Skip to comments.Appeals court: Same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional [Calif]
Posted on 02/07/2012 10:24:14 AM PST by South40
SAN FRANCISCO Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage 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 that considered the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion 18 months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
We all knew this would be the ruling!
So do the homosexuals get to “marry” now, pending the Supreme Court? Or do they have to wait? Anyone know?
At what point does America stop kneeling before judges?
The state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans a form of sham marriage that is banned by a federal law and not addressed in the United States Constitution? Only the 9th Circuit could make that up.
“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 backers plan to appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel and then to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court. Marriages would likely stay on hold while that process plays out.”
Surprise surprise. Legislating from the bench. By all means, let’s re-elect Obama so he can seat more activists until we no longer have a need for legislators at all. It’s the coming American way y’all.
The same people that want to get rid of the electoral college because it denies the will of the people applaud this decision denying the will of the people.
That's the 9th 'Circus' and they are the most overturned court in the land.
Here is a link to the opinion:
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.
Didn’t you know our Constitution was intended to allow men to marry? How foolish of us.
Also our Constitution prevents the people of a state from choosing their own laws.
So facinating because almost every state bans gay marriage. But this one state in which people voted was out of step with the Constitution.
Black is white and white is black, we’re through the looking glass here, people.
Great point. Liberals are hypocrites. Perverted hypocrites.
The 9th Circus? Shocked, I say......shocked.
The judges WILL decide for you! Stay home on your couch and watch American Idol.
I knew just by looking at the headline this would be the black robed thugs in the 9th Circus again.
I WISH this and many other decisions would make some here stop denying the absolute importance of having a republican president appoint judges through a republican Congress.
I know it won’t, and I know I will hear all about judges Romney appointed in Massachussetts.
So then darn it, nominate Newt or Santorum. But whatever happens we cannot live with democrat judges and a democrat attorney general any longer. Same goes for Sebellius and all the other liberal idiots we are infested with.
The only way to stop it is a Constitutional Amendment.
Exactly. And, why the heck rePubbies aren’t shouting this out - 24/7 - escapes me. It’s easy to explain...but, our “leaders” aren’t doing one d&%# thing about our now rapid decline : ..(
Since when do people have the ‘right’ to get marrried? We heteros don’t! It’s not a ‘right’,it’s a choice.
When do the Judges receive judgement from America?
No one who actually understands the concept of marriage-or for that matter the unsanctified procreational mating procedures of other warm blooded creatures--can possibly see this as anything but absurd. Human marriage customs & procedures reflect an understanding of the multi-generational function & purpose of a species. Marriage is our way to sanctify the process. Not surprisingly, therefore, unconsummated marriages have been subject to annulment, even in societies that explicitly outlaw every form of divorce.
Marriage has never been simply a way to sanctify friendship. Nor has anyone ever suggested that friends of the same sex marry, to prove their ties of a lifetime. And yet what else do people of the same sex have to even suggest that they should marry, today? Only an act that most other people find offensive--one or another of muscular acts intended to simulate feelings that may mimic sexual feelings ("sexual" relating not to the feelings, but to the division of the species into sexes, for procreation and continuity).
Again, is this whole agitation--and this Court decision--not totally in the theater of the absurd?!!
As for the demand for "equal rights?" Where is there any right for anyone to force society to jump down the rabbit hole with Alice? But then my metaphor fails, when put in juxta-position with my first paragraph.
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ." Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court. Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which, in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
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
A 2-1 in the Minor League split is nothing to worry about ...
I think that pro-gay marriage advocates in California erred in hitching their wagon to the courts on this one. They would have done better [for their cause] to try to repeal Prop 8 rather than forcing a SCOTUS showdown ...
The current makeup of SCOTUS is 6-3 [Catholic to Jewish]. Even Sotomayor is Catholic - and MANY HISPANIC Catholics consider the gay lifestyle to be a sin. So, she might end up with the conservatives on this one. Also, depending on orthodoxy, a few of the Jewish justices might also concur ...
The net effect of a SCOTUS decision may be that they rule that the Founders would NEVER have allowed gay marriage [what they considered to be a human abomination to be a "right"]. If they do so - then NO repeal of Prop 8 in Califoornia would be possible, since gay marriage would have already been ruled unconstitutional ...
