Posted on 02/07/2012 10:13:59 AM PST by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Off to SCOTUS.
Time to round ‘em up and ship ‘em out GO WEST GAY MAN GO WEST!@
Not surprised here. They will be overturned on appeal, as usual.
No surprise at all coming from the 9th Circus.
It is what I expected out of the California Appeals Court. Not a shock.
The decline continues.
what a shock, NOT
Now would they also say 4 wives for muslims or 9 wives for mormons on religious grounds be unconstitutional too?
Nah did not think so.
Just because they go to their elitist parties and meet their cross dressing and homo friends does not mean what they do and how they act and what they ask for is normal or constitutional
Anyone on our side saying no big deal tot he queer agenda needs to get their head out of where the sun does not shine, this is not about just marriage
Why do we even vote anymore? What’s the point if some court is going to over rule?
The question remains. Prop 22 was overturned noting that citizens must change Constitution so Prop 8 was voted on to change the Constitution and yet it is now deemed UN-Constitutional.
The questions remains - how do the American people change their Constitution for a say in how government operates?
Our Senate Legislature in Washington State just approved QUEER marriage. Now it goes to the House and the governor said she would sign it. They said we have until June to get 130,000 signatures for an initiative to get in on the ballot for the people to vote on, but now with the 9th saying it is unconstitutional to not permit QUE ER marriage, what good would voting on it do us?
I am sick in my heart what is happening to our country.
It was a known, foregone conclusion that 9th Circus was going to decide this way.
To the SCOTUS with it.
I’m looking forward to the “Yes on 8” legal team’s email detailing the decision and their plan going forward. I’d encourage everyone reading this to donate profusely to this excellent legal team. The are up against an army of Goliaths with deep pockets.
How can a constitution amendment be unconstitutional?
Thank God. And thank you for relaying that information. I'm not about to open a link to that SanFransicko rag.
Well that does it. My wife has family in CA. She has been wanting to move back to Thousand Oaks, CA for 5 years now....but is smart enough to realize that it would be insane. I’d rather move to Yuma, AZ and commute to San Diego than become a citizen of CA, where it seems (according to his ruling) that there is no more reason to even have vote if you are conservative.
President Newt will ask Congress to disembowel the Ninth Circus. Good. Perhaps the other social justice tyrants will take heed.
No surprise here, everybody knew the fix was any way back when they named a bunch of lib judges to hear the case. As others have stated, this was just a necessary detour on the road to the Supreme Court anyway.
Here is a link to the opinion:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Prop-8-9th-CA-ruling-2-7-12.pdf
Amazingly, the Ninth Circuit DID NOT hold that there was a fundamental right for sodomites to “marry”. In fact, the entire panel rejected the sodomites’ argument on that point. The decision is very, very narrow. It applies ONLY to California, not the rest of the States in the Ninth Circuit.
The decision was 2-1, with Reinhardt and his sock puppet voting to invalidate Prop 8 on different grounds that the pervert Homosexual Judge Walker decided.
This was probably designed to shield the case from Supreme Court review.
Welp! This’ll be for all the marbles at SCOTUS. If SCOTUS manages to uphold the ruling, it would wipe the books clean of any marriage laws that limit the definition to one man, one woman.
Justice Kennedy, God on line 1....
Amen! I’ve been told that the Appeals Court says it violates the Federal Constitution. Strange!!!
Pre-SCOTUS ping.
Pre-SCOTUS ping.
Unlikely. 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.
and what about the Govt gets it’s power from the people etc etc etc.
Heck there are lots of lines in the bill of rights, the constitution and the declaration stating that the people have the power.
This was done twice with the votes, and how the court can say this is unconstitutional is outrageous.
Where does it state that we can have any kind of marriage in the constitution of America?
Also what grounds is this unconstitutional anyway, what was their reasoning behind this?
But really, we shouldn't be against this.
Voter referendums are democracy, and we don't have a democracy. The Founding Fathers gave us a Republic. "If you can keep it," as Benjamin Franklin warned.
By overturning referenda, the court gives a nod toward the republican form of government, IMHO.
Of course, they tilt toward the republican form when it favors the left, and they tilt toward the democracy form when doing that favors the left, so we move in the same direction in either case.
this is why we need a President which will put judges on the bench and know the law, instead we have Kagen who wanted the ban on don’t ask overturned and wanted the ban on ROTC and recruiters at Harvard etc.
This woman should never have been placed on the bench, Ginsburg needs to be removed now she states our constitution is old and out of date and no way for social justice basically
the 9th curcuit has been overturned more times than ted kennedy’s car. no big deal.
For me this is the fundamental question. To have the clear will of the people overridden by an arbitrary decision of a few ideologues is tyranny. And it is completely arbitrary. Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits the people from defining marriage. If this ruling and Obamacare stand, the people are powerless against the State. The government will be able to twist the Constitution into any shape it chooses and the people will be unable to redress grievances by explicitly changing the Constitution.
Knowing the ruthlessness of the left, Scalia should consider hiring a car-starter.
my question too.
If the people cannot do an amendment as this was done then how do the people do a constitutional amendment?
This is judicial tyranny at it’s finest.
What was their argument saying it was unconstitutional because I see no where it states two homosexuals can marry each other but i do understand that the Govt derives it’s power from the people.
The people voted and was told they have to do an amendment.
