Church statement on Equality Act

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Go ahead, how long was it legal? LOL, those few months from May to November ain't much, but go ahead, stretch if it makes you feel good. 

So you were misrepresenting just a little because of the short time? Okay. If it it makes you feel good have at it!  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

“...I really just want to my children to have sex with anyone they want and be hedonists.”

What a straw man. As someone who looks down on others that “ignore facts and restructure history to make sure you score points” you sure seem to do a lot of that. 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? Specifically that the church was front and center in the effort to pass prop 8 (removing a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians) and thus the irony of the church now proclaiming it seeks "fairness for all" and balance.

Even if the Church was not front and center, Prop 8 still would have passed.  Up to that point, 30 states had voted on gay marriage and all of them voted it down.  There is no reason to think California was going to be the exception.  And it really was not a constitutional right to get married at that point.  The only reason it is a constitutional right today is one vote by one judge.  That is it. 

I am not too worried about the Equality Act as no act of Congress can trump the Constitution.  The First Amendment is clear.  We have the free exercise of religion. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Even if the Church was not front and center, Prop 8 still would have passed.  Up to that point, 30 states had voted on gay marriage and all of them voted it down.  There is no reason to think California was going to be the exception.  And it really was not a constitutional right to get married at that point.  The only reason it is a constitutional right today is one vote by one judge.  That is it. 

Even if I grant you that (which I don’t) what does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? Specifically that the church was front and center in the effort to pass prop 8 (removing a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians) and thus the irony of the church now proclaiming it seeks "fairness for all" and balance.

Are you saying, even though the church encouraged its members to donate substantially in both time and money to remove a civil right, there is no irony in the church now waving the flag of “fairness” and “balance”? 

[Damien the Leper]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The term Gay Agenda is an uncharitable polemic, and I'm not even sure what it means anyway.  Every group and every cause has its supporters and detractors and people all along a spectrum of different beliefs.  Restructuring history and ignoring facts is an interesting accusation, do you care to expound on those comments or are you just trying to score points yourself.   

The "gay agenda" is to conservative religious organizations as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is to "conservative" politicians. It's a boogeyman tactic that is used ad nauseam to instill fear. Since the rise of gay civil rights has taken hold, religious organizations have asserted that adherents will somehow lose certain liberties if LGBTQ people receive the absolute dignity that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. The assertion is that it would be "gay privilege". A rather duplicitous and disingenuous assertion.

Imagine a highly qualified LGBTQ candidate is interviewing for a job when during the interview they learn that the owner of the company is religious. The candidate stops the interview and proclaims that because of religious affiliation and/or belief they find the employer to be contrary to their values, unfit, and unworthy of their time and talents. It's reverse discrimination and it's also mind numbingly absurd! The reverse is also mind numbingly absurd!

I know an out lesbian who works for a business owned by religious conservatives. She doesn't agree with their politics or position on homosexuality but they are close knit and she loves working for them. This is recognizing the dignity and worth of all persons from both sides. 

I don't care what your religion is. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I'm going to be so pompous, pious, conceited and shallow enough to discriminate against my employer options. Except maybe for Scientologists. That would make me quite an uncharitable and ungodly person. Not worth the time and effort to be such a person and definitely don't need a reason to disappoint God in such a way.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Valentinus

[Wade Englund]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 Specifically that the church was front and center in the effort to pass prop 8 (removing a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians) and thus the irony of the church now proclaiming it seeks "fairness for all" and balance.

The portion in bold is a word play that generates heat rather than light, or muddies rather than clears the intellectual water.

It could more rightly be said that Prop 8 constitutionally removed the extra-constitutional and unconstitutional rulings of a rogue court that way overstepped its separation of powers, thereby undoing the warped equality and restored balance and fairness. .

Either way, it misses the vital point--which I am attempting to make by avoiding the use of biased and charged and oft ill-informed political rhetoric. (see my post above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 14, 2019 by Wade Englund

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

The portion in bold is a word play that generates heat rather than light, or muddies rather than clears the intellectual water.

It could more rightly be said that Prop 8 constitutionally removed the extra-constitutional and unconstitutional rulings of a rogue court that way overstepped its separation of powers, thereby undoing the warped equality and restored balance and fairness. .