If two guys can get married through this, then ALL “marriages” are legal!
Could there have been... any other decision by these... Bozos?
Whoa, Bender! Don't ya know... you are giving us a bad name calling them 9th Circuit Jerks clowns?
Yeah, Bo-- We smokers... need to stick together!
If red Xs above go to http://uglicoyote.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/clown-car.png OR http://markarayner.com/images/bozo.jpg
That's a fact, pilgrim... that's a good fact!
SON-OF-A-BITCH? Once again, I pick the wrong day... to quit smoking!
Yeah, Steve-o--- But you are still drinking... ain't ya?
Yep and still sniffing... glue, Kermie!
Okay, okay-- Say good night... Gracie--
Okay, Bendy, what ever you want. "Good night... Gracie!"
Now, Bend, that was a long way for... a really cheap joke--
Thank God for that! Because I’ve always wanted to marry my car. </sarc>
People ask why the Bible does not have anything in it about America in prophesy. Ever wonder that the answer to that question is, combined with the Rapture of the Church, and the sin that is America now, that America just might not even exist in those times? Don't put your faith in things of this sinful world folks. Put your eyes UP. Look UP. Only by Him, through HIM, can you see the Father and get to Heaven and avoid this mess that is coming. Your choice.
Do you really want the list of Extreme Left justices appointed by Republican Presidents?
We all knew this would happen..this court, like everything else run in this screwed up state, is run by far left whack jobs. Apparently my vote in 2008 meant NOTHING. We voted to have marriage between one man and one woman and what happens, the leftist fruitcakes get all upset and overturn the decision. If my entire family didn’t live in this state I would have left a long time ago. Ronald Reagan wouldn’t even recognize it anymore if he were still alive.
The concern with advice like that is it tells good people to surrender hope and stop fighting.
I cannot do either.
Good changes can yet be made, and making them is the Christian path.
It will soon be ruled illegal for church pastors to speak out against this type of abomination.
One good effect of this ruling - and this is just my opinion - is that this is going to have an energizing effect among those who feel that their rights to vote on this issue have been spat upon by unelected elites. I can see an even larger margin of victory in NC and MN where the people will soon be voting on their own marriage amendments. And I can see WA state’s legislation and ME’s homo-”marriage” referendum going down in flames by voters disgusted by this usurpation of power.
Whats wrong CA, you perverts want equal rights for all dontcha?
Let’s be clear:
ELECTED LEGISLATORS *DO NOT* WRITE LAWS.
VOTERS *MAY NOT* VOTE FOR LAWS.
*ONLY* FEDERAL UNELECTED JUDGES MAY CREATE LAWS.
Kindling for Revolution?
Did anyone ever stop to think that according to modern judges then on the day the country was formed that the whole country was unconstitutional. And we stumbled along for over 200 years with all these unconstitutional laws, until these modern judges finally get to fix things. Now anyone who believes that is an idiot. And these judges are political activists who twist the law and the constitution.
However, there is one significant right of marriage same-sex couples should NOT enjoy - though the decision specifically says they do:
"Enjoy the presumption of parentage as to a child born of either partner"
First, I believe that the court is in error - I know of no state where a married woman enjoys the presumption of parentage to any child of her husband. If the child is born by a woman other than the wife it is clearly a child to whom the wife should not have parental obligation (leaving aside a possible argument on the use of surrogate mothers). But, in pre-DNA days when natural fatherhood could be difficult to ascertain, there was and still is a presumption that the husband is the father of a child born to his wife.
This becomes ridiculous on it's face in a same sex marriage - it is biologically impossible that a same sex spouse has a natural parental relationship with a child born to their partner.
Therefore, same-sex couples should be denied the presumption of parentage (except in cases of adoption) - and this marks the difference in law between a domestic-partnership and a marriage.
I really wonder why you would say something so empty, as to ask do I really want a list of left wing judges appointed by republican presidents?
As if you have no realization that republican presidents appointed vastly more conservatives and dems vastly more liberals.
One small example being the only conservatives and one moderate on the US Supreme Court being republican nominees. All dem appointees being strict liberals.
