes on marriage must be regarded as constitutional. To do so would have the effect of overturning every previous ruling on marriage ever made by the Supreme Court, including the findings of the Loving decision, overturning state definitions of marriage that excluded couples of different races from marriage recognition. It would amount to saying that states can exclude from recognition marriages between persons having blond hair and those having brown hair, or that the state can exclude recognition of marriages between persons of the same eye color, or between persons who own boats and those who do not.

Another thing the court said in the DOMA case:

"virtually" meaning "almost entirely", but NOT meaning "absolutely" or "without question". In point of fact, at the beginning of the very same sentence the Court tells us that rare exceptions to a state's authority exist, and gives us an example - the Loving case I just mentioned above.

Another thing the Court said in DOMA:

Boom - there it is. The state's power to regulate marriage is subject to constitutional guarantees. States' powers are not absolute with respect to defining and regulating marriage. The Court gives great deferrence to state laws on marriage, but it did NOT say that no legal controversy exists when states ban recognition of same-sex marriages. It did NOT say that states have a constitutionally sustainable right to ban recognition of same-sex marriages, without and beyond question.

Finally, the Court said in its DOMA ruling:

The plain and simple fact is that the Court did not rule Prop 8 was constitutional via the things it said in the DOMA case. It did NOT say that it is "constitutional for states to decide yes or no on gay, polygamy and minor marriages". It also didn't say it was unconstitutional for them to decide. It said nothing whatsoever about whether they could or couldn't.

So what should we take from this? If the court doesn't say something is unconstitutional, we assume that it is constitutional EXCEPT when we have a separate case that stands with the force of law declaring something about that. And we have such a case - the district court's ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand without ruling on the merits of the appeal - an appeal brought by those who lacked the standing to bring it. We cannot simply infer from very general statements the court makes in a separate case about a different law that it is somehow quietly overturning the ruling it allowed to stand in the case actually relevant to that matter.

Which didn't happen. Prop 8 was overturned by a district court ruling, not by the governor and other state officials.

 

Excellent and rational post.

And you even know how to use the quote function.

 

That district court doesn't have the power to dismantle the California initiative system. Juan Doe v The State of California on Prop 8 has teeth. Big sharp ones.

And yet the Highest Court did not Rule that gays are a protected class who had "constitutional rights" to marriage, did they? Why that would be "no". No they did not. And so leaving it up to the traditional arena of who decides on marriage, without any constitutional protection for gay, means that California's voters in Prop 8 WERE FULLY WITHIN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DENY GAY MARRIAGE. By saying "we are leaving it up to the states" without providing any comments on protecting gays specifically, the Supreme Court said aloud "Prop 8 is fully legal and binding" without actually saying so. The conservative Justices were very clever and they tricked the liberal ones into this loophole...not for gays...for those opposed to gay marriage!

Sorry to have to be the one to deliver the news.

 

The Federal Court does have right to rule iniatives unconsitutional- and they did.

There is no "Juan Doe vs the State of California" other than in your imagination.

 

THE SUPREME COURT OUTWEIGHS ANY LOWER FEDERAL COURT. And they JUST SAID that states have a right to choose yes OR NO on gay marriage Jeff. What part of that order of supremacy in courts aren't you able to wrap your head around? The lower court can get on a megaphone and scream at the top of their lungs that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional!" And yet it is worth absolutely nothing, when the higher Court says "oh, by the way, California gets to decide yes or no on gay marriage"... You've just been trumped. And your liberal Justices fell for it.

 

Since 1999 or earlier,[1][2] Chu has been campaigning to impeach an array of former US Presidents he considers guilty of collaborating with a nefarious network of alien populations called the "12 Galaxies" to film him against his will, to broadcast this footage intergalactically, and to embezzle the royalties he is owed as a television and movie star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Chu

and his claims are just as rational as claiming that Proposition 8 is still valid.

More about Frank Chu....

Frank Chu holds Bill Clinton, Grover Cleveland, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and other former US Presidents responsible for working with the populations of the 12 Galaxies and directing the CIA, FBI, Universal Studios, and other agencies and corporations to embezzle royalties owed to him as the star of a television and movie series called "The Richest Family."[11] Chu believes he has starred in the series since childhood, which has been a major success in other galaxies.[3] Yet because the syndicated series is shot with top-secret invisible cameras and edited weekly, Chu claims he was unaware of it until he received telepathic messages from supportive former Soviet and UN presidents in the mid-1990s.[3] Chu asserts that many of the US presidents responsible are actually duplicates, therefore his protests have frequently called for the impeachment of Clinton even after Clinton was no longer in office. The 12 Galaxies also regularly commits war crimes and treasons in this and in other galaxies.

Chu is strongly interested in television reporters and newscasters for their potential in bringing him the publicity he requires to inform the world of the injustices committed against him. He hopes that this wave of publicity will cause a public outcry and lead to more than "$20 billions" in compensation for the damages he and his family have suffered.

 

proven lies

 

Meanwhile in the real world....

Proposition 8 is null and void.

And people in love are getting married.

And the haters hate that.

 

No strawmen are going to save you now Jeff. Stick to the topic. The HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND has declared that California gets to choose on gay marriage. Ergo, denying gay marriage is not "unconstitutional"..

