Actions Planned for Day of Prop 8 Dec...

Actions Planned for Day of Prop 8 Decision

There are 45 comments on the EDGE story from Jun 15, 2013, titled Actions Planned for Day of Prop 8 Decision. In it, EDGE reports that:

LGBT activists plan to either party in the streets or mobilize protests on the day the U.S. Supreme Court issues its ruling in the Proposition 8 case.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#21 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the SCotUS asked for discussion regarding Standing, and NOT just of Standing to Appeal. They also questioned regarding Standing to Intervene.
The issue appears to be unresolved whether Standing according to the California Constitution should carry anything other than advisory weight against Federal Rules on Standing as applied to Cases brought before ANY level of Federal Court.
As I've said, NOBODY is discussing this; and if I'M thinking it you can bet that the clerks who write preparatory and follow-up position and strategy papers for the Justices are, too.
I think that there is a good chance that SCOTUS will rule that the Pro-Prop 8 people had NO STANDING in the case.

And many of us have been claiming they had no standing in the case since the beginning, and have been arguing that these people have had no standing since DAY ONE in this case, lo, these many years.....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#22 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that there is a good chance that SCOTUS will rule that the Pro-Prop 8 people had NO STANDING in the case.
And many of us have been claiming they had no standing in the case since the beginning, and have been arguing that these people have had no standing since DAY ONE in this case, lo, these many years.....
Yeppers, and that poses real Legal problems ... which is what I think is one of the REAL reasons that the SCotUS granted cert.

They saw that possible blocking maneuver, and saw an opportunity to include comments in the Decision as groundwork for other things coming down the pike.

You like to go on about impeachment.

I have in mind at least one Justice who should be brought before Congress on Articles of Impeachment regarding Failure to Disclose and Failure to Recuse.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#23 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeppers, and that poses real Legal problems ... which is what I think is one of the REAL reasons that the SCotUS granted cert.
They saw that possible blocking maneuver, and saw an opportunity to include comments in the Decision as groundwork for other things coming down the pike.
You like to go on about impeachment.
I have in mind at least one Justice who should be brought before Congress on Articles of Impeachment regarding Failure to Disclose and Failure to Recuse.
I think Roberts should be impeached. He's a HUGE disappointment !

Since: Jan 08

Manassas, VA

#24 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Roberts should be impeached. He's a HUGE disappointment !
How about Scalia? He's made constant anti-gay remarks yet refuses to recuse himself. He seems to be the talibangelical's special emissary.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#25 Jun 16, 2013
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
How about Scalia? He's made constant anti-gay remarks yet refuses to recuse himself. He seems to be the talibangelical's special emissary.
NOPE. Scalia is my FAV justice as I agree with him 95% of the time.

Impeach all the liberal justices for just making things up as they go along (the famed "penumbras and emanations" doctrine the dopey libs dreamed up to interpret the U.S. Constitution to mean ANYTHING they want it to, thus rendering the entire document meaningless).

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#26 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
NOPE. Scalia is my FAV justice as I agree with him 95% of the time.
Impeach all the liberal justices for just making things up as they go along (the famed "penumbras and emanations" doctrine the dopey libs dreamed up to interpret the U.S. Constitution to mean ANYTHING they want it to, thus rendering the entire document meaningless).
If any Justice needed to remove themselves from both the Prop 8 and DOMA arguments....it should have been Scalia

You have a strange way of looking at life.......you should have joined the Log Cabin Republicans!!!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#27 Jun 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If any Justice needed to remove themselves from both the Prop 8 and DOMA arguments....it should have been Scalia
You have a strange way of looking at life.......you should have joined the Log Cabin Republicans!!!
Nope. I'm a Libertarian.:)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#28 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. I'm a Libertarian.:)
Ummmmm, right......by the way, I betcha Libertarians are more liberal than conservative!!!!
Not provided

Salt Lake City, UT

#29 Jun 16, 2013
I agree with proposition 8 that a marriage should just be between a man and a woman

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#30 Jun 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmmm, right......by the way, I betcha Libertarians are more liberal than conservative!!!!
I would say that obviously the opposite is true.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#31 Jun 16, 2013
Perhaps a more accurate description of my political philosophy is "Constitutional Strict Constructionist".

The U.S. Constitution means what it says, and says what it means, not one iota more, not one iota less. Don't like what the U.S. Constitutions says, or doesn't say ? Then CHANGE IT !

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#32 Jun 16, 2013
And btw, once again, I will state to the people here who may be unaware of it, that there is NO U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT TO VOTE".

And because of that, I do NOT believe that the "Voting Rights Act of 1965" is constitutional either.

And I am NOT the only one to believe that. SCOTUS IS willing to hear arguments on that very subject.

On November 9, 2012, SCOTUS granted certiorari for the case of Shelby County v. Holder originating from Shelby County, Alabama, which questions Congress' authority in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, with Shelby County holding that the act is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

Oral arguments began in late February 2013.

If SCOTUS thought the argument was without merit, then they would not have granted cert.

And SINCE SCOTUS has already EXPLICITLY RULED IN Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000), that there is no explicit or fundamental right to vote in the Constitution - "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000), I would not be surprised IF SCOTUS finds the Voting Rights Act of 1965 UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, DON'T LIKE the fact that voting is not a Constitutional right ? Then put it in there if you want to !

Why aren't you willing to do that if you REALLY BELIEVE that voting for government officials is a fundamental "RIGHT" ???

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#33 Jun 17, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
Perhaps a more accurate description of my political philosophy is "Constitutional Strict Constructionist".
The U.S. Constitution means what it says, and says what it means, not one iota more, not one iota less. Don't like what the U.S. Constitutions says, or doesn't say ? Then CHANGE IT !
If that were true.....than there is NOTHING about Marriage at all and SCOTUS would have NEVER been able to rule it a Fundamental Right........besides, if you were truly a Strict Constitutionalist.....then SCOTUS would be ineffective in most cases!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#34 Jun 17, 2013
Not provided wrote:
I agree with proposition 8 that a marriage should just be between a man and a woman
You are entitled to that belief and opinion.....however Prop 8 only prevented future Gay and Lesbian couples from having the right to marry.....it DIDN'T affect the existing legal marriages that took place prior to the passage of Prop 8!!!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#35 Jun 17, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true.....than there is NOTHING about Marriage at all and SCOTUS would have NEVER been able to rule it a Fundamental Right........besides, if you were truly a Strict Constitutionalist.....then SCOTUS would be ineffective in most cases!!!
As per the Tenth Amendment in the Bill Of Rights, because marriage (and a host of other things) is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, marriage laws are the exclusive purview of the states.

BUT if only a SINGLE STATE grants marriage equality to LGBT people (as we all know, several do already), then ALL states must legally recognizes those marriages as legal as per the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause found in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

AND, in fact, this was SPECIFICALLY CITED by opponents of marriage equality for LGBT Americans, all eh way back in the 90's, when it looked like Hawaii was going to grant marriage equality to LGBT citizens in their state (they didn't.:()

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#36 Jun 17, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
As per the Tenth Amendment in the Bill Of Rights, because marriage (and a host of other things) is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, marriage laws are the exclusive purview of the states.
BUT if only a SINGLE STATE grants marriage equality to LGBT people (as we all know, several do already), then ALL states must legally recognizes those marriages as legal as per the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause found in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
AND, in fact, this was SPECIFICALLY CITED by opponents of marriage equality for LGBT Americans, all eh way back in the 90's, when it looked like Hawaii was going to grant marriage equality to LGBT citizens in their state (they didn't.:()
I guess we will see if what you claim comes true when the court rules in the Kentucky case......but until then, I don't know if one's legal marriage must be recognized by the Federal government in every state even if the state itself doesn't allow Gay or Lesbian couples to marry.......I mean my marriage should have federal rights, benefits and privileges regardless of what state I reside in......we will have to wait and see!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37 Jun 17, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmmm, right......by the way, I betcha Libertarians are more liberal than conservative!!!!
He's part of the right wingtip.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38 Jun 17, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
As per the Tenth Amendment in the Bill Of Rights, because marriage (and a host of other things) is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, marriage laws are the exclusive purview of the states.
BUT if only a SINGLE STATE grants marriage equality to LGBT people (as we all know, several do already), then ALL states must legally recognizes those marriages as legal as per the U.S. Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit" clause found in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
AND, in fact, this was SPECIFICALLY CITED by opponents of marriage equality for LGBT Americans, all eh way back in the 90's, when it looked like Hawaii was going to grant marriage equality to LGBT citizens in their state (they didn't.:()
I want us to have a case wherein Amendment IX has a say ... and WINS!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#39 Jun 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
He's part of the right wingtip.
That's funny!!!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#41 Jun 17, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
NOPE. Scalia is my FAV justice as I agree with him 95% of the time.
Impeach all the liberal justices .......
So, you love the Judge who hates you and denies your basic humanity, and want to impeach those that feel you are human and would let you marry?

That's odd.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Gay cake' appeal decided 30 min Bubba Cooder 21
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed 2 hr Dr Wu 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr patrol 4,677
News 'Sausage Party': Orgy Of Upset From French Cath... 8 hr Newt G s Next Wife 1
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Thu hatem 245
News Man who was shot dead by police after 'running ... Thu Ben Ghazi 1
News Utah denies it has anti-gay school laws Thu Toby Stoner 4
More from around the web