Either way, it misses the vital point--which I am attempting to make by avoiding the use of biased and charged and oft ill-informed political rhetoric. (see my post above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This was tongue in cheek right?  Because the bolded sections are a classic example of "biased and charged and oft ill-informed political rhetoric".

Edited May 14, 2019 by sunstoned

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Aren't you saying the same thing about the other "other religious organizations that also strongly oppose the Equality Act as unbalanced, fundamentally unfair and a path to further conflict" and how important religious freedom is? Are they all the same to you?

Partly.

Yes, other religious organizations who constantly complain about having their religious freedom taken away because they are not allowed to discriminate as openly as they would like while maintaining government tax exemptions, would be in the same boat.

However, the story is about the LDS church. I am a member of the LDS church, therefore my comments are most pointed towards the LDS church. I've heard what leaders have been saying for many years. I don't have the same level of knowledge or connection with "other religious organizations" so my comments about the church being the boy who cried wolf are specifically aimed at the LDS church. Makes sense, no?

But they are all the same in the sense that they seem like petulant children, throwing a tantrum, hoping someone will listen and allow them to continue discriminating in the name of "fairness".

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Partly.

Yes, other religious organizations who constantly complain about having their religious freedom taken away because they are not allowed to discriminate as openly as they would like while maintaining government tax exemptions, would be in the same boat.

However, the story is about the LDS church. I am a member of the LDS church, therefore my comments are most pointed towards the LDS church. I've heard what leaders have been saying for many years. I don't have the same level of knowledge or connection with "other religious organizations" so my comments about the church being the boy who cried wolf are specifically aimed at the LDS church. Makes sense, no?

But they are all the same in the sense that they seem like petulant children, throwing a tantrum, hoping someone will listen and allow them to continue discriminating in the name of "fairness".

Thank you. Exactly which statement(s) do you take issue with in the linked newsroom article, and why?

For example, how was the 2015 Utah Legislation a bad thing? Or, how is repealing protections for "the rights of individuals and faith communities to freely gather, speak out publicly, serve faithfully and live openly according to their religious beliefs without discrimination or retaliation, even when those beliefs may be unpopular [or, as the epithet goes, "discriminatory", which in a legislative context, as used in the previous phrase, is "illegal"]" a good thing?

[Anijen]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Looks like you stepped in the cow manure too. You realize before prop 8, gays had the constitutionally protected right to marry in California, right? Who is revising history to fit their beliefs again? Pot meet kettle.

Actually California did not get the right until 2013 (they could not before this time). Furthermore, it wasn't a Constitutionally protected right until 2015. Meaning Cali's gay residents had the right to marry, but at that time it was not protected by the U.S. Constitution.   Thus, Stormrider was not incorrect, and he was not revising history as you stated.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Anijen

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Actually California did not get the right until 2013 (they could not before this time). Furthermore, it wasn't a Constitutionally protected right until 2015. Meaning Cali's gay residents had the right to marry, but at that time it was not protected by the U.S. Constitution.   Thus, Stormrider was not incorrect, and he was not revising history as you stated.

You have no idea what you are talking about. In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry was protected by the California state constitution (a constitutionally protected right). In November 2008, voters passed Proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment, removing gay's and lesbian's civil right to marry in California. Thus, Stormrider was incorrect and so are you. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Anijen]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you so much for knowing what I know or what I do not, know, even more than I could myself. How wonderfully cognizant of you. I will be forever in your debt because you condescended so far below your level to meet me at mine and grace me with your superior intelligence. I will be in your debt, no doubt, and will hereafter swear to research all your posts before I would even dare to post again.

 

Quote

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry was protected by the California state constitution (a constitutionally protected right). In November 2008, voters passed Proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment, removing gay's and lesbian's civil right to marry in California.

Yes, and then they were invalidated, then again, and those licenses (between 2008-2013) were deemed not valid, and finally was overturned and became law 2013. However, as you suggest, I have no clue what I am speaking about, in fact, according to you I have "no idea."

Just an FYI I have written two peer reviewed articles defending same sex marriage (arguing against Prop 8). I was 1st in my Constitutional Law  Class, 1st in my First Amendment class, and 1st in my Family law class (half the semester was on Obergefell and the lead-up to it).

 

Quote

Thus, Stormrider was incorrect and so are you. 