Romney believes in sodomite unions (identical to marriage, just not called marriage), and believes it’s fine for sodomites to adopt children. He will be no better than
Obama is protecting marriage as one man and one woman.
His great grandpa had 5 or 6 wives. And if there is one thing we all know about Romney he gaves in to all special interest groups and that includes fudge packers.
“Mitt and Kerry wish you a great PRIDE WEEKEND”. And this
is the worstless piece of liberal garbage that Faux News is cramming down the throats of republican voters all over this country.
I really hope this didn’t come as a shock
9th Circuit is merely a stepping stone to the Supremes.
Gingrich supports the federal marriage amendment.
Santorum PROBABLY does
Now is a time to lock Mitt into the pro Federal Marriage Amendment corner since he is competing for the nomination.
kookpaul? who knows.
The court, at first glance, applied a rational basis test and simply said there is no rational basis for prop 8.
IOW all those who argued mere religion abandoned reason and logic to the homosexuals.
The court also adopted a “born that way test”
By this, the court also is stating there is no rational basis for ANY, and I do mean ANY, other variation of marriage.
Does this mean they can drink from the same water fountains as the rest of us now?
“I’m thinking the USSC will rule gay marriage is legal.
The only way to stop it is a Constitutional Amendment.”
I’m thinking the same.
This case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has the potential to become the “Roe v. Wade” of homosexuality.
But alas . it’s too late now for that Constitutional amendment, and I’ll explain why.
It was obvious to me, from the time the very first state (Vermont) legalized “civil unions”, that the ONLY solution to conservatives to prevent gay marriage in America was by a U.S. Constitutional amendment that defined the meaning of “marriage” as being between one man and one woman, and also barred both the federal government and the state governments from enacting any legislation to the contrary.
Lacking that, it was also obvious to me that the left would pursue exactly the same path to legalizing gay (and eventually, polygamous) marriage as it did in legalizing abortion.
Think back to the early 1970’s (perhaps it was even into the late sixties) before Roe v. Wade. We first saw a few liberal states (New York comes to mind) legalize abortion on their own, while many others (most?) remained opposed to the idea.
It’s possible that after the first state “liberalization laws” were passed, sufficient sentiment existed in the Congress of the time to pass an anti-abortion amendment; and, once passed, that a requisite number of state legislatures would have agreed, and ratified the amendment. But only a few years’ later, public sentiment began to shift, and by the time the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade, the “moment of opportunity” to settle the issue by way of Constitutional amendment had been lost, never to be regained.
And now, fast-forward to today.
Right after the Vermont civil union law, I recall posting right here on FR that a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage was warranted and how it should be worded (I was the first, I recall, to propose such an idea).
At the time, there was sufficient outrage at the national level to support this approach, and there probably way sufficient support in Congress to ramrod the amendment through.
Recall that back then, it was -Republicans- in the Congress who backed away, begging off the issue that a Constitutional amendment would be “too extreme” a solution, and that a “Defense of Marriage” law would be “enough”. They wouldn’t do the heavy lifting and wanted the easiest way possible out of a difficult situation.
But by their actions, they sealed the fate of marriage in America. That is to say, they provided the left with the perfect avenue to impose its will on all of us, that way being through the courts.
And now — with subsequent court decisions in several states at the state level, combined with “legislative acts” in other states (such as Connecticut, and soon-to-be Washington State), the left has built a strong enough foundation under its ideological argument to support a decision on the national level, which it will soon achieve.
As the saying goes, one must strike while the iron is hot.
Several years’ back, the conservative “iron” was hot enough to burn a marriage amendment into our Constitution that would have settled the issue once and for all.
But unfortunately, that time has past, and the iron has grown cold.
“The fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves
(Will Shakespeare said that)
Because we failed to act, conservatives are going to lose the national argument on gay marriage.
(I said that)
I wish it weren’t so. But that’s the way I see it.
also remember the Republicans (like McCain) stuck a poison pill flag burning amendment into the mix in order to make the amendment unpassable.
This can become a litmus test issue this November.
Obama is for homosexual based marriage, no debate there via his actions.
Attack this enough and it will doom democrats across the USA.
In all or most states, children born of married parents are presumed by law to be the biological offspring of the husband, unless he chooses to challenge paternity.