Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

Perhaps this will answer your question:

Except that the state lawmakers in California are the voters, not judges, the governor or the attorney general. [See the OP]. And, the Supreme Court just said in DOMA that is is constitutional, up to the states, so say yes or no to gay marriage. That is the Highest and MOST RECENT Ruling in the Land. ALL OTHERS PREVIOUS TO THAT RULING AND BELOW THAT RULING THAT CONFLICT ARE NULL AND VOID. This is the final say on state's right to choose "no" to gay marriage.

So, Prop 8 is legal, according to the California State Constitution of who gets to decide in California.. Public officials there are clearly delineated in Article II, Section 1 as servants of the people and sworn to do their Will [not the other way around].

The rogue public servants in California neither have the power to override the rule of the people via initiatives, nor does any judge there, or any other lower federal court, have the right to declare a state's right to choose "no" on gay marriage "unconstitutional".

If you read the above citation carefully, you note that person quoted there is saying "you have a right via a state initiative to vote for gay marriage, as long as that vote is "yes"...or else...". Boiled down further that is a king declaring to Californians and other states to follow, "the power of your vote is no longer".

 

It doesn't. The whole 'gay mafia' thing is a conspiracy theory.

The OP is about the effort to amend the the Constitution of the United States, not happenings in the state of California.

Which leads me to ask again whether you have any intentions of addressing the actual thread topic.

Quote for us where in the ruling any of this is said. The DOMA case was ony about Section 3. This is what Section 3 of DOMA says:

This is the only portion of law that the Court dealt with in the DOMA case. The only thing it affirmed about state laws on marriage was that it was the "virtually exclusive" authority of states to define and regulate marriage. "Virtually exclusive" does not mean absolute, and the Court in the DOMA ruling also affirmed that this authority of the states is subject to the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

In no way do these statements by the Court magically constitute an override of what took place in the Prop 8 case. What's more, there is nothing about the district court ruling in the Prop 8 case that conflicts with what the Court actually said in the DOMA case. The Court did not issue a declaration upholding the state laws banning same-sex marriage recognition. We assume those laws are constitutional in the absence of a ruling on the merits of a case challenging them. We have such a ruling in the Prop 8 case, applicable to California. That it comes from a lower court is of no consequence since the Supreme Court allowed that ruling to stand when it declared that there was no jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, due to appellants lack of standing. It has the force of law, and nothing stated by the Court in its DOMA ruling contradicts or overrides that.

Nor did the Court issue a declaration blanketly overturning state laws banning same-sex marriage recognition. They are still in force with the singular exception of Prop 8 - because a case challenging that initiative worked its way through the court system, with the result already detailed above.

So Prop 8 is not enforceable, as I have shown. You have made no effort to address my arguments as to why it is unenforceable, accept to repeat ad nauseum an already debunked theory utterly disconnected from the reality of how the legal system works.

Falsehood, already debunked.

The actual words of the Court trump anything some biased political pundit has to say on the matter. You cannot quote for us the passage where the Court declares the things you claim - because the Court made no such declarations.

There is no reason for us to constantly rehash this. You've had the opportunity to express your opinion, that opinion has been debunked, you've made no responsive rebuttal of that debunking, and we should not have to endure its endless repetition and be forced thereby to re-argue the same points - especially when this is not the topic of the thread.

When are you going to discuss the topic of this thread?

 

I support Domestic Partnership for gay couples.

with all the rights and priviliges of marriage.

I also support a Federal law making it illegal for employers to provide different benefits to married couples and domestic partnerships.

 

A Constitutional amendment might very well make one man/one woman in marriage the ONLY union recognized by the federal government; maybe even by state governments (depending on how it's worded). This is part of why efforts to pass such an amendment have failed in the past; just as in the case of DOMA, it represents a taking of power away from the states. "States' rights advocates helped kill the amendment the last time it was brought up, and it seems reasonable to think they would do so again.

 

Repetition of previously proven lies.

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. Same sex couples have been getting married for the past 2 weeks and their marriage is recognized by the federal government

 

Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional? By whom? When? And was that declaration more recent and with more authority than the Supreme Court's Ruling just last month that said each state gets to decide yes or no on gay marriage?