OK, if you so charmingly say so   

 

- tu quoque

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Thank you so much for knowing what I know or what I do not, know, even more than I could myself. How wonderfully cognizant of you. I will be forever in your debt because you condescended so far below your level to meet me at mine and grace me with your superior intelligence. I will be in your debt, no doubt, and will hereafter swear to research all your posts before I would even dare to post again.

 

Yes, and then they were invalidated, then again, and those licenses (between 2008-2013) were deemed not valid, and finally was overturned and became law 2013. However, as you suggest, I have no clue what I am speaking about, in fact, according to you I have "no idea."

Just an FYI I have written two peer reviewed articles defending same sex marriage (arguing against Prop 8). I was 1st in my Constitutional Law  Class, 1st in my First Amendment class, and 1st in my Family law class (half the semester was on Obergefell and the lead-up to it).

 

OK, if you so charmingly say so   

 

- tu quoque

 

Simply question (should be easy for you) and it can be answered with a super easy yes or no. In the months leading up until the moment when prop 8 passed in November of 2008, did gays and lesbians living in California have a constitutionally protected right to marry? 

Edited May 14, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Anijen]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Simply question (should be easy for you) and it can be answered with a super easy yes or no. In the months leading up until the moment when prop 8 passed in November of 2008, did gays and lesbians living in California have a constitutionally protected right to marry? 

No.  (not SSM), they received that state right after the 9th circuit court decision in 2013 and then the Constitutionally protected by the Obergefell decision in 2015

Edited May 14, 2019 by Anijen

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

No.  (not SSM), they received that state right after the 9th circuit court decision in 2013 and then the Constitutionally protected by the Obergefell decision in 2015

Same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S. state of California, and first became so on June 16, 2008, when the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as the result of the Supreme Court of California ruling in In re Marriage Cases, which found that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state's Constitution.

From wiki. 

Are you saying that this incorrect? 

[Anijen]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S. state of California, and first became so on June 16, 2008, when the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as the result of the Supreme Court of California ruling in In re Marriage Cases, which found that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state's Constitution.

From wiki. 

Are you saying that this incorrect? 

Forgive me, for disagreeing with you. Perhaps, according to you,  my mental disability is blocking my capacity to even understand anything at your high level. 

Here, are my points:

• California's constitution was adopted in 1849 and said nothing about SSM
• California allowed SSM in 2008, but those marriages were later invalidated.
• California ruled its own constitution unconstitutional in 2010 and was not validated federally until 2013
• Finally in 2013 California SSM law was validated by the 9th Cir Ct.
• SSM was not Constitutionally protected until the Obergefell decision in 2015
• California's constitution is subordinate to the US Constitution
• Even today, the wording of the California Constitution declares marriage is only between a man and a woman (Article I Declaration of Rights, marriage is only mentioned three times)

Quote

 

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  (Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

 

SeekingUnderstanding (appropriately named), but I have no clue and do not know what I am talking about or have no idea. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Forgive me, for disagreeing with you. Perhaps, according to you,  my mental disability is blocking my capacity to even understand anything at your high level. 

I began this thread with a simple observation. I observed that it was ironic that an organization at the center of the effort to remove a constitutionally protected civil right to marry in California, was now advocating for fairness and balance. In the post your replied to I stated:

Quote

You realize before prop 8, gays had the constitutionally protected right to marry in California, right?

This is an indisputable fact. In a 4-3 decision in 2008, the California Supreme court ruled that same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution. From June until Prop 8 took effect, gays in California married under this constitutionally protected right. Their marriages post Prop 8 were still valid. These are all material indisputable facts. Despite this you stated: "Actually California did not get the right until 2013 (they could not before this time) [False, they married for several months in 2008]. Furthermore, it wasn't a Constitutionally protected right until 2015 [I was never talking about the US constitution; All marriages taking place in California were protected under the California constitution]."

Given that you were wrong with both of you statements, I mistakenly assumed you had no idea what you were talking about

 

Quote

Here, are my points:

• California's constitution was adopted in 1849 and said nothing about SSM

This is true for many things. Do we have the constitutional right to privacy? Do we have the constitutional individual right to bear arms? Is there a constitutional right to marriage under the US constitution (hint: you say that there has been since 2015).

Quote

• California allowed SSM in 2008, but those marriages were later invalidated.

This is incorrect. Not a single marriage was invalidated. (Are you sure you know what you are talking about?)

