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

Please stop talking about race when we are talking instead about deviant sexuals. It's insulting to actual minorities who don't want to be equated with deviant sexual behavior.

It isn't secret at all to those who observed that the Supreme Court announced it would hear both cases at the same Sitting. You can contest the states authority until the cows come home. However, in DOMA, they just Upheld that in the context of gay marriage, states get do define their own "yes" or "no" terms. Nowhere in DOMA or Prop 8 was the constitutionality affirmed of gay marriage either way. However, what was affirmed was the constitutionality of each separate state to embrace or reject it, according to what works best for their social structure.

Sorry.

 

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.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I find it rather disturbing that some here consider it a "right" to vote to interfere in the lives of others, particularly in affairs that affect them absolutely not at all.

 

Repeatedly proven lies. The court said no such thing. Sorry

 

Just in: The San Diego County Clerk is suing the State of California for illegally forcing him to issue so-called "gay marriage" licenses. Apparently he takes his oath of office seriously... http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...rop-8-enforcement-challenge-county-clerk.html

 

Well as it so happens, it is just you, real american thinker. It's funny you should bring this point up. And I'm glad you did. Because the Supreme Court addressed it directly in the DOMA Opinion here as to the vested affect of what marriage means to each state:

The fed just determined that each citizen of each state DOES have a vested interest in the topic of who marries within their borders and who doesn't.

 

And they are wrong. What else is new?

 

Because you say so? No. You're going to have to come with something better than that.

This is a long-winded way of being unresponsive.

I conclude that you have nothing of substance to offer as a counterargument.

 

LOL......meanwhile Prop 8 is unconstitutional and same gender couples in love are happily getting married in California.

 

All the votes were counted, Prop 8 passed, it's just that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, so it was struck down by a federal court.
And that is where it stands.

Prop 8 is dead, it's not coming back except in dreams.

 

Please provide a link to where anywhere it was said by SCOTUS last month that "Prop 8 is unconstitutional". You cannot. But I can point you to a link where SCOTUS Affirmed repeatedly in June this year that in the larger context of the question of the legality of so-called "gay marriage" it is a state's sovereign right to decide on their own
>> http://www.mydesert.com/interactive...strikes-down-DOMA-provision-Full-text-opinion

 

SCOTUS said the appellants lacked standing, and vacated the Appeals court ruling upholding the District Court ruling.
That leaves the Federal District Court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional as the last word on the subject.
And no one with standing is going to appeal, so it stands.

 

Exactly.

Unless the Supreme Court strikes down the lower court ruling, the ruling stands.

This is basic legal stuff

 

Strawman. No one has asserted this.

...because they didn't say so, but they did allow the district court ruling that said so to stand with the force of law.

Provide a link to the ruling by the Supreme Court last month that says "Prop 8 is constitutional". You cannot. Because the Court never said those words. Not in its holdings, not in dicta, not in the orders. Nor did it say anything to that effect. The Court refused to rule on the merits of the one and only case before it concerned with Prop 8's constitutionality.

The context of the DOMA case was not a question as to the legality of same-sex marriages. The context of the DOMA case was a question as to the legitimacy of a federal law denying recognition to lawful marriages. The Court did not consider the legality of those marriages to be in question.

What the Court affirmed was states' authority to define and regulate marriage. It did NOT affirm that every exercise of that authority is immune to challenge. Prop 8 was challenged and failed, and the Supreme Court allowed the district court ruling overturning it to stand with the force of law.

 

Exactly- the Supreme Court had the opportunity to rule that Prop 8 was constitutional, but declined to do so.
There was one case- and one case only regarding Prop 8 before the Supreme Court- and in that case the Supreme Court chose to let the lower court ruling stand.

And the lower court ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional- and therefore it is.

 

..lol the more I hear of this clever ruse of theirs, the more I have to just giggle, shake my head and say a prayer for the snakeyness of lawyers..lol..

Big question Perriquin. Force of which law?..lol.. The lower court's stale ruling saying a state cannot say "no" to gay marriage, or the Highest Court's fresh law saying states can say "no" to gay marriage? You understand how the chain of supremacy works in law right?..lol..

..lol... Those clever senior Justices capitalized on the blind, kneejerk freshmen in their midst...so wrapped up in defeating DOMA any way they could, they signed onto a Ruling that avered over and over that states set the final word on gay marriage: not the fed. And therefore, gay marriage is not a constitutional right. And therefore, Prop 8 is still the law. Both hearings at the same Sitting..lol...wow...those guys...heh..

 

You are trolling me by purposely misspelling my username. You have been called out on this multiple times. Knock it off.

I do understand how supremacy works, but you clearly do not.

The district court didn't issue a broad ruling that a state cannot say 'no' to 'gay marriage'. It ruled that Prop 8 specifically was unconstitutional. Big difference.

The Supreme Court's freshest ruling on the matter is that it doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the appeal of the lower court's ruling because appellants lacked standing to bring it. Vacating the 9th circuit court's ruling on the appeal allows the district court's ruling to stand.

The Court has not said that states "set the final word on gay marriage". You will not find any such thing in the ruling. You will not find it in the opinion. What you will find the court saying over and over again is that subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States, states have the "virtually exclusive" and "unquestioned" authority to define and regulate marriage. Acknowledgment of that authority in the opinion isn't saying that states "set the final word". It is not saying that every exercise of that authority is immune to challenge of its constitutionality. The final word is the Constitution itself, and courts apply the Constitution. The notion that the Court gave states "constitutional supremacy" to control marriage is absurd, and it's not even in the Court's power to do such a thing.