Skip to comments.A U.S. appeals court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional
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 ...
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.
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
Arguing anti-gay in California is like arguing against sunshine in Miami Beach. It would take a Clarence Darrow caliber advocate and the gays have one in Ted Olson. He’s kick ass, and worse he used to kick ass for our side.
Likewise, they should repeal all state laws relating to not allowing XXX cousins or less to marry.
Seriously; if you’re going to fight for this nonsense, you have to fight for all the nonsense. $!@$#@#ts are hypocrites.
I remember when Gay Davis decided not to appeal when most of Prop 187 was overturned.
No it doesn’t but if muslims sue to have 4 wives then they must use the same argument otherwise they are making muslims a different class or is mormons sued then they cannot go against this ruling because they would be making mormons a different class
All another group has to do now is to sue the same argument as homosexuals and they can have their sham marriage.
Based on their argument then anyone can marry anyone and as many as they like.
They cannot just single out homosexuals for marriage but ignore other kinds of marriage.
Also no one has said that homosexuals cannot marry, they can, the question is can they marry each other, the people voted on this and said no, they were told to get a constitutional amendment off the left thinking it would never happen but it did and they got their amendment and the people voted.
Now they move the goal posts again and come out with this activist excuse.
There is no basis here for saying it is unconstitutional to the federal constitution .
We all know the 9th district are activists and do not use the constitution as the law and this shows in their ruling which are overturned more times than not.
We also know this is not about marriage at all, this is about another step in their agenda against religion and morals even the biggest idiot in the country can see what this is.
Well, wasn’t the 1878 SCOTUS decision to allow a ban on polygamy pretty much aimed at Mormons?
Besides, gays alone aren’t affected by Prop 8. Two heterosexual women cannot marry each other but a lesbian and a gay man can.
you get it.
Every argument the homosexuals use can be used for any kind of marriage.
Ask a homosexual can mormons have 9 wives and they will say no, ask a homosexual can muslims have 4 wives according to their religion and they will say no.
Now ask a homosexual can so and so marry their cousin or daughter of age etc and they say no including the people in the MSM who say that is sick.
They are all hypocrites, they want what they want and to hell with everyone else.
The court has ruled that it pouts homosexuals in a different class and the homosexuals use that argument then how about putting other groups in different classes when it comes to their marriage.
I’m sick of activist judges ignoring our laws or putting down our constitution.
The left states it is outdated by one can update the constitution by using amendments and the people of CA did that and now they are told they cannot .
Homosexuals and the socialists thought it would never get an amendment, when they got the signatures it surprised the socialists and homosexuals so they put millions into the fight and lost and now they do this.
We have a DOJ not defending DOMA so what is next?
Will the feds state to 31 states here mostly in the south that they cannot have their marriages as normal?
Now will the states then sue again for DOMA, will they just go along with this, I doubt SC, and some others will.
We have to get obama out of there and for the establishment to give us a pansy RINO from the north east who cares about nothing of social issues then it speaks volumes about the establishment and their elitist pockets.
PRESUMABLY [and I have NOT read the ruling], the 9th Circuit ruled that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
Absolutely. If this ruling stands, it will open a much bigger can of worms than most people think.
Putting aside polygamy, why wouldn’t any two people marry to gain various benefits? No one would ever pay estate taxes, as people could always marry whoever they want to inherit.
us on here put better arguments up than our establishment side or the lawyers fighting this.
This is pathetic that they cannot even argue against this and there is no way that this ruling should stand.
This is judicial activism at it’s finest and only Newt or maybe Santorum though I fear the establishment would get to him will go after these judges.
Romney will shut the hell up on social issues like the establishment as he doesn’t want to upset his elitist homosexual, cross dressing elitist north east beltway cocktail pals