Quote

• California ruled its own constitution unconstitutional in 2010 and was not validated federally until 2013

What are you talking about? In 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of prop 8 (6-1 margin iirc). In 2010, a federal judge ruled that prop 8 violated the US constitution. This issue was largely settled in 2013 by the Supreme Court on a technicality (lack of standing)

Quote

• Finally in 2013 California SSM law was validated by the 9th Cir Ct.

What are you talking about? Prop 8 was invalidated. California has no SSM law. The Supreme Court of California ruled the constitution protected access to marriage as a fundamental right. 

Quote

• SSM was not Constitutionally protected until the Obergefell decision in 2015

Only if you ignore the California Constitution. Does it not count as a constitution?

Quote

• California's constitution is subordinate to the US Constitution

This is true, but irrelevant

Quote

• Even today, the wording of the California Constitution declares marriage is only between a man and a woman (Article I Declaration of Rights, marriage is only mentioned three times)

Exactly! This is what prop 8 did. It altered the California Constitution to remove the right to marry for same sex couples.

Quote

SeekingUnderstanding (appropriately named), but I have no clue and do not know what I am talking about or have no idea. 

Clearly.

Edited May 14, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

Both Prop 22 and Prop 8 were additions to California law and the state constitution to restrict marriage to man/woman.  The implication being that the right existed and needed to be prevented by additional language.

Further, the Obergefell decision told us that the fundamental right to marry was guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US constitution.  They didn't have to add to or modify the constitution to give gay couples the right to marry -- SCOTUS ruled that the right was already there.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you. Exactly which statement(s) do you take issue with in the linked newsroom article, and why?

For example, how was the 2015 Utah Legislation a bad thing? Or, how is repealing protections for "the rights of individuals and faith communities to freely gather, speak out publicly, serve faithfully and live openly according to their religious beliefs without discrimination or retaliation, even when those beliefs may be unpopular [or, as the epithet goes, "discriminatory", which in a legislative context, as used in the previous phrase, is "illegal"]" a good thing?

Simple answer:  I don't believe that's what it is doing. Instead of writing a huge post about why I don't think the legislation is a repeal of religious protections, I'll just link to this post by Common Consent which I think does a good job of looking at the church's statement and where it falls short. One of those areas is that what the church claims is happening, isn't really happening. The boy is crying wolf again. I have no doubt that the boy is really afraid of the wolf and wants to keep him away, but the church only damages its own credibility when they act like a worst-case future scenario is actually happening right now. It's not.

Quote

Fourth, the statement misstates what the Equality Act does. 

The Equality Act largely represents a statutory formalization and clarification of existing law.  The majority of courts agree that civil rights legislation banning sex discrimination applies to various forms of LGBT discrimination.  Both the Constitution and most federal civil rights laws already contain explicit religious exemptions to their provisions — and these religious exemptions have been endorsed and robustly applied by the U.S. Supreme Court — starting in an 1987 employment case won by the Church!  The U.S. Department of Education has never denied a religious exemption, including exemptions claimed by BYU to discriminate in admissions, housing, hiring, student discipline, etc. on the basis of sex, gender, dress code, chastity, marital status, pregnancy, birth control use, and other actions not in accordance with the BYU Honor Code and teachings of the Church.

The Equality Act affects none of that. 

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/05/13/the-equality-act-and-religious-freedom-exemptions/?fbclid=IwAR3tkecWkSHnYPJs3ldIQXr06_SYo1epVF1Qsh_Qb_Mp3i8KDmvZOWoImwM

Edited May 14, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Simple answer:  I don't believe that's what it is doing. Instead of writing a huge post about why I don't think the legislation is a repeal of religious protections, I'll just link to this post by Common Consent which I think does a good job of looking at the church's statement and where it falls short. One of those areas is that what the church claims is happening, isn't really happening. The boy is crying wolf again. I have no doubt that the boy is really afraid of the wolf and wants to keep him away, but the church only damages its own credibility when they act like a worst-case future scenario is actually happening right now. It's not.

The common consent article states "The Church’s statement that “the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom” is a mischaracterization of what the Equality Act does.  The Equality Act doesn’t need to provide express protections for religious freedom because those protections already exist within the exact same sections of the civil rights laws the Equality Act proposes to amend."

