Evidence That Prop 8 Is Still Legal In CA Becomes Undeniable

[Sihouette]

The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..
In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.
They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.

Page 19 DOMA Opinion: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-doma-full-decision-text-pdf/
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.
In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.
The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:

Page 14 same link as above:
New York recog-nized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry

A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.
Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?

 

[Sihouette]

Can anyone name the 12 states on page 14 of the DOMA Opinion http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-doma-full-decision-text-pdf/ that the Supreme Court only recognizes as having legal gay marriage? Anyone care to speculate why California, the 13th, was left out? A typo?

 

[dogtowner]

why ? I say irony.

 

[Sihouette]

Irony? So you mean a typo? I think it was purposeful. And I think that because the Court found in DOMA that each sovereign state has the constituional right to consensus on gay marriage. And they found that was so retroactively to the start of our nation. Knowing the supremacy of the federal courts, any issue that the US Supreme Court finds constitutional on "issue x" automatically kills, nullifies and eradicates any lower finding in direct contradiction with that fresher SCOTUS Finding. It is called "the US Supreme Court" for a reason. You can't get a more potent ruling. All others must come into line with it, not the other way around.

 

[dogtowner]

Irony? So you mean a typo? I think it was purposeful. And I think that because the Court found in DOMA that each sovereign state has the constituional right to consensus on gay marriage. And they found that was so retroactively to the start of our nation. Knowing the supremacy of the federal courts, any issue that the US Supreme Court finds constitutional on "issue x" automatically kills, nullifies and eradicates any lower finding in direct contradiction with that fresher SCOTUS Finding. It is called "the US Supreme Court" for a reason. You can't get a more potent ruling. All others must come into line with it, not the other way around.

irony is not a typo. cali chose no so thats what holds. the others chose yes and so are included in that roll.

 

[Sihouette]

OK, so we are in agreement then that gay marriage is still illegal in California.

 

[dogtowner]

OK, so we are in agreement then that gay marriage is still illegal in California.

Sure. Also that DOMA was pointless when enacted and moot when struck down ?

 

[Sihouette]

Well no. Not all of DOMA was struck down. Just Section II. Section III that says states don't have to recognize each other's marriages still is in effect. But the real gist of what DOMA found was that states ONLY each sovereign one have the constitutional right and power to consensus on gay marriage. And anything they decide, the fed has to abide by. Which is probably why you and I soundly agree that gay marriage is still profoundly illegal still in CA. The fed having to abide by state's consensus on gay marriage means also any lower or higher federal court. So what DOMA actually did was take away the power of lower courts to rule against the people and instead made it so the People could prevail against the courts.

Long story short: Proposition 8 is the law of the land. Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris et al are currently in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the Citizenry of the Golden State and their Consensus.