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.

Nonsense. How can bigotry get a "fair hearing"? By your logic, it was the duty of Kennedy and Johnson to uphold segregation because that was then the law of the land. What was the Attorney General supposed to go to court and say? "Let's be kind to bigots and hate the people they hate." Of course in your view defending Prop 8 just because a lot of bigots voted for it is moral. I suppose because lots of Nazis liked the Belsen, morality and duty demands defending it as well.

I did say it was a kamikaze mission for the governor and attorney general.

Well then... It would appear that no matter how ever anyone feels about it the 9th circuit court's ruling on prop 8 is the one that matters.

I wonder though, could a future Governor and attorney general press the mater in the Supreme Court, or is that door closed as well?

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:03 pm Well then... It would appear that no matter how ever anyone feels about it the 9th circuit court's ruling on prop 8 is the one that matters.

I wonder though, could a future Governor and attorney general press the mater in the Supreme Court, or is that door closed as well?

That door is closed. Judge Walker's decision on Prop 8 is upheld and Prop 8 is and always will be unconstitutional.

In fact, the Supreme Court has denied a request to impose a 25 day wait on California and is letting the 9nth Circuits permission to begin Same Weddings immediately stand.

Regardless of the silly-assed horseshit MOI keeps piling on us, Same Sex Marriage will eventually be the law of the land in all states. It is forever tied to the Amendments on Equal Rights.

It's like the old Las Vegas Wedding and Las Vegas Divorce... It eventually will be recognized by all states as per the US Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause.

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

See post 44

Moi, Moi, Moi... Out Bobbing Bob3 again.

Who said it was unconstitutional? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did. That's a federal court, so they ruled it unconstitutional at a point when the state defended it. When the ruling came from that case, the executive authority in California simply decided not to appeal the decision. That is different than not defending it. Initially they did, which they were bound to do, but when a federal court made a decision they simply decided not to appeal it.

BIG DIFFERENCE from not defending it.

That upset the KKKristian right. So they insisted on taking up an appeal in the place of the state executive and that is what was ruled on last week. I remember during that process the judges at the 9th Circuit threw Prop 8 back to the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court to clarify if they felt the KKKristian right had the right to defend the initiative. The CALIFORNIA Supreme Court said yes, at which point the ruling tossing it out based on US Constitutional grounds was made at the 9th Circuit. Then the KKKristian right appealed it to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court told them to GTFO and that they didn't have standing to take up defense of the measure in federal courts and that it was the job of the State Executive to do so.

So with that decision, and the fact that the State Executive decided to comply with the original 9th Circuit order, the issue then returned to the 1st ruling established at the 9th Circuit that gay couples have the right to marry and it has also set the precedent that there is a US constitutional right for gay people to wed and that it's derived from the right to equal protection of the law.

The KKKristian right needs to STFU now, it's settled law. However I think it would be foolish to think they will do that. Instead they are going to flog this dead horse like the Roe vs. Wade decision, probably for the next 40 years. If they want to live in a Christian Theocratic state, I encourage them to become clergy and move to Vatican City. The US is a secular country and they need to accept that.

--LT

So the next issue is to put on a referendum prohibiting same sex marriage in some red-necked conservative state such as Alaska (there are also others) and if the referendum passes some bunch of Republican legislators will make it a part of that state's constitution.

Then back to the Supreme Court the prohibition of same sex marriage case goes to get thrown out again. Some people, I mean, is it possible that there are whole states full of enough retarded dumb asses to do this?

They sure do not choose their battles wisely, do they?

The next thing then will be the prohibition of certain religions and PRESTO!!!! America becomes the Western Hemisphere's Saudi Arabia.

Of course, they will have to figure a way around the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:26 pm So the next issue is to put on a referendum prohibiting same sex marriage in some red-necked conservative state such as Alaska (there are also others) and if the referendum passes some bunch of Republican legislators will make it a part of that state's constitution.

Then back to the Supreme Court the prohibition of same sex marriage case goes to get thrown out again. Some people, I mean, is it possible that there are whole states full of enough retarded dumb asses to do this?

They sure do not choose their battles wisely, do they?

The next thing then will be the prohibition of certain religions and PRESTO!!!! America becomes the Western Hemisphere's Saudi Arabia.

Of course, they will have to figure a way around the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.

Not a problem they have GOD on their side.

River

Sithrak appeared today...

http://oglaf.com/sithrak/

we're all damned

I think I like it.

River