Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules
A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.
"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the court said.
More: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Smack down.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...unless you're a troglodyte, in which case, too bad.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)RKP5637
(67,108 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)FUCKIN' A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Pachamama
(16,887 posts)Had friends who married and were fearful their marriages would not be upheld....
A great day in my opinion and a step in right direction....
Roland99
(53,342 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)coffeenap
(3,173 posts)Let's keep it rolling....
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)What a carbon footprint of bullshit this was.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@RawStory: Breaking news: An appeals court has declared California's gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional. Developing...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/07/appeals-court-strikes-down-californias-same-sex-marriage-ban
Appeals court strikes down Californias same sex marriage ban
By Andrew Jones
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 13:08 EST
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday afternoon that a Proposition 8, California voter ban on same sex marriage, is unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court was right to strike the law down.
@Reuters: FLASH: California's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, ruling says.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2E8D78UD20120207?irpc=932
California gay marriage ban unconstitutional: ruling
By Dan Levine and Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO | Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:05pm EST
By Dan Levine and Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled that California's gay marriage ban violates the constitution on Tuesday in a case that is likely to lead to a showdown on the issue in the Supreme Court.
The decision was delivered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- snip -
"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable," 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, "it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently."
"There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," Reinhardt wrote.
MORE
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)Ian David
(69,059 posts)BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Rules Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
http://www.noh8campaign.com/article/breaking-9th-circuit-court-rules-prop-8-unconstitutional
highplainsdem
(48,978 posts)
A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
-snip-
In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walkers ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship. Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly gay, said after his ruling that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and partner wished to marry.
ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday's decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.
-snip-
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)Sounds like they handed out the decision to the media!
Huzzah!
Too bad we are far from done with this.
The Haters just won't give up and we have all those Activist Judges on the SCOTUS.
Hey Haters...You can't legislate the Gay Away!
Kurska
(5,739 posts)He'll be the swing vote that decides this on the supreme court. He also authored the ruling that overturned bans of gay sex, hopefully he'll view this as a open and shut constitutional issue of discrimination like that was and seize the opportunity to cement his reputation as one of the most important men in the gay rights struggle.
FunMe
(192 posts)As my friend pointed out, the lawyers making sure PropH8 was ruled unconstitutional wrote their part in a way so that Kennedy understood all the legal points necessary to throw PropH8 out.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)arguments put forth in Judge Walker's opinion, Kennedy should be ready to make history.
The only real arguments from the asshole bloc I can see are Scalia (with Thomas in pocket) saying marriage isn't in the Constitution and as such is not an actual right. And the Roberts/Alito twins saying it is a state's rights issue.
Each of those arguments were sufficiently neutered in Walker's opinion that they won't win over Kennedy.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)Seems like years since I attended the rally when the first decision was announced. LDS needs to get their noses out of California politics.
"...the appeals court refused to invalidate Walkers ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship...."
Refused to invalidate or didn't even address it? What the hell does Walker being gay have to do w/ anything?
boppers
(16,588 posts)It was the LDS being persecuted when it was decided that marriage was up for a popular vote.
Karma is kind of funny that way.
"What the hell does Walker being gay have to do w/ anything?"
About as much as Clarence Thomas being on Affirmative Action cases.
I love repeating that.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)it's a good day today
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Why not...she seems to have more than enough Hate to get a job with them!
LOLOLOL
sorry, I made myself laugh.
Pachamama
(16,887 posts)racaulk
(11,550 posts)Today has been a great day, indeed!
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)K&R.
highplainsdem
(48,978 posts)http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/ninth_circuit_rules_prop_8_is_unconstitutional.php
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)I hope you can still smell the 80 million dollars burned in 2008 on this one issue in California.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)10 percent of the income of 7 in 10 Utahns, to say nothing of substantial Mormon commmunites elsewhere (esp. ID, NV) makes them wealthy, powerful, and to be feared.
Irishonly
(3,344 posts)Sanity won!
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Gay Rights are Human Rights, end of discussion.
beyurslf
(6,755 posts)mrs_p
(3,014 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Congrats Ca.!
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I used to think it was icky and poo-pooed using social media, but since the Koman debacle, I really think expressing opinions on social media can be effective.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Thanks for the heart, whoever you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pinto
(106,886 posts)cate94
(2,810 posts)To be honest I'm stunned. I am stunned every time we gain a little ground.
And I wonder if my IL civil union will be considered a marriage in CA or if we have to get married there as well. (We have property in both states- and plan to retire to CA eventually.)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)But I highly doubt they would strike down's California's law without also ruling on the consituionality of doma. If DOMA dies then we've won fight.
cate94
(2,810 posts)Sorry, I was unclear. In IL if I had been married or CU'd elesewhere, I would be considered CU'd here. So I don't know if in CA my CU would be a marriage or if I need another license and ceremony- now that gay marriage is once again legal in CA.
I know we still need to knock out DOMA to get them recognized in every state. Someday maybe. We can hope.
plantwomyn
(876 posts)cate94
(2,810 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The basis for the lawsuit against Prop 8 is that it takes away rights. Same-sex marriage was legal in CA, and then prop 8 made it illegal.