 

Asked and answered several times over:

Yes, and you already knew that.

United States District Court, Northern District of California, and you already knew that.

4 August 2010, and you already knew that.

Recentness or the lack thereof is irrelevant, as the Supreme Court has not vacated or overturned the ruling - and you already knew that.

As for which court ruling has more authority, that would be the Supreme Court, deciding that appellants lacked the standing to appeal the district court ruling. As you already knew, if there is no appellant with standing and the Supreme Court doesn't vacate the ruling, it stands with the force of law.

The Supreme Court did not issue a ruling declaring that states get to decide yes or no on 'gay marriage', but you already knew that and are being dishonest. You have been unable to backup this claim. You have been asked several times to provide a citation to, and quotation of this non-existent ruling. You can't do it, because it doesn't exist, and you know it doesn't exist, which means you are making statements that you know to be false. I have refuted your claim with quotations from the actual ruling that show the Court acknowledges both the authority of states over marriage and that authority being subject to Constitutional protections. I have provided a quotation of the actual ruling by the Court in the DOMA case, which dealt only with Section 3 of that specific federal law, and not with any state laws.

It is beyond clear and without doubt that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage recognition. It is also beyond clear and without doubt that a district court struck California's Prop 8 as being unconstitutional. It is beyond clear and without doubt that the Supreme Court allowed that ruling to stand with the force of law despite making no ruling itself on the broader, more general question of whether any state may ban same-sex marriage recogniton. It is beyond clear and without doubt that specific state laws may be found unconstitutional without reaching to the level of declaring all similar state laws unconstitutional. It is beyond clear and without doubt that the federal district court had the authority to rule on the constitutionality of California's Prop 8 - because no state has the authority to pass unconstitutional laws, and it is within the jurisdiction of federal courts to settle such controversies of law. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, and when it allows a lower court ruling to stand (which is not a rare or unusual occurance), the lower court ruling has the force of law.

And you know all of this already. So we can conclude that you are engaging in a disinformation campaign - an action that I opine is not a legitimate use of this forum.

And lastly, you are refusing to discuss the actual topic of the thread, which is not the outcome of the Prop 8 or DOMA cases, but the proposal of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ban same-sex marriage.

When are you going to engage the topic of this thread?

 

First of all let's clarify some facts.

First: Under contract law technically the parents are legally responsible for the marriage of a minor that has not reached the age of consent until the minor reaches the age of consent.

Second: Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause the legal marriage of a "16 yo" under Kentucky law is recognized in every other state if the "couple" moves from Kentucky to any other state including Mississippi where the "age of consent" for marriage is 21 (Mississippi is the only state where the "age of consent" isn't 18 ).

Under the Full Faith and Credit clause a State, like Mississippi, can have different laws related to marriage but they cannot deny recognition of a legal marriage of the citizens from another state married under the laws of that state that move into their state. I'm unaware of any state that expressly prohibits "same-sex" marriage recognizing the legal marriage of a couple that were citizens of another state and then move into the state. In short, a legally same-sex couple that was married for years would have their marriage nullified if they move into a state that doesn't allow and doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and that would be unconstitutional.

Personally I support Constitutional Amendments aimed at protecting our Inalienable Rights as a Person and oppose any Constitutional Amendment that would infringe upon our Rights. Since same-sex marriage doesn't violate anyone's Inalienable Rights there isn't an argument to support such an Amendment. The US Constitution should never be used to infringe upon the Rights of the Person. We've already had one amendment in the history of the United States that infringed upon the Rights of a Person (re. 18th Amendment) and fortunately it was later repealed. The last thing we want is another Amendment that would infringe upon the Rights of a Person.

 

Legally? By the 9th District Court as the lawsuit was unchallenged by anyone with "standing" and the Court was obligated to redress the "harm" cause by Prop 8 though nullification of Prop 8 based upon the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

Standing of the Plaintiffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

The Plaintiffs had standing and the Court took the only action it could to redress the harm caused to the Plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case.

The problem with those that argue for the prohibitions against same-sex marriage is that they don't understand either the law, the Constitution, due process of the law, or all of the above.

