A U.S. appeals court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/7/12 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional,

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Isn’t that special?...Happy fudge packers everywhere!

[B Knotts]

But, yeah, courts are going to have a particularly difficult time defending the limitation of marriage to “couples” rather than “groups.” It’s all arbitrary, according to the reasoning (or lack thereof) displayed in this ruling.

[Antoninus]

Back in 2005, I warned that a Constitutional Amendment was the only thing that would stop SMM.

I still see that as the way to go today.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Just wait until Wilbur wants to marry his horse...

[Jacquerie]

legitimate state interest . . .

Yes. The illegitimate sister of compelling State interest

Both are extra-constitutional standards. They are judicial code for, "We don't like the law made by the people, or through their representatives. We black-robes know better."

Lessee, we have laws made by judges and bureaucrats; neither can be touched by the people. Why vote?

[MrB]

They can’t recognize the only definition, because that definition comes from God.

But, if you reject that definition, then there is NO definition, and they can have no logical reason to reject ANY arrangement that wants to call itself a “marriage”.

[Lmo56]

Funny, when California first outlawed gay marriage the appeals court nullified it saying such a ban had to be part of the constitution.

Actually, it was the California Supreme Court that made the ruling. Prop 8 was then passed by referendum and added to the California State Constitution. This was then appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.

One judge on the 9th Circuit[closetly gay, I might add] ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, promptly retired, announced he was gay, and stated that he hoped to marry his partner one day.

The case was then sent to a 3 judge panel on the 9th Circuit, which is where we are today. Today's ruling MAY now be sent to the 9th Circuit en banc [all of the judges] for a ruling, or it may be sent directly to SCOTUS ...

Either way, the case is going to SCOTUS [if it decides to hear the case] - but don't expect a ruling this year.

SCOTUS pretty much has its schedule set for the current term and this IS an election year. ALTHOUGH, SCOTUS is supposed to be politically neutral, in reality, it IS NOT. In a close election, the conservatives WOULD NOT want gay marriage to be the deciding issue in a close election [assuming they rule AGAINST it] ...

[manc]

you hit the nail on the head.

This is why the election is much more important than many think on our side as well as the country.

I cannot see a federal constitutional amendment happening soon and so we need to have a President which will now look at that bogus survey for the military, we need to have a President which will get rid of the activists in the DOJ and defend DOMA and we need a President which will call out these activist judges on the bench and replace them with judges who do know the constitution and do not think if the constitution as old and a waste of time like Ginsberg or Kagen.

If this stands at the supreme court in DC then we will have massive implications around the country and it is time for the GOP to actually grow a set and now start fighting for social issues seeing as the majority do not want this homosexual agenda.

That goes for calling out the MSM too who cover for their homosexual and cross dressing pals at their elitist cocktail parties.

FOX has just hired Sally Khon a Soros media matters homosexual activist who has denounced the USA may times.

When I say MSM that goes for FOX who I have given up on now

[steve86]

but now with the 9th saying it is unconstitutional to not permit QUE ER marriage, what good would voting on it do us?

Was the ruling really that broad or did it have to do with the specific wording of the California proposition? Even if the ruling was broad it could (and should) be overturned. Therefore we we must continue undeterred with the initiative process. Not much time left.

I am sick in my heart what is happening to our country.

So am I and sick to my stomach, too.

[Jeff Head]

Amen. We will never “fix” or “heal” America until we turn back to the fundamental moral principles upon which this nation was founded, and to God in Heaven who gave them to us for the founders to enumerate.

That is what ails our land. II Chron 7:14.

I pray we may come together and do just that...if we do, the other will fall out naturally, for the other issues are based on those same fundamental truths.

[Paine in the Neck]

I'm guessing this would be a hell of a surprise to James Madison, et. al.

[Coronal]

I think it was “The Pelican Brief”.

[Coronal]

The ruling was focused solely on California, stating that to take away a right which was previously recognized in that
state violated the US Constitution.

[liberalh8ter]

The 9th Circus needs to be done away with. It's doesn't even bother to try and interpret law anymore.

[Political Junkie Too]

...stating that to take away a right which was previously recognized in that state violated the US Constitution.

Do you suppose that California or the 9th Circuit would apply that logic to gun rights, too?

-PJ

[Road Glide]

"The way I see it, Prop. 8 will result in a SCOTUS 5-4 decision with Kennedy siding with the liberals. He seems to go that rout with civil/gay rights cases." You're not "thinking ahead" enough. The left does NOT want this case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court until 2013 at the earliest. They are going to wait for the results of the election. If Obama wins, they may try to hold out even longer, to see if Obama gets to make another Court appointment. That will "tip the odds" even further in their favor….

[Lmo56]

The ruling was focused solely on California, stating that to take away a right which was previously recognized in that state violated the US Constitution.

Let me get this straight ...

If I am correct, there was never a gay marriage amendment in the California Constitution.

The California Supreme Court ruled that an anti-gay marriage law that had been passed was unconstitutional since it discriminated against gays.

BUT,the California Supreme Court said that in order to ban gay marriage, the state constitution needed to be amended - which is what the voters did with Prop 8.

Now, the 9th Circuit is saying that because the anti-discrimination amendment was in the state constitution BEFORE Prop 8, that Prop 8 is unconstitutional since it takes away a right previously granted under the state constitution? And that to do so is to violate the US Constitution?

SO, the 9th Circuit is saying that constitutions CAN ONLY be amended in the affirmative [granting rights], BUT NOT in the negative [taking them away]? This is NUTZ! What were the 18th and 21st Amendments to the US Constitution about? Taking away a "right" and then re-instituting it ...

The 9th Circuit's reasoning is incompatible with Article V of the US Constitution [Amendments] ...

[Road Glide]

“The questions remains - how do the American people change their Constitution for a say in how government operates?”

See this post (in another thread):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2843523/posts?page=48#48

[HapaxLegamenon]

The 14th amendment is suppose to apply the Bill of Rights to the States and guarantee due process of law. Gay marriage is not in the Bill of Rights, and the amendment was paced by plebiscite which is the due process. Therefore...

I forgot. The Federal Judiciary has made itself a Constitutional Convention.