Legal Challenge to Prop 8 ban underway. Only 2 gay couples filed originally

Both genders can already marry. Don't substitute sexual behaviors for "gender". The rainbow wildfire has done enough damage to society by attacking the CA initiative system in a murderous rage. Don't attact the dictionary as well. People's patience for patently obvious farcical behavior is running quite thin...

Instead of the thugs in California threatening Court Clerks with "contempt of court" if they refuse to follow illegal orders to usurp due process [inititative law], the thugs themselves should be charged with contempt of the Supreme Court. Oh, wait, one of the thugs is the AG. Wow, with one gay judge legislating what is "constitutional" from the lower court, just before he retired [so he wouldn't face the shame of being dis barred], an AG who refuses to prosecute people actively engaged in illegal dismantling of constitutional protections of the initiative system and individuals' votes [just 7 million of them], I'd be sending in the national guard by now if I was POTUS...oh...wait...the gays also funded his political campaign...

Can we guess which side of the aisle democrats in the middle are going to step to in the next election? I mean, after all, if gays can sieze an entire state to force their agenda on our social fabric [including the desire to infect the general blood pool with HIV >> http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...y-civil-rights-donate-blood-whaaa-huh-25.html and "teach" kids by marriage example that sodomy is "perfectly healthy and OK" >> http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...boys-ages-13-29-getting-hiv-last-7-years.html ], then why can't we just insert a bunch of moderate GOP candidates in Congress to reverse this tyranny at the head of the snake?

I think I know how I'm going to be voting in 2014...and 2016 in all likelihood. Thanks California for helping me make up my mind...hmmm...tough choice...butt sex or democracy...butt sex or democracy? I think I'll choose: democracy.

 

Meanwhile prop8 is dead. Same sex couples have been legally marrying for 2 weeks and recognized by the federal government. It's a great month for freedom in America!

 

I am amazed at the extent of which bigots will go to deny their fellow human beings basic human rights.

 

You don't have a "basic human right" to turn a thousands year old establishment of the bedrock of our society into a deviant sex parade. If you are homosexual, addicted to compulsively chasing the wrong gender to try to express your natural reproductive instincts with, I feel for you. But don't try to tell the world that what you do is "normal" by trying to demolish the fabric of our society's underpinnings. Deviations from icons are OK. Substituting deviants FOR icons is not OK. And there are real world consequences for enshrining deviant behaviors. See my last posts for the links to the details..

 

The United States is 237 years old. Marriage is a legal institution. What happened prior to the US being a nation is as relevant as what happens on mars. Marriage has only been limited to a man and woman in the law since the 1970s on a state level and mid 90s on a federal level until just 2 weeks ago.

Same sex marriages have zero effect on anyone outside the two parties marrying

 

Neither does marrying your grandmother or your dog. What's your point? "Constitutionality" based on not affecting something else? I'd say the heavier weight in this argument is gay marriage, oddball that it is, like polygamy, incest or minor marriages, does not outweigh the People's constitutionally guaranteed right and potency of the California state initiative system. The two aren't even in the same ballpark, neighborhood or universe.

 

who are you talking to?

 

The point is that Prop 8 is dead- found unconstitutional.

People in love are getting married.

Love is a beautiful thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Luckily the red white and blue no longer kicks the rainbow flag but now allows it to fly.

 

No, the red white and blue was defecated on by the Rainbow Oligarchy now commanding California's Central Authority Center: ["Excremento"].

There is nothing beautiful at all about men having sex with other men's lower digestive tract, spreading HIV in astronomical numbers this way and telling the world through marriage "this is natural and normal". It isn't. And doing all this via crushing the Constitutionally-guaranteed power of the individual's vote [7 million of them] through the initiative system.

 

Ah someone is still pouting about same gender couples having equal marriage rights....lol.

Hmmm I don't remember anal sex ever being on the ballot.

You seem to be confused about the difference between sex and love.

If you would like, I can point you to some self help guides that can help you learn to distinguish between them- confusing sex with love can be very destructive. Let me know if you would like some help with that.

 

Not pouting Jeff, fighting, for the rights of 7 million disenfranchised voters in California...

 

If the word "Gay" was not involved, you wouldn't even be pretending to care about what voters said.

Meanwhile in reality, the voters of California exercised their right to vote, and pass a law that was found to be unconstitutional.

And just as in the case of Virginia v Loving, if a Federal Court determines it is unconstitutional, its unconstitutional.

I know you think that Californians have the right to vote in Slavery or vote to ban all guns but you are just wrong.

Again.

 

Silhouette, my offer still stands

here is one site that might help

http://centerforhealthysex.com/love-addiction

You may suffer from love addiction if:

•you tend to become consumed and obsessive
•you have an inability to focus on or think about anything else
•you equate love and relationships with self-esteem or self-worth
•being in love limits your participation in important activities
•being in a love relationship keeps your from spending time with friends and family
•you use love as an excuse to avoid creating positive change for yourself
•your love relationships always lack true intimacy and are often filled with jealousy
•you become co-dependent quickly
•you, your partner or both parties use love as a form of manipulation
•you confuse sex with love, and offer sex with the hope of receiving love

 

they never had the right to vote on another citizens civil rights.

 

And you base that on what?

 

So you also think sodomy should be criminal too? How ridiculous.

 

Please quote where I said sodomy should be illegal. What I have said about sodomy is that sex with the lower intestinal tract is predisposed via the colon's absorptive properties, to transmitting the HIV virus in semen directly into the human bloodstream. As such, that practice must not be modeled as normal to childen, in marriage, or in any other venue. The results can be disasterous: >> http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...boys-ages-13-29-getting-hiv-last-7-years.html

 

The problem with the title of this thread is that in the pending case, there cannot be a plea for gay marriage to "just be legal" in two of the 58 CA counties. It's all or nothing. That's how the CA constitution, Article II is written with respect to applicability of CA law equally across all counties.

So beware plaintiffs, if your lawyers are telling you that you can get Prop 8 enforced in 56 counties, they're lying to you. Time to liberally cite the recent DOMA Ruling on a state's right to choose, and tailor your case to leave the CA courts and go to the Top, or else it's time to fire some lawyers that are leading you purposefully astray for their rainbow friends...

 

Jeff, the Supreme Court just found it CONSTITUTIONAL for states to define marriage, including gay marriage. Please describe how that finding supports your statement? Note also that any lower court ruling in direct conflict with the superior court's fresher ruling is immediately rendered null and void.

 

The Supreme Court ruled DOMA a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. If it had wished to leave gay marriage entirely to the states it would have made no mention of the Fifth Amendment. By doing so it has put the states on notice that their anti-gay marriage laws are likely to be subjected to scrutiny as violations of the Fifth Amendment rights of individuals.

A state could try to make a Tenth Amendment argument but no state has the right to deny individuals their Fifth Amendment rights under the US Constitution. The Court has set a high bar for any state that tries to defend its ban on gay marriage.

 

The Supreme Court found DOMA unconstitutional.

Thats it.

 

proven lie. no such decision was made by the supreme court.

 

Funny, they allowed the lower court ruling to stand which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LOL

 

Do you think that California could vote to legalize slavery in California?

 

Slavery has to do with race, not deviant sexual behaviors. Apples and oranges.

Well now that is a sticky problem. Because at the same time they allowed the LOWER court ruling to stand, they also said a the HIGHEST level, that states get to define marriage. I wonder which one they'll choose when the case makes it to Them? The lower court's interpretation of states' right to choose "no" on gay marriage, or Their Own?