 

What is interesting related to "standing" is that the US Supreme Court doubted the standing of "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" from the "House" Republicans (that wasn't bipartisan by any definition) but decided to allows "standing" in the DOMA Section 3 case.

The reason for this was twofold. First of all the Plaintiffs wanted to give BLAG standing so that the Supreme Court would hear the case. Next was that the Supreme Court realized that by denying "standing" to BLAG that a national issue would go unresolved and would merely result in future litigation and potentially the continued harm to legally married same-sex couples in different Appeals Court jurisdiction.

By legal definitions BLAG didn't have standing but standing was allowed to address an issue of national importance related to federal laws and marriage where legally married couples were being denied equality under federal law.

 

Yes, "legally married couples". Did you so suddenly forget how the Court defined that? Here, let me refresh your memory:

"Legally married" gay people in California don't exist. Even the one judge who authorized gay marriage in the very begininning, outside his power to do so, his ruling was overturned and invalidated by the recent Declarations of the Court combined with the California State constitution which outlines quite clearly the power to set groundbreaking law is in the people's initiative system, not rogue gay judges and/or an oligarchy gay blind-sympathizers from the Bay Area California. Also in the California State Constitution is strong language saying how minority opinions do not get to dictate to the majority. Several Sections of Article II address that specifically.

The California State Constitution makes two things explicity clear in Article II:

1. That the power of the individual vote in the initiative system is paramount and

2. No minority opinion that conflicts with the majority has any rights or power. What is voted on in majority is LAW and every county and hamlet has to abide by it no matter what.

 

I think the thousands who were legally married in the state between June 16, 2008 and November 5, 2008 would beg to differ. As would the California Supreme Court, which ruled that Prop 8 could not be applied retroactively. As would those couples who have legally married since the stay of the district court's ruling was lifted on June 28, 2013.

When will you address the actual topic of this thread (the introduction of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ban same-sex marriages)?

 

There will be no Amendment to ban same sex marriages at the federal level in the near, or even far future. The right to decide on marriage is clearly, unequivocally and completely up to the states. The Supreme Court just said so. This "Amendment" nonsense is a ruse to let middle hispanic & other catholic & christian voters "know" who to choose in 2014 for a congressional candidate near them... You should know that by now >> http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-votes-chic-fil-looking-forward-midterms.html

I imagine millions of disenfranchised hispanic catholic voters who voted for Prop 8 in California might be tempted to stray away from "the party of you will vote for gay or lose the power of your vote" in 2014. I'm thinking the GOP is going to capitalize on this disenfranchisement, tyranny and wanton destruction of democracy at it's foundation by exhibitionist public dry-humping repellant mentally ill people. So if you care about actual, real progressive issues like healthcare bringing jobs home, the economy and green energy, you can kiss them goodbye. They just got flushed down the commode with the gay albatross tied firmly around their necks, weighing them down into the pipes...

This situation will come to a head where people in the middle will be forced to choose between their faith or just common sense and the repugnant "in your face" nature of this obviously-depraved social movement. I know my regula peeps. I know how they vote behind the curtain. Prop 8 opponents predicted a sound loss for it a week before the polls closed. The next day they and the democratic party woke to find Prop 8 passed handily. And that was BEFORE gays just started to pi$s people off by attempting to disenfranchise their votes after last month's Ruling where they thought they had gotten the right to marry in California [they didn't, which they will soon find out..]

You will see that repeated again and again by polite people who say one thing in public and are thinking something completely different in private....

 

The bigotry always comes out sooner or later.

But they're just upset about the alteration of a definition in the dictionary. Sure they are.

 

You don't have to be a bigot to find this repugnant in the presence of children no less... You can either listen to what I'm telling you about millions of registered voters, silent about how they truly feel [and vote behind curtains] or you can continue to play your dangerous games with the real issues the democratic party should be standing for but cannot because of gay sex smashing over everything in it's path...demanding to be heard...demanding to be seen...demanding attention! [Like a child acting out from being molested..]
It is this picture and a million others like it burned into the psyches of reasonable and sober onlookers. And they express their shock at the polls. You want to gamble with the democratic party and reality manifest? Fine. It think it is a selfish and bad idea..



