Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A U.S. appeals court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/7/12 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircus; gaystapo; homosexualagend; prop8
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 02/07/2012 10:14:05 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Off to SCOTUS.


2 posted on 02/07/2012 10:15:20 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Time to round ‘em up and ship ‘em out GO WEST GAY MAN GO WEST!@


3 posted on 02/07/2012 10:16:02 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Not surprised here. They will be overturned on appeal, as usual.


4 posted on 02/07/2012 10:16:05 AM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

No surprise at all coming from the 9th Circus.


5 posted on 02/07/2012 10:16:32 AM PST by jazusamo (Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It is what I expected out of the California Appeals Court. Not a shock.


6 posted on 02/07/2012 10:16:53 AM PST by Harley (Will Rogers never met Harry Reid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

The decline continues.


7 posted on 02/07/2012 10:17:13 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; wagglebee

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


8 posted on 02/07/2012 10:17:41 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Why do we even vote anymore? What’s the point if some court is going to over rule?


9 posted on 02/07/2012 10:17:58 AM PST by trailhkr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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?


10 posted on 02/07/2012 10:18:35 AM PST by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
No big surprise here.

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.

11 posted on 02/07/2012 10:19:34 AM PST by Spunky ("Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It was a known, foregone conclusion that 9th Circus was going to decide this way.

To the SCOTUS with it.


12 posted on 02/07/2012 10:20:00 AM PST by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; massgopguy; muawiyah; fwdude; jazusamo; Harley; unixfox; manc; trailhkr1; edcoil
"The ban remains in effect, however, while the case proceeds toward the Supreme Court."
13 posted on 02/07/2012 10:20:16 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


14 posted on 02/07/2012 10:20:58 AM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

How can a constitution amendment be unconstitutional?


15 posted on 02/07/2012 10:21:42 AM PST by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
"The ban remains in effect, however, while the case proceeds toward the Supreme Court."

Thank God. And thank you for relaying that information. I'm not about to open a link to that SanFransicko rag.

16 posted on 02/07/2012 10:22:58 AM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


17 posted on 02/07/2012 10:23:20 AM PST by DCBryan1 (Id rather have a man who wrecked his marriage as POTUS than a man who wrecked his country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smedley

President Newt will ask Congress to disembowel the Ninth Circus. Good. Perhaps the other social justice tyrants will take heed.


18 posted on 02/07/2012 10:23:57 AM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


19 posted on 02/07/2012 10:23:57 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


20 posted on 02/07/2012 10:24:42 AM PST by willamedwardwallace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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....


21 posted on 02/07/2012 10:27:01 AM PST by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon

Amen! I’ve been told that the Appeals Court says it violates the Federal Constitution. Strange!!!


22 posted on 02/07/2012 10:27:17 AM PST by Yulee (Village of Albion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

Pre-SCOTUS ping.


23 posted on 02/07/2012 10:27:39 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

Pre-SCOTUS ping.


24 posted on 02/07/2012 10:28:06 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

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.


25 posted on 02/07/2012 10:30:37 AM PST by RedStateNotShirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

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?


26 posted on 02/07/2012 10:33:23 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
This is (a) awful, and (b) totally expected.

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.

27 posted on 02/07/2012 10:33:23 AM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedStateNotShirt

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


28 posted on 02/07/2012 10:35:53 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

the 9th curcuit has been overturned more times than ted kennedy’s car. no big deal.


29 posted on 02/07/2012 10:37:36 AM PST by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
The questions remains - how do the American people change their Constitution for a say in how government operates?

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.

30 posted on 02/07/2012 10:40:02 AM PST by Old North State (Don't blame me, I voted for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RedStateNotShirt

Knowing the ruthlessness of the left, Scalia should consider hiring a car-starter.


31 posted on 02/07/2012 10:43:16 AM PST by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Old North State

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.


32 posted on 02/07/2012 10:45:11 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


33 posted on 02/07/2012 10:45:29 AM PST by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
Knowing the ruthlessness of the left, Scalia should consider hiring a car-starter.

Yep. Reminds me of the John Grisham novel, I think it was The Rainmaker, where a couple of Supreme Ct justices were knocked off.

34 posted on 02/07/2012 10:47:24 AM PST by Marathoner (In the 80s we had Reagan, Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Now we have Obama, no cash and no hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

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.


35 posted on 02/07/2012 10:47:35 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie; DJ MacWoW

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.


36 posted on 02/07/2012 10:48:05 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

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.


37 posted on 02/07/2012 10:50:18 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


38 posted on 02/07/2012 10:50:58 AM PST by Marathoner (In the 80s we had Reagan, Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. Now we have Obama, no cash and no hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yulee

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.


39 posted on 02/07/2012 10:55:43 AM PST by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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


40 posted on 02/07/2012 10:58:38 AM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon

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


41 posted on 02/07/2012 11:03:15 AM PST by emporawr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


42 posted on 02/07/2012 11:03:27 AM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

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.


43 posted on 02/07/2012 11:04:01 AM PST by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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).


44 posted on 02/07/2012 11:04:48 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: emporawr
but Judge Walker’s was a pretty run of the mill equal protection argument

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.

45 posted on 02/07/2012 11:05:58 AM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


46 posted on 02/07/2012 11:07:33 AM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elvis-lives

Looking to the state of Cal to represent the vote of the people at the appeal. LOL!


47 posted on 02/07/2012 11:09:00 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: manc

I’m not the biggest Santorum fan, but he has been exactly right about this stuff.


48 posted on 02/07/2012 11:09:44 AM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

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.


49 posted on 02/07/2012 11:11:48 AM PST by manc (FOX, DRUDGE, HAS BEEN DISGUSTING IN THEIR BIASED ATTACKS V NEWT. I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
Courts were never intended to weld the power they 'assume' today. There's never 'enough' outcry from the people and the few times there are they are simply tolerated with empty lip service.

I would be ready for an overall tax revolt.....stop the revenue flow entirely and see where they turn

50 posted on 02/07/2012 11:16:50 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson