Proposition 8 Sponsors Seek to Nullify 18 000 gay marriages

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh
That's interesting, because the word is yet out on how the state plans on dealing with the previous marriages. If the amendment was just automatic and retroactive then a decision would have been reached by now.

That doesn't seem to reflect what you're saying.

So. Who's arguing for the sake of arguing again?

---

You are. From your own article... did you read it? By the way, I find it highly dubious that you are citing from a very biased media source.... 365gay.com... really?

"The initiative’s opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request."

As I have stated, repeatedly, an amendment needs no further legislation to be considered "active". And as I have stated before the government CAN if it WANTS legislate further on the issue.

As I have also stated before, the legislature is most likely waiting until after the Supreme Court case is decided before moving forward - most every state legislature does this, it is the way the system works.

I am not sure what you do not understand about this.

You are also dodging the issue of how you think that this proposition criminalizes gay marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Joreth:
Proposition 8 is really no longer a proposition, it IS law now. All of those marriages are void, they no longer exist, however, the California Supreme Court can issue a stay until it issues a ruling.

---

Dood. The show's over. Just let it go. You tried to say that the marriages were already annulled because of the amendment. Fact is they are not. I don't care how dubious you think that source is. But here's another since you want to be stubborn: Link.

You have also not notified me of a single law or ruling that actually cites the amendment, so I haven't dodged anything that you didn't already give me reason to ignore.

I think the point that Joreth was trying to make with his mention of your citations. Is that the sites you have provided are already biased towards the cause. Sometimes is better to cite something that is known to be neutral to a cause, or to have substantial history of being unbiased and dealing with truly the facts.

New, neutral source cited. Crisis averted.

In any case it didn't matter because it was the STATE'S ATTORNEY who said this, and lying about what he said in that case would've been virtually impossible.

The fact remains that there is a lot of yes and no (with most of the no's coming from reputable state officials) regarding whether or not the marriages have been annulled and it's sprung a continuous line of questioning since this whole thing started to now. Those marriages, however, do still exist, and haven't been annulled pending the supreme court's final decision.

Joreth is saying: they ARE annulled and that it's NOT ex post facto. Where as, I am saying that they have NOT YET been annulled, but may be, and that if they ARE it most likely is ex post facto. I was willing to believe him until it turned into an argument where he felt he had to assert what he was saying, which was obviously not entirely true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh
New, neutral source cited. Crisis averted.

In any case it didn't matter because it was the STATE'S ATTORNEY who said this, and lying about what he said in that case would've been virtually impossible.

The fact remains that there is a lot of yes and no (with most of the no's coming from reputable state officials) regarding whether or not the marriages have been annulled and it's sprung a continuous line of questioning since this whole thing started to now. Those marriages, however, do still exist, and haven't been annulled pending the supreme court's final decision.

Joreth is saying: they ARE annulled and that it's NOT ex post facto. Where as, I am saying that they have NOT YET been annulled, but may be, and that if they ARE it most likely is ex post facto. I was willing to believe him until it turned into an argument where he felt he had to assert what he was saying, which was obviously not entirely true.

---

Theairoh, is this how you normally argue? I've noticed by reading through a couple of these threads that you have a habit of twisting what other people are saying and arguing in order to demean them.

You have not answered the following questions:

1- How is it ex post facto?
2- How is it unconstitutional?
3- How is sexual orientation a protected class?
4- How do you reach the conclusion that I have argued that the prior marriages are annulled?

Specifically, when I have argued that if the State passes a law annulling them that it would be constitutional and not ex post facto. Moreover, I have argued that going forward TODAY that there is no gay marriage in California.

Alright, Joreth. I'm going to do you a favor. Since you seem to be so dead set on making this about me instead of the actual facts I've put forward for you.

Instead of expecting you to stop farting around with me, I'm going to bow out. Simultaneously making you the winnar of this argument, as well as refuting any silly notions that I am just arguing to argue with you, or whatever nonsense it happens to be this time. Enjoy yourself sir.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Theairoh
Alright, Joreth. I'm going to do you a favor. Since you seem to be so dead set on making this about me instead of the actual facts I've put forward for you.

Instead of expecting you to stop farting around with me, I'm going to bow out. Simultaneously making you the winnar of this argument, as well as refuting any silly notions that I am just arguing to argue with you, or whatever nonsense it happens to be this time. Enjoy yourself sir.

---

Good gracious, Theairoh. At least answer his questions before you bow out! Otherwise you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marah
Good gracious, Theairoh. At least answer his questions before you bow out! Otherwise you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

---

Just be thankful that he's actually going to stop this time before everyone just flees the insanity. (Joreth, you are a braver man than me, or maybe you just have more time.)

On another note, here's a very specific list of what is protected by Federal Law. (It also includes what is protected by Florida State Law and Miami University's own "laws" which are not really laws.)

From the U.S. Government's EEO site:

"The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members. "

What may be confusing you, Cais, is the fact that several states have passed laws that make sexual orientation a protected class. The Federal Government, however, has not. The argument is that the things that are considered Federally "protected classes" involve physical characteristics that are so readily apparent that you can be judged on them immediately. In order to know for sure that someone is gay, you have to be told. You can't just tell by looking at them.

While I have my own opinions on whether this is right or wrong, that's how the law stands at this point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
Just be thankful that he's actually going to stop this time before everyone just flees the insanity. (Joreth, you are a braver man than me, or maybe you just have more time.)

---

I don't know about braver, but I do know that I am working on an appeal right now... so I have time! I have no problem answering questions about the law for anyone else, I do not want people to think that I have one specific opinion about the law or the issues revolving around it as it relates to morality.

Quote:

---

On another note, here's a very specific ....

From the U.S. Government's EEO site:

"The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members. "

What may be confusing you, Cais, is the fact that several states have passed laws that make sexual orientation a protected class. The Federal Government, however, has not. The argument is that the things that are considered Federally "protected classes" involve physical characteristics that are so readily apparent that you can be judged on them immediately. In order to know for sure that someone is gay, you have to be told. You can't just tell by looking at them.

---

That is a better way of explaining what is a protected class under federal constitutional law. A lot of it makes little sense to people, or seems completely backwards - leading to a lot of frustration.

Joreth, I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose or if you didn't actually read my post. I realize there was alot of information to absorb, but I tried to keep my comments to a minimum to compensate. The information I provided was actually intended to validate your argument: this is sometimes refered to as a concession. If you had read it, you could have saved yourself the several seconds in responding.


Joreth: There is a proverb you should familiarize yourself with: The law as it is is never as it ought to be. If you have a problem with the law, you ought to change it and do so by the proper means.

No offense, but I think I'll get my philosophical advice elsewhere: though on matters of law (except opinion) I'd be more than happy to hear what you have to say. :)

Joreth: The people in California had a problem with the law and they used the proper means to change it.

And in doing so they have exercised legal oppression. I guess this is a victory of the legal system to some (such as you), and for others I'm sure it raises grave concerns (such as myself).