Interesting. I'd be surprised if it went to the U.S. Supreme court before appealing in the 9th circuit. I'm not certain either side wants to take it to the supreme court for a final decision at this point. That's assuming the USSC would hear the case.
Outstanding. It's a clear violation of the 14th, as well as many clauses of and spirit of the constitution. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.
Since I'm not gay, I have the luxury of saying I'd really rather have this settled in the court of public opinion as opposed to the Supreme Court. But then I'm not the one whose rights are being screwed with. So yeah, I'd like to see the court rule on it. Assuming they'd rule in favor of gay marriage, which I'm not sure. If they rule against it, well, jeez....
Really? I've got such little faith in the Supreme Court anymore. When the Bush v Gore decision broke down on party lines, I pretty much lost all faith that any case was ever going to be decided just on the merits again.
See, I don't really care about gay marriage, I'm all for it or whatever do whatever you like, but what annoys me to no end is this line of thought. the thought that if you're against using the term marriage for gays, then for some reason you're a homophobic bigot. Its not a case of separate but equal. Not even close to being so, in the historical sense of that phrase.
I challenge anyone who thinks Fox News is biased to show me the bias in this news article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rnias-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/ Appeals court rules California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. 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. It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit. "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. 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. Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected those claims, and the 9th Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December. California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman. The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them and its passage followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in the nation's history. The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law. With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los Angeles, plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8. Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriages were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco considering the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion a year-and-a-half after a federal trial judge struck down the ban, known as Proposition 8. The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case. Even if the panel upholds the lower court ruling, it could be a while before same-sex couples can resume marrying in the state. Proposition 8's backers plan to appeal to a bigger 9th Circuit panel and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court, which would likely put its ruling on hold while that process plays out. The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard oral arguments on the ban's constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether Proposition 8's sponsors had legal authority to challenge the lower court ruling once California's attorney general and governor decided not to appeal it. The California court ruled in November that the state's vigorous citizens' initiative process grants the official proponents of ballot measures the right to defend their measures in court if state officials refuse to do so. While its reading is not binding on the federal court, the 9th Circuit's written heads-up suggests the panel accepted the Supreme Court's interpretation, legal observers said. Further complicating the 9th Circuit's consideration of the case was a move in April by lawyers for the coalition of religious conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the ballot seeking to have the lower federal court decision striking down the measure vacated because the now-retired judge who issued it was in a long-term relationship with another man. Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker disclosed he was gay and had a partner of 10 years after he retired from the bench last year. Proposition 8's backers have argued that Walker's relationship posed a potential conflict-of-interest and that he should have revealed it before he declared the measure unconstitutional in August 2010. Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected their claims that Walker was unqualified to preside over the 13-day trial that preceded his ruling -- the first in a federal court to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married -- because he stood to personally benefit from declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit held a hearing on that question in December. California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman. The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the state Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them. The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law. University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff said the unique circumstances giving rise to the ban's passage could prompt the 9th Circuit panel to strike down Proposition 8 without addressing if banning gay marriage would be constitutional in the eight other states in its territory. "The circumstances in California are unprecedented. The state supreme court found marriage equality to be a right of the highest order under the state Constitution, and thousands of couples actually exercised that right before a discriminatory initiative took it away," Wolff said. "The federal courts would do well to focus their attention on those unique circumstances, which would support a ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional while leaving the situation in other States for another day."
That pesky equal protection clause (of the 14th amendment): Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Calling it one thing for one group (heterosexuals) and another for a second group (homosexuals) is not equal protection of the laws. If it's not actual marriage, it's something else/different. There's no escaping that.
The use of terminology is not a kind of equal right. Its linguistic. In California, if civil unions had the exact rights as marriage but were referred to as civil unions, people would still say its the trampling of rights, etc. Actually, there are maybe a few minor differences between a civil union and marriage, as far as California is concerned, and yet you equate it to racial segregation.
I think so. ***gots are guaranteed constitutional rights. I'd never begrudge them that. But marriage, to me, is more of a moral issue and for many a business issue to get insurance for someone who normally cannot. Either way, it will happen for them as the moral decline of any society as ours has been repeated nonstop throughout history.
The decision against a state-wide Florida recount was decided 7-2. The decision against ANY recount before the Dec 12 deadline was decided 5-4, by party lines. Yuck. Why did I even bring this up? Such an ugly election.