We get it. You have issues. You need help. And we'd be happy to oblige if you would lower the shields of denial and quit hamstringing our ability to bring you the healthcare and counselling you so desperately advertise that you need...

 

Nothig in your post is true. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. Same sex couples have been legally marrying for the past 2 weeks and their marriage is recognized by the federal govnt. To say prop 8 is still the law or that same sex couples are not legally married is a proven lie

 

Prop 8 chose to make gay marriage, polygamy and minor marriage illegal. The Supreme Court just said that state's get to do that. So Prop 8 is constitutional. It is the latest and freshest/most superior and final word on the matter. Your stale, lower court rulings are null and void in the face of the newer and more superior Ruling.

States get to decide. That's that.

 

That is off thread topic.

Anyway- Prop 8 is dead, and there will be no Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriage.

 

Proven lie

 

mod edit>>>off topic
the House reaction trying to Amend the Constitution is in reaction to last month's Rulings and what's going on in California where tyranny has usurped the initiative process outside law. It also is a ruse to "let hispanic/catholic/christian know" who to vote for for Congress in 2014: self-appointed kings who dismantle entire lawmaking statutes in their own State constitution or traditional people who have values similar to theirs.

Prop 8 is quite alive. The latest Supreme Court Ruling said state's get to say "no" to gay marriage. All other stale rulings in conflict with that are overruled therefore.

 

Prop 8 is dead.

People in love are getting married.

The haters hate that.

 

The California State Constitution makes one more thing explicitly clear in Article VI.

The State Supreme Court has the jurisdiction over compliance of the laws of California to the California State Constitution and any law, whether passed by the legislature or the people, that violates the State Constitution is to be nullified by the California State Supreme Court. Prop 22 denied equal protection under the law for same-sex couples, which violated the State Constitution, and was nullified by the State Supreme Court.

Additionally, in the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution it explicitly established that neither the States or the People do not have the "power" to violate prohibitions established by the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment clearly establishes that denial of equal protection under the law by the State is expressly prohibited.

 

This is waht you get when you let politicians decide about social issues.

For a start marriage isnot a state function. It is a religious ceremony and therefore governed by the religious guidelines as to what a marriage is.

Some smart lawyer will work this out and next we will be asking the supremes to deliver a verdict on what color clothes we can wear on the sabbath or if we can work on the sabbath. I can just see the unions going hell for leather on a case to ban all workers from being asked to work Fridays or Sundays which ever religion you are a member of.

Marriage has been defined by society as a female and male couple.

Now where the actual fight from the homosexual community should lie is in the recognition that the government and through the relevant pieces legislation such as DOMA, gives to same sex couples in regards to partner provisions and rights.

This as has been said is a violation of religious worship and it is also against the equal protection act.

Legislation and judicial groups can not define religious acts, activities or functions as religious groups are not under direct government oversight.

 

Religious authority has been one way human societies have regulated human pair bonding. With the development of secular states separate from religious authority, secular law has developed as a means of regulation of human pair bonding. But the human desire of loving couples to commit to each other, to intimately mingle their lives on a permanent basis, has always existed. Our legal tradition recognizes the 'common law marriage' as the primal form of this social institution, but it exists whether the law recognizes it or not. It precedes the law, and it precedes religion. All religions claim to own marriage, but none of them do.

So our modern, secular laws do not restrict marriage to those the priests are willing to bless. They have long made legal marriage, and the definitions and protections attaching to it in modern law, available to heterosexual couples that profess no religion, and whom the priests would even see fit to reject. There is no reason for the secular law to continue to follow the priest's lead regarding homosexual couples. They love, they desire to commit to joined lives, the same way heterosexual couples do. It should be their recognized human right to do so. They should be equally protected by our laws in doing so.

 

No they do not. While every heterosexual relationship is, at least initially, tinged with selfishness, marriage provides a framework within which that selfishness may be overcome, and of which professing homosexuals refuse to avail themselves. Similarly, while there can always be selfish motives for having children, for homosexual parents the motivation cannot be anything but selfish, seeing they bring the child into an environment of confusion, a problem which cannot be rectified without the dissolution of the union.