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

[video=youtube;eEFB0ozhcUU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEFB0ozhcUU[/video]

[video=youtube;bq5WkfG1r3k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq5WkfG1r3k[/video]

 

I don't remember the Supreme Court mentioning deviant sexual behaviors in the DOMA case.

I think this is another case of Bats are not Bugs.

 

Well you are wrong. From many's point of view, marrying your child or marrying a 13 year old, or your brother or first cousin is a deviant situation.

From the DOMA Opinion:

Note the emphasis SCOTUS put on the State's role for sorting out oddballs like gays, 13 year olds or first cousins [and polygamists and incest etc.]. Nowhere in DOMA did SCOTUS declare "gays have a right throughout the 50 states to marry". In fact, in the paragraph above they are saying "look, this is new and weird, like 13 year olds or first cousins marrying, we're leaving this legally up to the states to decide, each one apart from the other, and whatever they decide, we feds have to abide by".

And so, California is the one exception to the 50 in King Jerry the Brown et al's eyes...but not in the eyes of Constitutional Law when tested again in SCOTUS.

Take Prop 8 to the Supreme Court under "initiative rights" standing and watch a very different Ruling on it...

 

Dicta. Nevertheless, there are holdings in the DOMA case that acknowledge the unquestioned authority of states to define and regulate marriage. The trouble with Silhouette's "argument" is that the Court's acknowledgment of this authority doesn't actually amout to a declaration that all excercises of that authority are constitutional, or that this authority is absolute and superior to the Constitution and the courts' applications of it.

Let the shrilling begin.

 

It didn't rule on that question, but even if it had, this wouldn't mean that the Court deems every state's exercise of that authority to be constitutional. Acknowledging states' authority and ruling a specific exercise of that authority to be constitutional are two different things.

 

Repeatedly proven lies.

And given you've been dead wrong in every legal prediction to date, it's a safe bet that the exact opposite will happen.

 

The plaintiffs are the people bringing the suit, which in this case is the proponents of Prop 8.

But go right on illustrating your considerable ignorance of legal terminology and the workings of the courts.

 

Do you suppose that the Supreme Court, when confronted with the conflicting notions of "unconstitutionality" vs "constitutionality" with respect to saying "no" to gay marriage as being the rights of the individual states, will defer to the lower, staler court ruling saying it's "unconstitutional"? Or their own more recent one finding it IS constitutional?

When weighing the CA state constitution's promise to individual voters and their power via the initiative system, the Court will write an opinion in direct conflict with their recent findings in DOMA, that states get to decide? I don't think they'll do that.

 

Bats are not Bugs

 

I'm assuming you keep spamming this thread Jeff with "bats are not bugs" in an attempt to say that the Supreme Court Ruling in Prop 8's sister case last month on DOMA, where the Court determined ad nauseum that states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage [within the larger context of the question of gay marriage] is somehow not binding on all lower courts?

However, it is.

 

So you think that last months DOMA ruling was a secret ruling by the Supreme Court giving the green light to States that they have unlimited and uncontested authority to define marriage and that this is their secret authority for States to make mixed race marriages illegal?

 

I will answer your questions by posting what I just said another place:

 

In point of fact, they did by allowing it to stand when they punted the Prop 8 case.

In point of fact, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits of any challenge to a state's specific excerise of its authority to define and regulate marriage. The Supreme Court did not find Prop 8 constitutional. They refused to rule on the merits of the case challenging the lower court's ruling, because the appellants of that ruling lacked standing to make an appeal. No appellants with standing = no appeal = the lower court ruling stands with the force of law.

You're assuming the case will reach the Supreme Court. I'm not persuaded that it will. Mainly, because it's based on a false premise. California voters had their votes counted, the intiative process is still in place, and they can continue to use it. None of which is a guarantee that every initiative will produce a constitutional exercise of a state's authority. We generally assume so, but a voter-enacted initiative is not immune to challenge, because the states have ratified the Constitution of the United States which constrains their authority.

That's the part you don't seem to get. A state's power is not absolute. The votes of voters are not an absolute power superior to the Constitution, either.

 

By combining Prop 8 and DOMA on the same sitting they did not punt Prop 8 but in fact ruled on it via what they Declared in DOMA Opinion. You cannot have two diametrically opposed declarations of what states can and cannot do with respect to gay marriage existing at the same time. One of them has to go. Can you guess which one that will be from the judicial chain of supremacy in our country?...lol...

For those a little slow on the uptake of what just happened at the Supreme Level...

 

Repeatedly proven lies

- - - Updated - - -

The court made no ruling on the states at all. That is a lie

 

"Repeatedly proven lies" and "That is a lie." You should be a lawyer rahl! The perfect venue for your patently biased and unsubstantiated accusations would be judge Walker's court in Calfornia. Those statements would be more admissable there than a bloody knife with fingerprints.

 

Judge Walker is retired. He has no court in California.

Seriously- and I cannot repeat this often enough:

Bats are not Bugs

 

For those a little slow on the uptake......its not just a flesh wound....

ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-
[hah]
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[bang]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
[whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!

 

Oh look, another person who intentionally misrepresents what sexuality is to further a homophobic agenda. Why am I not surprised. Meanwhile, Prop 8 is dead, and almost certainly isn't coming back.

 

I and others have provided point by point direct refutations of your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). As I keep telling you when it gets to this point, all your posts warrant is a simple reminder that they have already been proven to be lies. If you don't like your lies pointed out, stop posting them

 

Still waiting for an answer.

Still waiting for Silhouette to explain why she supports a states right to ban same gender marriages and inter-racial marriages.

 

Falsehood.

Falsehood.

Disinformation.

Display of ignorance.

Address these statements: Acknowledgment of states' authority to define and regulate marriage is not a declaration that every exercise of that authority is constitutional. Acknowledgment of states' authority to define and regulate marriage is not a declaration that this authority is superior to the Constitution of the United States or the rulings and holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

It is when it's Said in the context of questioning the legality of gay marriage and the question of who has the power to enact it, state by state, as was said in the DOMA Opinion June 2013... Sorry.

Yet they didn't specify gay marriage at all when they said that. In fact, they rambled around talking about different oddball laws in different states for 13 year olds and first cousins marrying...about how each state has a vested interest and authority in defining its own social matrix to suit itself. That doesn't bode well for your hopes that somehow gay marriage is "a constitutional right". If the Justices wanted it recognized as such, the language in DOMA would have directly said that. Instead, the language says in essence, "this is an oddball and we are going to let the states hash it out". Worse still for your "fed will step in" hopes, they said "and the fed is going to be staying completely out of the decisions made by each state". Read my signature again. Condensed further: "gay marriage is not a civil right, and therefore, denying is not unconstitutional". Sorry.

 

So you think that last months DOMA ruling was a secret ruling by the Supreme Court giving the green light to States that they have unlimited and uncontested authority to define marriage and that this is their secret authority for States to make mixed race marriages illegal?

 

Asking some people to 'address statements' is akin to Flat Earth Society folk to explain evidence of the curvature of the earth.

The more I think of it, the Flat Earth Society would be good company for anyone denying that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.