I'm wondering, if protections for religious freedoms already existed, then why was it necessary to create the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the first place?  

The article also says that one of the purposes of the EA is that it "forbids application of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense to sex / LGBTQ+ discrimination".  Has the RFRA been used as a defense of discrimination in the past and has that use been upheld in court?  If the answer is yes then wouldn't that imply that the EA will erase protections that currently exist (like a baker being able to refuse to make a SSM wedding cake, for example) for people to exercise their religious beliefs in accordance with their work?

It's all a little confusing.

 

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Simple answer:  I don't believe that's what it is doing. Instead of writing a huge post about why I don't think the legislation is a repeal of religious protections, I'll just link to this post by Common Consent which I think does a good job of looking at the church's statement and where it falls short. One of those areas is that what the church claims is happening, isn't really happening. The boy is crying wolf again. I have no doubt that the boy is really afraid of the wolf and wants to keep him away, but the church only damages its own credibility when they act like a worst-case future scenario is actually happening right now. It's not.

It is interesting that within a day, the Wikipedia article I linked, which was biased in favor of the Equity Act, has been very much redacted / edited. Try finding the following quotes from yesterday in today’s version:

“The Act would also remove all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

“The Equality Act removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

"...for example, a religion can refuse to hire an individual in a same-sex marriage as clergy or in any central capacity due to differences in belief around the stereotype of marriage. The Equality Act removes this exemption for all religious organizations, and would make the above example (discriminating based on the stereotype that marriage should be between a man and a woman) illegal discrimination."

Granted, Wikipedia articles can be fluid, but how would you explain the Wikipedia quotations had they not been edited out? How would you explain the Common Consent article leaving out these points and examples? On the other hand, I wonder what Wikipedia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act I linked yesterday says today.

The Common Consent article points out that a repeal (or the consequences of a repeal) of the exemptions hasn’t taken place -- *ahem* because the Equity Act hasn’t even passed, *duh*! –  and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exemptions have been supported to date.  It conveniently doesn’t get into how the act as proposed removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided, which this is not a misstatement.

An act that removes all exemptions for religious organizations currently provided under law is certainly a worst-case scenario inasmuch as it is the latest, greatest and worst (at least cumulatively) nationalized assault on religious freedom so far.

Anyway, this kind of reliance on someone else's bias certainly makes things simpler!

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The common consent article states "The Church’s statement that “the Equality Act provides no protections for religious freedom” is a mischaracterization of what the Equality Act does.  The Equality Act doesn’t need to provide express protections for religious freedom because those protections already exist within the exact same sections of the civil rights laws the Equality Act proposes to amend."

I'm wondering, if protections for religious freedoms already existed, then why was it necessary to create the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the first place?  

The article also says that one of the purposes of the EA is that it "forbids application of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense to sex / LGBTQ+ discrimination".  Has the RFRA been used as a defense of discrimination in the past and has that use been upheld in court?  If the answer is yes then wouldn't that imply that the EA will erase protections that currently exist (like a baker being able to refuse to make a SSM wedding cake, for example) for people to exercise their religious beliefs in accordance with their work?

It's all a little confusing.

Not confusing, just an incredibly biased and misleading write-up.

[Wade Englund]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This was tongue in cheek right?  Because the bolded sections are a classic example of "biased and charged and oft ill-informed political rhetoric".

No, it wasn't tongue-in-cheek, and yes it is a classic example of biased and charged and, from some people's perspective, ill-informed political rhetoric. It was intended as such as an object lesson that, "Either way, it misses the vital point--which I am attempting to make by avoiding the use of biased and charged and oft ill-informed political rhetoric. (see my post above)."

Oh well....

The problem with my non-biased and non-charged post is that it has thus far prompted no response. Only the biased and charged posts seem to generate interest...though a waste of time. It is difficult to be generate productivity from dogmatists barking back and forth at each other. (Yes, that was a politically charged statement)

Than k,s -Wade Englund-

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I began this thread with a simple observation. I observed that it was ironic that an organization at the center of the effort to remove a constitutionally protected civil right to marry in California, was now advocating for fairness and balance. In the post your replied to I stated:

You can move the goalposts all you want. I was replying to your post that Stormrider was not wrong in his quote about revisiting history. That is all my post implied, but you had to answer back by insulting my intelligence.

