California same-sex marriage ban deemed unconstitutional
I tried to bring up the old thread but I couldn't find it using the search function
Anyways, the US Federal Appeals Court came out with their long awaited ruling that Proposition 8, a motion to define marriage as between a man and a woman which was passed by voters in California, is unconstitutional
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
Quote:
"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, 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," the ruling states.
Not only was this issue hotly contested, but proponents of the ban argued that the original ruling to overturn the ban was bias, as the deciding judge was gay and in a long term relationship with a nother man at the time
Quote:
The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.
The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.
Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker's ruling on both constitutional grounds and because of the thorny issue of the judge's personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. However, supporters of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner — like the gay couples who sued to overturn the ban.
Anyways, this issue isn't over and it will all likely head to the supreme court for the ultimate decision. However, it's pretty good news right now
__________________
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to LChoy For This Useful Post:
The US supreme court is controlled by conservatives by a 5-4 count, but it is thought that conservative Kennedy could side with the liberal judges on this one. He has been supportive of gay rights in other cases decided by the supreme court.
This could be a good thing if/when it goes to the Supreme court next year.
The fact that this might go to Supreme court is just hilarious. One day we are going to look back at this like we look back at slavery and wonder how it was ever allowed to happen in 2012.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to puckluck For This Useful Post:
I am hoping this goes to the Supreme Court so that there could be a definitive ruling. Hopefully that prevents the religious agenda driven campaigns the kind that caused the California referendum defeat in the first place.
It is very interesting that the no side in California was supported by the very groups that have experienced the worst kind of discrimination in the past - African Americans, Hispanics, the Mormons
I am hoping this goes to the Supreme Court so that there could be a definitive ruling. Hopefully that prevents the religious agenda driven campaigns the kind that caused the California referendum defeat in the first place.
It is very interesting that the no side in California was supported by the very groups that have experienced the worst kind of discrimination in the past - African Americans, Hispanics, the Mormons
That's actually not surprising at all if you read up on the history of racism and prejudice.
I was reading an interesting piece today that was speculating that because of how this decision was phrased, it may not make it to the supreme court: it doesn't say that gays have a constitutional right to marry, only that it's unconstitutional for a public referendum to remove the rights of any group.
Had it found that gays had a right to marry, that decision would have been more likely to be seen as having national relevance that would make it reviewable by the supreme court. Instead, it's merely addressing the very specific set of circumstances that occurred in California. I'll try to find the piece I read earlier, and post a link.
Edit: Couldn't find the exact piece, but here's one that makes a similar point from CNN: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07...tes/?hpt=hp_t2
The fact that this might go to Supreme court is just hilarious. One day we are going to look back at this like we look back at slavery and wonder how it was ever allowed to happen in 2012.
Not hilarious at all. It should go to the Supreme Court, so they can rule once and for all that it is legal, and settle this ridiculous notion that the government has the right to control who can marry who, providing both are consenting adults.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I think he means hilarious is a sad way. Absurd, ridiculous that in a country like the US it has to come to this. Our government here 7 years ago just did it.
I think he means hilarious is a sad way. Absurd, ridiculous that in a country like the US it has to come to this. Our government here 7 years ago just did it.
Well, I just think that this issue should have gone to the Supreme Court a long time ago. Better they rule once, than the lower courts bicker around for years like they have been.
What is hilarious that it took this long to get there, and that the US still sees gay marriage as something that shouldn't be legal.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
^ Agree. Legal analysts are saying though that it's like to stay within California and not go to the US Supreme Court - due to the rationale behind the decision which was specific to circumstances in California, which seems odd.
Well, I just think that this issue should have gone to the Supreme Court a long time ago. Better they rule once, than the lower courts bicker around for years like they have been.
What is hilarious that it took this long to get there, and that the US still sees gay marriage as something that shouldn't be legal.
A case can't go to the Supreme Court without the lower courts 'bickering' over it first. The US Supreme Court can't just pick a case to rule on without it clearing every lower court first.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
^ Agree. Legal analysts are saying though that it's like to stay within California and not go to the US Supreme Court - due to the rationale behind the decision which was specific to circumstances in California, which seems odd.
Actually this not going to the Supreme Court could be the best possible result (assuming it's not reversed at a full hearing by the 9th Circuit) as it would set the stage for a circuit split, which would allow the Supreme Court to weigh in further down the road on a much less limited basis.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
I'm still at a loss for words as to why people actually fight to make same-sex marriages illegal.
What the flying **** do you care?? If you don't like it, don't pay attention to it. In the meantime, let people, who you likely don't know anyways, use their own freedoms that America beats their chest to! Cripes.
Last edited by Muta; 02-08-2012 at 09:13 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
California same-sex marriage ban deemed unconstitutional