They did an amendment and now these activists say it is not legal s I ma interested in how they explain that and surely there has to be one person left in Govt who can go after this court and call them out and this 9th district is plain out and out activists.
The ruling does not state that gay couples have a right to marry. Rather, it states that creating a law for the sole purpose of singling out a disfavored group does not pass Constitutional muster. Given the narrow focus of the ruling, the USSC may decide not to take the case. It is consistent with their previous decision in Romer v. Evans.
Yep. Reminds me of the John Grisham novel, I think it was The Rainmaker, where a couple of Supreme Ct justices were knocked off.
big difference though, obama has put on the bench two activists, we have Ginsberg saying our laws , our constitution is out of date and other countries should not look to us , along with them saying international law should be looked at when looking at rulings.
Kagen out of the two should never have been allowed near that bench.
She was an activist for homosexuals, she has made it public she stands for them and therefore she needs to recuse herself like she does on the health care where she has a vested interest.
big difference though, obama has put on the bench two activists, we have Ginsberg saying our laws , our constitution is out of date and other countries should not look to us , along with them saying international law should be looked at when looking at rulings.
Kagen out of the two should never have been allowed near that bench.
She was an activist for homosexuals, she has made it public she stands for them and therefore she needs to recuse herself like she does on the health care where she has a vested interest.
so therefore the court is saying any kind of marriage is OK and if muslims want 4 wives then they should sue and if mormons , a few of them to be fair want 9 wives then that should be alright.
The 9th is a weak argument against and it really is judicial activism as it always is.
IMHO this is reason #1, above all else, why Comrade Zero has got to go. I can only imagine the destruction he will cause if he gets another round of judicial appointments, esp. a USSC vacancy. I don’t see all of the Fab Five holding out another 4 years.
Funny, when California first outlawed gay marriage the appeals court nullified it saying such a ban had to be part of the constitution. So California passes a constitutional amendment and the appeals court moves the goal posts.
I am sick of abject Judicial activism.
I am sick of liberals extending natural rights, given from God and enumerated in the Constitution, to behavior and ideology to advance their own causes and inclinations...and in an effort to overthrow the constitution to which they swore an oath to faithfully uphold and defend.
The American people, to avoid the hell of chaos and downfall and implosion such trends will inevitably lead to, simply must throw off the political class that has encumbered us and elect American statemen to office who revere and will hold inviolate the fundmanetal moral values upon which this nation and its constitution was founded.
And those are Christian principles and have defined the very reason why America has been so tolerant of so many who have come to these shores. But when those here want that tolerance to extend to the destruction of what has kept the peace, made us free, defined our prosperity and strength as a nation, that we cannot, nay we MUST not tolerate, but fight with every resource at our disposal.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Because a state constitutional amendment can still be repugnant to the federal constitution. I haven’t read the opinion yet but Judge Walker’s was a pretty run of the mill equal protection argument
Apparently, this appeals court has invented a new class of people: “couples.”
It has decided that the equal protection clause applies here because “couples” are being treated differently. It had to invent a new class of people, because there is no disparity in how individual persons are treated under Prop. 8; all people, regardless of their orientation, have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That they may not desire to do so is irrelevant. So, the court decides that “couples” are being treated unequally.
These “judges” are completely out to lunch. Prop. 8 is simply reiterating what has always been obvious to most people: that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. It is also a means of protecting the First Amendment rights of Christians and other believers.
No, the ruling says nothing about what types of marriage can be allowed or banned. It states that the proponents of Prop 8 could not show a legitimate state interest in creating different classes of legally recognized intimate relationships for gay and straight couples. It states that the only purpose of 8 was to subject gay couples to an inferior status relative to straight married couples, and that this violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
I think it’s Game Over. Judge Kennedy will join the 4 liberals to rule in favor the gays marriage. (See Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas).
No, it isn't. See above. There is no argument that people are treated equally in so far as their right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is. The fact that they do not desire to do so is hardly an equal protection issue.
This is what I’ve been trying to tell folks who have been discussing the Birther Law Suit in Georgia. When you want to change things by going to court, you have to raise as much money as you can and hire a kick-ass lawyer. The pro-gay side have Ted Olson arguing their case and he is a great lawyer so they have success after success.
Looking to the state of Cal to represent the vote of the people at the appeal. LOL!
I’m not the biggest Santorum fan, but he has been exactly right about this stuff.
Jeff
The socialists have waged a war on Christianity for decades and now their fruits are coming through.
They have took control of the MSM, The shrinks, the Dem party, most of the GOP, the schools and nearly all colleges .
WE have a party with elitists who would rather ignore social issues and look at their own pockets.
Homosexuality , cross dressing, and men dressing as women thinking they’re lesbian is a mental disorder, one only has to look at most of them to see that they have mental problems, heck even some ex homosexuals have admitted they had a problem but that message never gets out .
We had better make social issues a part of this election instead of he cowards telling us that we should just look at spending.
Most of this country has said , 31 states too have said that marriage is between one man and one woman.
We have the majority of voters on our side on this issue, hispanics, blacks Asians,proper Mormons, proper Christians, proper Jews, muslims all say that two of the same sex should not be raising kids or getting marriage and this cowardly GOP, RNC ignore this because they have homosexual pals and cross dressing pals up in the north east, west coast and the beltway.
I would be ready for an overall tax revolt.....stop the revenue flow entirely and see where they turn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.