 

Quote

This is an indisputable fact. In a 4-3 decision in 2008, the California Supreme court ruled that same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution. From June until Prop 8 took effect, gays in California married under this constitutionally protected right. Their marriages post Prop 8 were still valid.

The marriages between 2008 and 2013 were deemed invalid.  Sure they took place...

 

Quote

I was never talking about the US constitution; All marriages taking place in California were protected under the California constitution

Since this post is about the Equality Act which is a federal issue and since the Church responded to it making points at federal issues and since  other states and other churches were quoted in the church's response were from many states many outside California. I guess my lack of intelligence was out of bounds to think we were um talking about the Constitution on a federal level not a state level.  Besides, when someone is talking about their rights such as the ones you just posted about, er uh, they come from the Constitution and not California's.

 

Quote

Given that you were wrong with both of you statements, I mistakenly assumed you had no idea what you were talking about

I was not wrong in any of my statements. Weird, that you now admit I do know what I am talking about (thank you very much) however, according to you I am still wrong...

 

Quote

This is true for many things. Do we have the constitutional right to privacy? Do we have the constitutional individual right to bear arms? Is there a constitutional right to marriage under the US constitution (hint: you say that there has been since 2015).

See your words here would make anyone think we are talking about the US Constitution not California's.

(1), The word privacy is never mentioned in the Constitution. It is implied in the Bill of Rights (particularly the 4th Amendment), for people who do not know, the Bill of Rights are the first Ten Amendments.

(2) Yes, we have "the constitutional individual right to bear arms" as this issue is specifically stated in the Second Amendment.

(3) The word marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution and traditionally was done by church leaders. As marriage benefits became secular thus became subject to governmental definition and regulation. However,  marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is protected by the Constitution as a fundamental right via case law. 

 

Quote

This is incorrect. Not a single marriage was invalidated. (Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

By California law a marriage required a valid licence. If the licence is invalidated so is the marriage, (although wikipedia says otherwise, I can show case law on this, but it is getting redundant already). The SS marriages and licences were validated by a California court in 2010, but by this time it was at the higher appellate court level which had authority over California's highest appellate courts, which had the final say and that was not until 2013 by the 9th circuit court. You could argue California was ahead of its time by beating SCOTUS by two years, were they protected marriage for all (2015). I do like the more calm attitude toward me (e.g., "Are you sure...")

 

Quote

What are you talking about? Prop 8 was invalidated. California has no SSM law. The Supreme Court of California ruled the constitution protected access to marriage as a fundamental right. 

Yes they did and during the time of this court fighting, as you note above,  you needed a valid license, not an invalidated licence to get married and to show proof of marriage. That was not done so until the 9th circuit court's decision. Because it was appealed to the higher court outside Cali (the 9th circuit) all decisions, even if made before the 9th circuit decision, did not have legal binding until that time (because the 9th circuit could have went against Cali's court decisions).

 

Quote

Only if you ignore the California Constitution. Does it not count as a constitution?

It only counts as a state constitution. State constitutions are subordinate. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

Quote

Exactly! This is what prop 8 did. It altered the California Constitution to remove the right to marry for same sex couples.

First, there never was a right to marry for ssc in Cali's constitution.  Prop 8 did not alter the state constitution because the state constitution only allowed marriage between a man and a woman and that view was what Prop 8 supported. How could Prop 8 alter the state constitution when it agreed with it at that time? 

What happened was there were new SSM marriage laws introduced, (these new laws violated the states constitution). Then Prop 8 comes along trying to get rid of the new SSM laws (not the state constitution). In 2010 Prop 8 was invalidated by the state, and by this time the whole kit and kaboodle was moved out of state to a federal court (9th circuit), which ruling happened in 2013. It was in 2015 when SSM became constitutional on a national scale.

   Even today the state constitution says; marriage is only between a man and a woman, only in a footnote, added many many years later does it say that the view has been found unconstitutional.  

 

Quote

Clearly.

Evidently clear as mud.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It is interesting that within a day, the Wikipedia article I linked, which was biased in favor of the Equity Act, has been very much redacted / edited. Try finding the following quotes from yesterday in today’s version:

That is why those who use Wikipedia need to find new sources because it is edited by one sided agenda people who do not want their particular side tarnished. IOW, wikipedia is no longer reliable IMO.