Proposition 8 law ruled unlawful by appeals court

[MathiasOfAthens]

Proposition 8 law ruled unlawful by appeals court

Article

Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- California’s voter-backed Proposition 8 law declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The San Francisco-based court, ruling 2-1, today upheld the 2010 decision of a federal court judge who said the measure violated constitutional equal protection rights of same-sex couples. That ruling came in the first federal trial over whether it’s legal to ban marriage by people of the same sex. “The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry,” the U.S. Court of Appeals said in its ruling today. Proponents and advocates of Proposition 8, which was approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, had appealed the decision of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco. They argued that that the measure furthered the state’s interests in “responsible procreation” and upheld the traditional definition of marriage. Today, the appeals court kept in place a stay of Walker’s ruling. Proposition 8 proponents said they would continue their court battle to uphold the measure. ‘Hollywood-Orchestrated Attack’ “We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage -- tried in San Francisco -- turned out this way,” Brian Raum, an attorney for proponents and senior counsel at the legal group Alliance Defense Fund, said in an e-mail. “But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court.” “Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Raum said. Walker ruled without a jury in the Proposition 8 trial and is now retired from the bench. Walker revealed last year that he has been in a long-term relationship with a man, prompting Proposition 8 opponents to ask the appeals court to throw out his ruling on grounds that he should have disqualified himself from the case. The appeals court today ruled that Walker didn’t have to recuse himself.

To summarize a bigotted religiously written proposition was ruled unconstitutional and the supporters of the proposition blame hollywood for attacking Marriage.

Ridiculous this even passed in California.

But damn this is going to be terrible if it goes to the conservative Supreme Court. I have no faith in the conservative court respecting gay marriage. What are the possible ramifications if the Supreme Court upholds this ban? Would it strike down other gay marriage laws across the country?

Then Romney and Gingrich attack the ruling, no surprise.

Article

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on Tuesday decried the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for striking down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage -- both of them targeting the judiciary system for invoking what Gingrich described as a "radical overreach" of power. Prop. 8 was a California ballot measure passed in 2008 that amended the state's constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal. (The California Supreme Court had ruled in 2008 that same-sex couples legally had the right to marry.) "With today's decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States," Gingrich said in a statement.

So if the people passed a law that segregated public spaces that would be just dandy for Gingrich because the People are always right.

Romney

Romney emphasized his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and vowed that "as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

[Stívarðr Reynitré]

Civil partnership / marriage.

Is definition by term that important?

[Mangalore]

why is marriage a concept dealt with by the state to begin with?

You have to deal with the inter relations of father mother, father and children, you have to deal with the powers a particular person has over an incapicated one, you have to organize heritage laws... etc. , but why is marriage a concept necessary in the legal pr state code of a country or state?

Marriage should not get you any advantages, having a family might taxwise. Having a spouse should not gain you any advantages, having chosen someone to take the decisions for you in hospital might. etc.

Everyone can choose a religiom aka opinion including me thinking anyone with an opinion calling it religion is an idiot but none should gain advantages from it (even though I am right!).

Marriage should be a non concept for the state rendering the whole issue solely one of individual or social dimensions.

[bushbush]

why is marriage a concept dealt with by the state to begin with?

You have to deal with the inter relations of father mother, father and children, you have to deal with the powers a particular person has over an incapicated one, you have to organize heritage laws... etc. , but why is marriage a concept necessary in the legal pr state code of a country or state?

Marriage should not get you any advantages, having a family might taxwise. Having a spouse should not gain you any advantages, having chosen someone to take the decisions for you in hospital might. etc.

Everyone can choose a religiom aka opinion including me thinking anyone with an opinion calling it religion is an idiot but none should gain advantages from it (even though I am right!).

Marriage should be a non concept for the state rendering the whole issue solely one of individual or social dimensions.

unrealistic, given many benefits and legal rights depend on status of marriage. If you don't give same sex couples the right to marry, they can't enjoy those benefits despite having a relationship that is like marriage with someone else. It is an important label.

[KngGilgamesh]

people have a tendency to lay blame on the highest authority they can find (usually god/religion, president, conspiracy, etc.)...

[bushbush]

Victory!

[MathiasOfAthens]

@esaciar the definition matters as long as we continue to decide who gets benefits and who doesnt. Currently marriage at the federal level is only recognized between a man and a woman. So a gay couple married in Mass would not receive any federal benefits opposite sex couples receive. Sometimes state definitions do not provide the same benefits to gay couples as to heterosexual.

[bushbush]

But damn this is going to be terrible if it goes to the conservative Supreme Court. I have no faith in the conservative court respecting gay marriage. What are the possible ramifications if the Supreme Court upholds this ban? Would it strike down other gay marriage laws across the country?]

No worries. It is argued by David Boies and Ted Olson. Also, the trial court judge did a superb job in fact-finding. He did a detailed job in studying the social science studies and debunked pretty much the entire anti-gay marriage argument with stats. You generally can only appeal if there is an error of law. But with such strong facts written by the judge, it is hard for Supreme Court to argue otherwise.

[Sphere]

No worries. It is argued by David Boies and Ted Olson. Also, the trial court judge did a superb job in fact-finding. He did a detailed job in studying the social science studies and debunked pretty much the entire anti-gay marriage argument with stats. You generally can only appeal if there is an error of law. But with such strong facts written by the judge, it is hard for Supreme Court to argue otherwise.

