Pop 8 ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit panel!

[useless]

http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/02/07/breaking-proposition-8-ruled-unconstitutional-by-9th-circuit-panel/

Prop8TrialTracker.com has received the 9th Circuit’s opinion in Perry v. Brown that Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-enacted ban on marriage equality in California, is unconstitutional. In addition, the appeals panel ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 did have standing to pursue their appeal of Judge Walker’s decision striking down the marriage ban, and upheld District Court Judge Ware’s decision denying a stay to throw out Walker’s ruling because he is gay. The ruling on constitutionality was divided on an 2-1 vote, with Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Hawkins voting to strike Prop 8 down, and Judge N. Randy Smith voting to uphold the ban. The ruling regarding standing and the motion to throw out Judge Walker’s decision was a unanimous 3-0 vote.

Excellent news! Clearly it is a step in the right direction, one in which LGBTers can be afforded the same rights as their straight counterparts. Obviously it seems like the Proponents of Prop 8 will appeal it, but it does seem to me like it's another battle won in the war for LGBT Rights.

Hopefully one day everyone, regardless of race, sexuality or religion can marry who they want in America.

 

[tycoonist]

Typo in title..

I must be the only liberal who couldnt give a toss about gay marriage. It far more concerns me that marriage of any kind is incentivised.

 

[downtown]

I wonder if SOCUS is going to accept this case or not. They could just decline and kick it back to 9, right?

Even if SOCUS affirms the decision, I think it can be overturned at the ballot box in the next 2 years.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Just you wait, the Mormon Church is already gearing up for another appeal, to the US Supreme Court. So, how do you think the SCOTUS judges will vote on the issue?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Is it possible to marry several people as in a collective? A hive sort of thing?

 

[downtown]

Just you wait, the Mormon Church is already gearing up for another appeal, to the US Supreme Court. So, how do you think the SCOTUS judges will vote on the issue?

We're not paying for the legal appeals...we only paid for the campaign. I would be completely and totally shocked if we did it again. The publicity we got before was horrible....thats why I think it will be overturned if voted on again.

SCOTUS would come down to Justice Kennedy.

 

[Narz]

Is it possible to marry several people as in a collective? A hive sort of thing?

It should be. The US is fearful of that sort of thing though. It's easier to keep people in line when they are live is separate isolated dwellings with no more than one other person (a few kids is ok too). Even co-housing is tricky with stupid zoning rules & all.

 

[madviking]

Just you wait, the Mormon Church is already gearing up for another appeal, to the US Supreme Court. So, how do you think the SCOTUS judges will vote on the issue?

Narrow ruling by narrow margin against Prop 8.

 

[Murky]

Prop 8 seems like some sort of misguided attempt to sanctify and make sacred a social contract, which what marriage is all about. How could it be sacred if people break such contracts just as often as they make them? If what they are after is a stronger family unit then wouldn't permitting people to marry whoever they choose instead of who society deems they should be better? I wonder how many failed marriages, and in turn, dysfunctional families are the results of LBGTs marrying for sake of staying within norms instead of what they really wanted.

 

[bhsup]

Might want to hedge your best if it goes to SCOTUS just because of the 9th circuit's track record. Most overturned court in America.

 

[kramerfan86]

Glad to see, but the whole thing is moot IMO. Polls I believe are slowly showing the country is overall becoming more accepting of the idea of gay marriage so outside of the deep south I think it will moreso become the norm soon enough anyways and then down the road the south will get drug along through the courts or federal government again.

 

[illram]

The significant part is the decision is primarily based on the lower court (Judge Walker) making numerous findings of fact. This is an accurate assessment from the OP's link:

In his August 4, 2010, decision, which the 9th Circuit upheld today, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. In his opinion, Judge Walker presented 80 findings of fact regarding same-sex marriage, which included discussions about the immutability of sexual orientation, the ability of same-sex couples to be good parents, and the inequality of providing LGBT couples with civil unions as opposed to full marriages. These findings of fact are highly significant, because while appellate courts can overturn a lower court’s decision based on its findings of law, they usually defer to those courts’ findings of fact. Today’s ruling affirms Judge Walker’s findings of fact, meaning that they can but used in the future in other trial cases in the 9th Circuit that deal with LGBT rights.

Kennedy, the usual swing vote in these issues, has already made favorable decisions on this issue (e.g. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v Texas) that point to him likewise agreeing with this decision. Kennedy's decisions were cited frequently by both the courts and by the litigants so everyone has had Kennedy in their sites from day one with this case, and this is tailor made for him to agree with. So I would predict that if he is the swing vote he comes down upholding this decision, assuming the court takes cert.

I highly doubt there is anyway for this to be reversed at the ballot. This is it; you cannot strip away the right to marry for gays and lesbians in CA according to this decision. No way around that ruling in the ballot box. Finito. Done. This is a wonderful day for California.

 

[Disgustipated]

Typo in title..

I must be the only liberal who couldnt give a toss about gay marriage. It far more concerns me that marriage of any kind is incentivised.

I agree.

Marriage should not provide any incentives whatsoever. It's something that always bothered me about the military how married people got paid more than single people. If I sound a little bitter about that, maybe I am. I felt like I was getting paid less money for the same work. Not only that, but they could get time off whenever they had some family problem. So single people had to work more hours than married people as well. But that's getting off topic. My point is marriage should not provide financial and legal benefits.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

How is this unconstitutional?

 

[wilycoyote]

How is this unconstitutional?

The better question is how is it not?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The better question is how is it not?

The Constitution says nothing about gay "marriage"

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The Constitution says nothing about gay "marriage"

it also says nothing about heterosexual "marriage" (least not that i'm aware, it was a while)

 

[illram]

How is this unconstitutional?

For starters read this excerpt from the decision:

It added: “We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts. For now, it suffices to conclude that the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Basically, the logic is that California residents had the right to marry before Prop 8 was passed under state law, and that Prop 8 unfairly discriminated against them for no legitimate government purpose by repealing that right. This is where Judge Walker's findings of fact come in handy, because he basically took every plausible reason for banning gay marriage, e.g. child rearing, procreation, religious freedom, etc. etc., and made findings on the record, from the evidence presented in the case, that Prop 8 did not, in fact, advance any of these reasons. So this case is really not answering a question of law, e.g., is there a constitutional right to gay marriage; instead it limited to a question of fact, i.e., what reasons could a State have to ban gay marriage. The court basically said there are no legitimate reasons. This will be very difficult to overturn without some significant judicial activism on the part of Justice Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. (Who knows that the heck Justice Thomas would do... he is so crazily state's rights he might not even grant cert!)

As a result, Reinhardt wrote, the ballot measure “could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in child rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.”

The ballot measure, the opinion added, “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.’”

SCOTUSBLOG aptly points out that last line was taken directly from Justice Kennedy's ruling in Romer v. Evans...

 

[wilycoyote]

The Constitution says nothing about gay "marriage"

The constitution says nothing about the Internet either. Too bad that doesn't mean it doesn't still apply.

It, however, says much about equality of the nation's citizens.

 

[CaptainF]

This is a non-issue, and I really wish religious fanatics would stop being fools for one second and let people live their lives, without judging them. After all, that's what Christians are supposed to do, right? Not judge?

Oh that's right I forgot such rules are thrown out the window all the time because Christians are some of the most judgmental people known to man.

Moderator Action: Such generalisations are trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889