Agree.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:02 pm The problem is with the State of California Governor and Attorney General who failed to take on a kamikaze mission they were bound by their Oath of Office to take. Defend Prop. 8.

With those State officials abdicating their roll, then . . . or require them to fulfill their roll.

I mean who respects the 9th District except when it is convenient.

It has always been treated in a less then normal way by their peers.

Moi

What part of your constitution requires the attorney general or governor to defend any particular law? I don't know your 1200 page consititution, but the US one makes no such declration about a "must defend." I think they all did the right thing - district court (especially - wonderfully written opinion), the appeals court (9th) and SCOTUS. The only ones who fucked up was the California SupCt when it gave standing to the appellants at the 9th circuit at all. It should have kicked them to the curb where they belong.

...

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:02 pm With those State officials abdicating their roll, then . . . or require them to fulfill their roll.

I mean who respects the 9th District except when it is convenient.

...

Are you kidding me?

Scalia just launched into a very public rant that damned one section of the Voters Rights Act and ignored the 15,000 pages of hearings, the several hundred interviews, and the near unanimous vote in the House and Senate in 2006 (Or was it 2003) and you complain about California's governor not defending a law that takes your rights away? And my rights and nearly everyone on the EA's rights...

Slavery was the law of the land and lots of people went through civil disobedience to get that thrown out.

Miscegenation was against the law and again, people took that to court and states and federal officials stopped defending it.

But you have to rant and rave and poke the eyes of democrats everywhere because you don't think we're good enough to make the government work when we make it just and even-handed.

Isn't the Governor and Attorney General's oath of office to uphold the laws of the Great State of California?

Senator Sam Ervin of Dixiecrat and Watergate fame held violation of the oath of office was an impeachable offense.

It seems like a case of, if my side wins, to with the law.

Moi

NO moi, not when the court strikes it down as unconstitutional. And sense both the outgoing and incoming governor and Attorney General thought it was a bad law from the start they chose not to fight the decision. So YOU ARE WRONG, they did not need to defend a law that was ruled unconstitutional.

Funny how that works, I find that most republicans have the memory span of a duck anyway, every day is a brand new day.

READ BELOW

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... roposition) and a state constitutional amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment) passed in the November 2008 California state elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ember_2008). The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... California) in advance of[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ite_note-2) the California Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Supreme_Court)'s May 2008 ruling in In re Marriage Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases)" which legalized same-sex marriage, overriding the statute (Proposition 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... %282000%29) in 2000) by ruling it unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconstitutional). Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although only confirmed on June 26, 2013 following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Proposition 8 would have circumvented the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision, as Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Constitution), providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", which would not be vulnerable to the 2008 ruling.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ote-text-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... s.ca.gov-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... sition_8-5)

Following affirmation of the amendment by the California Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Supreme_Court) in Strauss v. Horton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_v._Horton) (2009), two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... thern_Dist rict_of_California) in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger) (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker) ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause) and Equal Protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... s_Constitu tion),[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ite_note-6) since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review). The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_fact). The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ite_note-7) The ruling was stayed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_of_execution) pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative.

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... ted_States) issued its ruling on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry (

Dave (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:25 pm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry

), affirming that in accordance with numerous precedents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause), proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29) in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_court), either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... inth_Circu it). Therefore the Supreme Court both dismissed the appeal and directed the Ninth Circuit to vacate (withdraw) its decision, which had agreed with the district court ruling. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling as the final decision on Proposition 8.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ite_note-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... ite_note-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... te_note-10) On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit lifted its stay of the district court's ruling, enabling same-sex marriages to resume.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... te_note-11)

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:33 pm Isn't the Governor and Attorney General's oath of office to uphold the laws of the Great State of California?

Senator Sam Ervin of Dixiecrat and Watergate fame held violation of the oath of office was an impeachable offense.

It seems like a case of, if my side wins, to ...

with the law.

Moi

Not when the law in unconstitutional.

Do you understand the word "unconstitutional" ???

It means "violates the constitution of the USA"

Do you believe in the constitution of the USA?

who had said it was unconstitutional ?

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:22 pm who had said it was unconstitutional ?

Like I once said, you tire me with this nonsense of not seeing facts before your eyes:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... -states-2/

Holding: Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

>>and as for Prop 8, here are some of the 80 "findings of facts" from the Walker decision that the Supreme Court upheld.

>>To deny an appelant a hearing is to affirm and uphold the decision of the lower court.

>>I don't know how much more "unconstitutional" Prop 8 could get than what was found to be FACT in Judge Walker's Trial.

Dave (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:25 pm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry

Findings of fact[edit]

Over 50 pages of the opinion were devoted to Walker's 80 findings of fact[102] and the supporting evidence, which included:

Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter.[103]:FOF 19 p.60

How the State defines civil marriage.[103]:FOF 34, p.67

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction.[103]:FOF 43, p.71-72

Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change sexual orientation.[103]:FOF 46, p.74

The State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.[103]:FOF 47, p.76

Marriage has benefits which the State and individuals gain from, which apply to same and opposite sex marriage alike.[103]:FOF 35-41, p.67-71

Same sex couples are identical to opposite sex couples in terms of characteristics relevant to successful marriage and union.[103]:FOF 48, p.79

Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians.[103]:FOF 51, p.79

Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage.[103]:FOF 52, p.80

Marriage of other groups, controversial on comparable grounds at the time, such as race or ethnicity, has not reduced the "vibrancy" or importance of marriage as a social institution, although many people raised concerns of its degradation at the time.[103]:FOF 66-67, p.66

The costs and harm (to the State and to lesbians and gays) resulting from denial of

Dave (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:25 pm marriage to same-sex couples.

[103]:FOF 64-68, p.77-78

A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.[103]:FOF 70, p.95

Gay and lesbian adoption is widespread and is supported and encouraged in California law, providing evidence concerning same sex couples and parenting, with around 18% of same sex couples in California raising children.[103]:FOF 69-73, p.94-96 As a corollary, this provides evidence of fact that Proposition 8 is not rationally connected to improving parenting, since it makes no attempt to amend or revoke state approval of any aspect of parenting by non-married same sex couples.[103]:Pp.Int. 3 p.127-128

Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination.[103]:FOF 74, p.96

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.[103]:FOF 77, p.101

The point that started our discussion was whether Prop 8 got a fair hearing.

The Governor and Attorney General of the State perhaps violated their oath of office.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:29 pm The point that started our discussion was whether Prop 8 got a fair hearing.

The Governor and Attorney General of the State perhaps violated their oath of office.

Clearly you have strong convictions, yet you never speak of a remedy. Are they subject to recall? Should they be forced out of office? What do you want to do about it? If you aren't going to do anything about it then in you are in the same boat with the SCOTUS, because they aren't going to do anything about it either.