I'd say that's a bit naive my reduplicated friend. When it comes to social issue cases, I have found the current court susceptible to self-deception. Have a look at that Arizona case with a tax scheme funding religous schools. Kagan had a rather astute grasp of the ramifications, yet the all the members of the papist persausion were not able to see it. The oral arguments lend some evidence as to why. Not that I am accusing any of them of wrong doing, just succumbing the internal biases we all have , especially on contentious social issues.

So I think it will be an interesting case,and given the historic nature there is a little too much ego in the SC to let a little thing like deference to finder of facts get in the way of the final ruling.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And as an aside, Ginsburg apparently is rolling 8 figures of net worth? Who knew she was a baller.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Proposition 8 law ruled unlawful by appeals court


But damn this is going to be terrible if it goes to the conservative Supreme Court. I have no faith in the conservative court respecting gay marriage. What are the possible ramifications if the Supreme Court upholds this ban? Would it strike down other gay marriage laws across the country?

I wouldn't be too worried, with a systematic decrease in the ''cultural tabooing'' of Homosexuality and same-sex relationships all around large areas of American society and almost all ''non-god-based'' arguments giving more ground to the approval of universal marriage not even a strictly conservative SC could strike this ruling down without some major uproar of the ''rioting style'' and running into some big contradictions.

[Admiral Piett]

A great day for America.

[Kanaric]

A great day for America.

Not a great day for 'murica

[Arbitrary Crusader]

Not a great day for 'murica

What wrong with that?

Surely, doing an epic pose can't be wrong.

Victory!

My thought exactly.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

God damn religious nutjobs trying to force their beliefs down everyone's throats. THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION, MOVE TO ITALY.

[Denny Crane!]

Didn't donald trump or someone recently come out in support of propositions like this?

[magickyleo101]

I don't think the ruling is actually so much of a victory for gay rights are people are saying. Before the decision, there were effectively three options a state (in the 9th district) could take with respect to gay marriage: (a) allow it in both name and effect; (b) disallow it in both name and effect; (c) allow in effect but disallow it in name (i.e. civil unions).

The court's opinion didn't say you have to allow gay marriage - it said you can't do (c) [the reasoning being that there's no rational basis for doing (c) but not (a) since you can't argue differences in child-rearing, etc. when you allow gay couples to raise kids].

The problem is that (c) was effectively a compromise position that sought to allow gay couples all the substantive benefits of marriage without raising the hackles of traditionalists. When you take (c) out of the list of possibilities the end results is probably that more states end up at (b), which doesn't really help gay couples in those states at all.

That's not to say that the decision is wrong (I thought it was excellently reasoned and probably correct), but I don't know that it's obviously something to celebrate.

[PoleCat]

I don't think the ruling is actually so much of a victory for gay rights are people are saying. Before the decision, there were effectively three options a state (in the 9th district) could take with respect to gay marriage: (a) allow it in both name and effect; (b) disallow it in both name and effect; (c) allow in effect but disallow it in name (i.e. civil unions).

The court's opinion didn't say you have to allow gay marriage - it said you can't do (c) [the reasoning being that there's no rational basis for doing (c) but not (a) since you can't argue differences in child-rearing, etc. when you allow gay couples to raise kids].

The problem is that (c) was effectively a compromise position that sought to allow gay couples all the substantive benefits of marriage without raising the hackles of traditionalists. When you take (c) out of the list of possibilities the end results is probably that more states end up at (b), which doesn't really help gay couples in those states at all.

That's not to say that the decision is wrong (I thought it was excellently reasoned and probably correct), but I don't know that it's obviously something to celebrate.

Well reasoned but I think this situation might be different. As I understand it the original trial ruling in the Prop 8 case studied the constitutionality of a State Constitutional Amendment that limited the rights of a minority within that state. The trial judge found that the proposition itself was a violation of minority rights as it had no rational purpose other than to impose a majority view (fear of homosexuals) on the minority view and thus was unconstitutional. Also the original judge took a broader view in his opinion that argued for marriage as a right through SCOTUS rulings as I remember - I could be wrong.

The Appeals decision was more limited in scope but affirmed the notion that the majority cannot vote out the rights of a minority thus limiting the scope of the original decision also based on rulings by SCOTUS.

Since this all started with a decision from the CA Supreme Court that essentially stated that any denial of gay marriage rights amounted to a "separate and not quite equal" interpretation of current laws I would see this as somewhat clear cut. But you are right - there's definitely the possibility that ideology wins out at the top level and this could be a huge setback for gay rights.

I hope not though - I'm tired of this bull- wedge issue and just want it resolved for all time. Then we can get on to actual work that matters instead of this unending culture warrior nonsense....

[Phier]

Hehe I knew this had to be the 9th circus court before I even read it.

[bushbush]

Hehe I knew this had to be the 9th circus court before I even read it.

actually 9th circuit court has more republican appointed judges than democrat appointed ones...

[Claudius Gothicus]

actually 9th circuit court has more republican appointed judges than democrat appointed ones...

Is he sponsoring the trampling of individual prerogatives in the name of a 52% majority?

Nevermind his posting defining himself as a Libertarian...