 

meanwhile, prop 8 was declared unconstitutional, and same sex couples are marrying in California and their marriages are now recognized by the federal government.

- - - Updated - - -

proven lies. the supreme court said no such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

proven lie

 

The Supreme Court in its DOMA Ruling said that the fed has to abide by what each state chooses on marriage. So Saying, they declared to gays across the nation that their bid for marriage is not a constitutional right. And since it isn't, denying it as in Prop 8 is not unconstitutional. I don't care how many lower entities join in chorus to defy the law and say their lower court trumps the Highest one; the ability to say no to gay marriage is contitutionally interpreted for each state and therefore the Highest Law in the Land. Prop 8 is valid and binding therefore.

 

You know, I think we all just need to block and ignore her. Reasoned debate is one thing, her position is not reasoned, it's outright and literally delusional. Up is down and down is up in her world. Claiming that the SCOTUS decision by some strange twist upholds Prop-8 as being legitimate it's just wrong, it's crazy, stupid, delusional, thumbs in the ears screaming la, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you wrong, because no sane person with at least 2 brain cells to rub together can think such a thing.

I honestly think the decision pushed her over the edge.

 

I'll just keep posting about it, strawmen and "ignores" be damned..lol

You don't disenfranchise seven million people's votes and get your way.

 

It does, the delusional lies of delusional liars saying something to the contrary and seeking to disparage the judge and the proceedings of the trial within his court notwithstanding.

Refuted.

- - - Updated - - -

 

We all know and understand that the Supreme Court is the final say on how laws are to be interpreted in the lower courts and states. We all know that. And the Supreme Court just said in DOMA last month that states get to decide yes or no on gay marriage. That gay marriage, by being left up to the states is not a constitutional right. And so not being, denying it is not unconsitutional. No lower court has the luxury of defying this interpretation. And so, the defense of the California initiative system shall begin to work its way up through the courts again. The conservative Justices knew this and planned on it. I am sure of it now.

 

Agreed. There really is no point in countering and recountering anymore. Better not to feed the fire.

 

Voters, no matter what the number or plurality, do not have the right to pass unconstitutional laws. It wouldn't matter if it was 99% Yes, if the law is Unconstitutional, it's getting tossed. And it did. You lost, the Prop-8 battle is done, and it no longer exists as a valid law in California. Period.

There will be no further appeals. There were be no more calls for an injunction, at least not any that will succeed.

It.

Is.

Over.

And.

You.

Lost.

And I have a suggestion to you, and I mean this as a sincere message to try to help you, you need to seek medical help from a mental health professional. If you truly believe what you claim to believe, as opposed to being a very clever troll, you have something misfiring in your noggin.

And with that said, good bye, and welcome to my block list. You can educate stupid. You can't (at least I can't) fix crazy.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, Prop 8 is null and void.

And people in love are getting married.

Still wondering who you are talking to.

- - - Updated - - -

Guess its a good thing that no ones votes were 'disenfranchised.

Meanwhile in the real world, Prop 8 is null and void.

And people in love are getting married.

The haters hate that.

 

Maybe the state that introduces a law stating that black kids have to go to a separate classroom.

As for the first post: incredibly dumb blather that should've been summarized in one or two sentences: "the courts ruled that a law whose sole purpose was to deny rights to people based on sexuality was unconstitutional, and I think that accurate application of the basic function of the judicial branch of government is a gigantic violation of democracy". Your entire premise is based not only on a failure to understand what the judicial branch does but also on an absolutely pathetic failure to understand what is actually in the rulings on DOMA and prop 8. God, what a dumb, dishonest thread.

 

Oh my god I almost choked on my drink. This is like Bill O'Reilly telling someone to stop talking about science they don't know anything about.

 

Boss Queer runs California. Boss Queer (*)(*)(*)(*)s whomever Boss Queer wants. It's the law.

 

meanwhile, prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional, same sex couples are getting married in CA and their marriage is now recognized by the federal government.

- - - Updated - - -

proven lies

 

To those who think "this is over", you apparently don't understand the real numbers behind those who are deeply incensed and even angry that their vote didn't count, or seemed to not count [Prop 8 is still the law]. The numbers of those people are in the millions. This "blunder" carefully calculated by the conservative Justices is having the net result of harvesting millions of new votes for the GOP. No matter what happened or who voted for what on the Court, voters will blame liberal democrats for dismantling California's initiative system and installing tyranny above it. It's very clear. States have a right to choose yes or no on gay marriage. You could have a million lower court verdicts saying otherwise and they wouldn't amount to bupkiss, legally speaking.

The Supreme Court after lower courts said "no, you can't deny gay marriage, it's unconstitutional" has turned that around and said, well yes, actually it is constitutional for states to decide. And that means the choice of "no" also exists alongside the choice of "yes". Therefore, saying "no" to gay marriage [as in Prop 8, but also polygamy and minors], is perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional. And denying that is going to cause a rift in the democratic party the size of the Grand Canyon. Anyone on the fence about gay marriage before this in California is most certainly going to gravitate to the right where they feel their vote will still count...