So a win at the Supreme Court would mean states couldn't take same-sex marriage away after it was legal. But it would not require other states to make "Gay Marriage" legal.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I think that is the basis for this ruling. I agree. But if this goes to the SCOTUS and is upheld I wonder if it will set up a conflict with the Commerce Clause. The precedents in each clause seem to be opposing each other. Many laws do not follow the Equal Protection Clause.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)wryter2000
(46,045 posts)Our rector has been dying to marry a gay or lesbian couple. He's going to start bugging the former church secretary. Poor Theresa and Laura. He'll be on their case like nobody's business.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)rocktivity
(44,576 posts)It's may be narrow and limited, but it's a step in the right direction!
rocktivity
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)The site's very busy, but keep trying. A very well-written, cogent ruling it is, too.
Maven
(10,533 posts)MineralMan
(146,309 posts)There are sites all over the place hosting it now.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,434 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)undo.
primavera
(5,191 posts)They'd probably rule that gay people should be shot on sight.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)While Justice Kennedy is horrible on most issues, if you read the opinion he wrote for the majority in the Lawrence v. Texas case which struck down sodomy laws it is clear that he supports gay rights. I think chances are very good that he will side with us on this one, especially considering the precedent of Loving v. Virginia that bolsters our case.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)While at first I thought it was inevitable a case this big would be heard but now I am hearing some good arguments as to why the court may decline to hear this case. If they do decline to hear it that is in one big sense very good because it means gay marriage is then legal in California. If they do decide to hear it and we win that could mean it is legal across the nation, it is a gamble however because while our chances of winning are quite good it is almost certain to be a 5-4 vote either way and if we lose it would be a pretty big set back. Kennedy is the one who will decide it, the really good news however is that the lawyers arguing our case before the 9th circuit were smart and thought ahead. They argued the case using precedent from a decision on equal protection written by none other than Justice Kennedy meaning if he rules against us he would be ruling against his own opinion.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)exists for a new member in the next four years. Thanks for the info.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Our side won this battle so we will not be the ones appealing the decision, the opposition will be taking the risk and if the Supreme Court decides to take the case we will be fighting it whether we think it is the right time or not.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The basis for the lawsuit is that prop 8 made "gay marriage" illegal after it was legal. So a "win" at the supreme court would mean states could not make same-sex marriage illegal after they make it legal. But it would not make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
(Assuming the justices stay within the case, which they are likely to do)
Since CA is the only state where same-sex marriage rights were granted and then taken away, it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear an appeal - it only affects 1 state.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,620 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)And congratulations to California.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)May Love Prevail
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Spazito
(50,339 posts)and it is beautifully written. From page 4 of the decison:
"...all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right --- the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.
All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of 'marriage' which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort". Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620,633 (1996)."
Smack-down to the homophobes and rabid religious right!
barbtries
(28,795 posts)but it feels damn good to have a court acknowledge it.
kpete
(71,994 posts)just joy joy joy
peace, kpete
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)Ol' Fat Tony and his Konservative Krew better not fark this one up when it gets to SCOTUS, either.
dhill926
(16,339 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Good.
hunter
(38,313 posts)... let there be yet greater light!
cal04
(41,505 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)...man oh man...The HATE! Stunning! Not only for gay persons but they are RACIST TOO!
"National Organization for Marriage (NOM): As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game, said Brian Brown, NOMs president. We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walkers first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.
wow.
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)Via New York Times, in DocumentCloud format:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/08/us/prop8-docs.html?ref=us
Via American Federation for Equality, downloadable PDF:
http://www.afer.org/legal-filings/ninth-circuit-decision-on-prop-8/
William769
(55,147 posts)Now the real battle begins.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)Glad to hear it. Now to push it through on a federal level. The civil rights of a few people cannot be taken away by a majority vote.
Whether it's gay marriage, abortion, gun control, free speech.
Being in the land of the free means you have to be tolerant of other people exercising their freedom. If you don't want to lose your's, don't try to take away anyone else's.
**edited because spelling is not my friend today.**
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Judicious outcome to a hard-fought battle.
SG
swimboy
(7,284 posts)This decision is wonderful news.
On to the next round . . .
mikeytherat
(6,829 posts)Oh, and we did check out Portlandia the other day - Claire dating the guy with the Eddie Vedder tattoo. Recording episodes to the DVR now!
mikey_the_rat
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Granted they are "usually" pro-free speech... Time will tell. Let's hope there's some turnover before the case gets to the court... at least one conservative judge needs to go.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I think it looks good in the Supreme Court.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)at least some people want to try to bring us (with some dumbass people kicking and screaming) into the 21st century.
on edit: changed "bit" to "big"
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)Its only intent was to create 2nd class citizenship for specific people and that clearly is a violation of the constitution.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)Smilo
(1,944 posts)Great Caesars Ghost
(532 posts)There is one HUGE hurdle left, SCOTUS.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)roberto IS beto
(57 posts)According to Dick Santorum, if gay people are allowed to marry, then women will want to marry their Great Danes (and I ain't talking Beowulf). As for me, I want to marry a corporation!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...and does NOT originate, nor is legally sanctioned by or from any religion.
That is the rub in my opinion.
Trying to get through to people who don't even understand what a legally recognized marriage is.
They want to throw in their personal religious beliefs and that muddies the debate.
We are surrounded by ignorant fools.
mikeytherat
(6,829 posts)I don't need "God" to get married, but I cannot get married without the State.
mikey_the_rat
jeff47
(26,549 posts)My wife and I could not have been married in most churches, because we're atheists. Most churches will not marry people who are not part of their faith.
Yet most people against same-sex marriage pretend that situation doesn't occur. That making same-sex marriage legal at the courthouse would require it to be legal in a church. Since that's already not the case with opposite-sex couples, it's a stupid argument only designed to rile up the base.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)I'm gonna hit someone.