• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

truethat

Banned
truethat
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
13,389
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a ruling today in regards to Proposition 8 in California, the controversial “Marriage Initiative” which amended the California constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. A lower court had ruled that the initiative was unconstitutional, but a stay was placed of that ruling. Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that they will uphold the lower court’s ruling, striking down the initiative and legalizing same-sex marriage in California.

‎”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.” -Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

While marriage equality advocates rejoice, the strong possibility that this case will make it all the way to the Supreme Court still looms.
Click to expand...


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/07/breaking-same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-in-california/
 
Federal Appeals Court Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

A win for marriage equality:
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional.

The court ruled 2-1 to uphold the decision of a lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who determined in Aug. 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...

This is a big win for civil rights in America.
 
Actually, it's not a big win. It is a very narrowly defined decision. Because California had allowed gay marriage, the courts have ruled that you cannot then vote to take it away. It doesn't really apply to other states (except Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe). It didn't rule on the legality of gay marriage, the stay against new gay marriages in California is continuing and of course, it's going to be appealed. All that said, I'm still happy about the decision, no matter the downsides.
 
Lisa Simpson said:
Actually, it's not a big win. It is a very narrowly defined decision. Because California had allowed gay marriage, the courts have ruled that you cannot then vote to take it away. It doesn't really apply to other states (except Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe). It didn't rule on the legality of gay marriage, the stay against new gay marriages in California is continuing and of course, it's going to be appealed. All that said, I'm still happy about the decision, no matter the downsides.
Click to expand...

As a tactical matter, the narrower scope may be a plus for the pro-marriage side.

It's long been a concern among gay marriage advocates that this case was brought "too soon," because SCOTUS is just too conservative right now, and there's a substantial risk of a Supreme Court decision that would set their efforts back a decade or more. That's why most of the cases have been brought in state court on state constitutional grounds (which the federal courts don't review; state courts have the last word on how to interpret their own constitutions).

A broad-based decision that held that any ban on gay marriage violates the federal Constitution would practically force the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. But since this decision is only applicable to California, and there is effectively no conflict created with other federal circuit court decisions, SCOTUS has a fairly reasonable basis for declining to grant certiorari. (And that's actually my prediction; they'll punt on this one.)
 
Wow.

Conservatives everywhere are going to be going NUTS over this decision, and I'm sure they'll write countless articles about how family values are going in the toilet, just as soon as they're done endorsing Newt Gingrich.
 
Here's the opinion on the ruling:
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."
Click to expand...

At this rate, the US is on a fast slippery slope to equality, first-class citizenship expanding to millions of people, and setting a precedent against putting minority's civil rights to a public vote.
 
Last edited:
Lisa Simpson said:
Actually, it's not a big win. It is a very narrowly defined decision. Because California had allowed gay marriage, the courts have ruled that you cannot then vote to take it away. It doesn't really apply to other states (except Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe). It didn't rule on the legality of gay marriage, the stay against new gay marriages in California is continuing and of course, it's going to be appealed. All that said, I'm still happy about the decision, no matter the downsides.
Click to expand...
They also said that the US Constitution forbids laws that discriminate without showing a compelling state interest, which Cali failed to do. That broadens it a quite a bit.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/full-text-prop-8-ruling-2888824.html
 
Dunstan said:
As a tactical matter, the narrower scope may be a plus for the pro-marriage side.

It's long been a concern among gay marriage advocates that this case was brought "too soon," because SCOTUS is just too conservative right now, and there's a substantial risk of a Supreme Court decision that would set their efforts back a decade or more. That's why most of the cases have been brought in state court on state constitutional grounds (which the federal courts don't review; state courts have the last word on how to interpret their own constitutions).

A broad-based decision that held that any ban on gay marriage violates the federal Constitution would practically force the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. But since this decision is only applicable to California, and there is effectively no conflict created with other federal circuit court decisions, SCOTUS has a fairly reasonable basis for declining to grant certiorari. (And that's actually my prediction; they'll punt on this one.)
Click to expand...


Again, the court stated that *any* laws which discriminate without passing a balancing test are unconstitutional... that applies well outside of California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
 
Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Period the end. As soon as Schwarzenegger said the was going to let California vote on Gay Marriage, I knew it would just be a matter of time in getting it to the Supreme Court. Once it hits the Supreme Court it's going to be struck down as Unconstitutional. And then we'll start making some progress. This is just a repeat of Plessy versus Ferguson all the way to Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. That took over 50 years. This should be over with by next year.
 
Last edited:
Dunstan said:
As a tactical matter, the narrower scope may be a plus for the pro-marriage side.
Click to expand...

Which side? I think both side consider themselves "pro-marriage".

I know which side I consider to be correct about that (the side that allows for more people to get married), but I don't know who you are referring to.
 
I don't know how the supreme court will rule but I do wonder if their historical perspective will make them not want to be associated with a ruling that in 20 years will be viewed as a stand against rights by a major majority of americans. As some will likely still be on the court then it is interesting.
 
Robert Prey said:
The voice of the people, of the Common Law, Natural Law and Common Sense overruled by two deviant black robed oath takers. God, help us, but only temporarily.
Click to expand...

Yep this could be judicial activism as extreme as loving v Virginia.
 
I wonder how many straight marriages this ruling has ruined so far. I can just imagine some poor, hapless God-fearing man waking up next to his beloved wife of twenty years and saying to himself "Something's not right". Next stop: Divorce court. Then, an alcohol-fueled downward spiral into despair and depravity as society itself begins to unravel.

And all because gays had the shameless audacity to want to be treated like human beings.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The voice of the people, of the Common Law, Natural Law and Common Sense overruled by two deviant black robed oath takers. God, help us, but only temporarily.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Brown vs. Board of Education was a real bummer too, wasn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom