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

Who is pretending?

 

The homosexuals. My apologies for not being clear.

 

How are they pretending? They are legally married.

 

Not if they were "married" in California in the last month they're not.

 

Voters do not have the right to pass laws the violate the Constitution of the United States, whether they be in California or not.

 

So where is the language in either DOMA or Prop 8 Rulings last month that say all states must ratify gay marriage effective immediately?

Who said saying "no" to gay marriage was unconstitutional? What is their legal authority above the Supreme Court to do so? And when was this declaration made?

[

 

By whom? When? And is their authority and date of Ruling superior to the Supreme Court's Rulings last month that said each state may decide yes or no on gay marriage? That saying "no" to gay marriage is in fact each state's constitutional right?

Jerry Brown is not a Supreme Court Justice. Neither is Kamala Harris. And the most recent ruling on the matter avers California's right to choose "no" on gay marriage.

 

of course they are. prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. same sex couples have been marrying for the past 2 weeks and their marriage is recognized by the federal government.

to claim otherwise is a proven lie

 

federal district court ruled prop 8 unconstitutional. the supreme court chose not to hear the case, due to standing. the lower courts ruling stands. prop 8 is dead. same sex couples have been marrying for the past 2 weeks and their marriage is recognized by the federal government.

to say prop 8 is still in effect is a lie.

 

I agree. The Constitution does not say that the Federal Government can define marriage and doesn't say that the states cannot define marriage, therefor this is a State Right defended by the Tenth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution. The people of California made that decision and that decision should have been allowed to stand.

 

It is the law of the land. Rogue self-appointed monarchs of California be damned..

 

This has nothing to do with the federal government. Prop 8 was struck down because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't say that people can make any law they want just because they voted on it either.

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with the federal government since it is THEY who just heard the DOMA and Prop 8 cases and THEY who just Ruled on them last month!

They set the highest law in the land. Are you new to this country and don't understand our system of powers, checks and balances?

Prop 8 was never struck down on the basis of constitutionality. Even if it was, the Highest Court just reversed that in saying states are allowed to choose yes or no on gay marriage. So unless you're arguing that California gets special status or punitive treatment outside the many other states, you have to take a deep breath, sit down and realize what the Court just said about gay marriage in DOMA. That's why they took both cases at the same time...lol...those cheeky conservative Justices.. In so doing they essentially "married" the two cases in a precedent fashion. The message was sent in DOMA to gays, through a veiled statement. In Saying states can decide, they Said that gays don't have a constitutional right to marriage. And so Saying, they said states DO have constitutional right to deny it.

Prop 8 is the law. The Highest Court just cleared that up for you in DOMA.

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and does not involve the government. There is no such thing as being "legally" married - the civil union documents are called marriage licenses, but if - as pro-gay posters on this forum have noted - marriage is a natural right, the government has no authority to license marriage.

Civil unions, however, are between whoever the government says they can be, and involve only the government and the couple or group as opposed to a religious organization.

To be even more clear: Marriage is a moral and religious discussion. Civil unions are a political discussion. It's rather a simple and obvious dichotomy, really.

 

Legally, it really is... Now whether or not it's being implemented is a discussion we can have, but the implications of the SCOTUS ruling are quite clear.

 

and back here in the real world, marriage is a legal institution. so no, they aren't pretending. they are legally married.

- - - Updated - - -

legally, it really isn't. prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. to say it is still in effect, is delusional or a deliberate lie.

 

So I illustrate and give examples, and you deny. That's not how a debate works.

Have a wonderful day.

 

Well thats mighty white of you.

My wife and I have been happily married for over 20 years- and we are thrilled that same gender couples in California can get legally married again- and we don't care if there are misanthropes who put their fingers in their ears and go 'lalalalalalaalal' pretending like these people are not really married.

Proposotion 8 is dead.

People in love are getting married

And the haters hate that.

 

Well its nice of you to provide your opinion on marriage.

Of course that doesn't reflect reality- marriage is indeed a legal issue that involves the government- I know this because I got a marriage license before my wife and I got married.

If the minister 'married' us, we of course would have considered ourselves married, but legally, we would no more have been married than Bob and Andy who read marriage vows to each other when same gender marriage was not legal in California.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are on the wrong boards now Albert.

 

Prop 8 was struck down. It was struck down based upon constitutionality.

People in love are getting married.

And the haters hate that.

 

the only way to illustrate marriage is not a legal institution is if you can demonstrate there is no marriage law. to illustrate that prop 8 is legally still in effect, you would have to provide a court case which overturned judge walkers ruling.

either delusional or deliberately lying.

 

You think I hate homosexuals, huh?

You don't know (*)(*)(*)(*), Paco. I don't hate gays anymore than I hate my dear, albeit gluttonous, Lebanese relatives. I simply don't believe that the definition of marriage should be changed because some people like to play make-believe. If my aunt said she wanted to change the definition of gluttony, my response would be the same.

And you can post the same thing repeatedly, but it doesn't help your argument.
You're the one sticking your fingers in your ears by pretending that points have not been made against your ideology, though they clearly have.

So have fun in faerie world.

 

SCOTUS overruled Walker's ruling.

Just because there is a law about something doesn't not mean the law is just. Example: In Nazi Germany, you couldn't be an anti-Nazi/Jewish shop owner/cripple. You'd be shot.

But, of course, since that was the law it was perfectly alright.

Again, I illustrated and gave examples that you denied.

Your assertion that I am "delusional" or "lying" is absurd, baseless, and lacks even the modicum of evidence that would allow even the most foolhardy bigot to operate under its assumption.

 

Of course that is just false.

SCOTUS rejected the appeal of Judge Walker's ruling, which left Judge Walkers ruling stand.

- - - Updated - - -

Meanwhile in California Proposition 8 is dead.

People in love are getting married.

And you have a problem with that.

You appear to believe many things contradicted by reality- about marriage, about Prop 8 and about you crushing anything.

 

Oh, you - that's not the ruling under discussion.

Anyway, Walker is a federal judge, no?

The recent ruling dictates that the states decide. Therefore, Walker is overruled by the SCOTUS.

Whether or not this is recognized is irrelevant. Hopefully it can be put to a vote soon, all over the country. Then we'll have fewer gays pretending they can get married.

- - - Updated - - -

HAHA okay - I'm done feeding trolls.