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

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Calif. court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional
Hot Air ^ | February 6, 2012 | JAZZ SHAW

Posted on 02/07/2012 10:46:18 AM PST by RobinMasters

News just began coming out a little after noon on the east coast. A California appeals court has struck down Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in the state.

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; homosexualagenda; prop8; ruling; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 02/07/2012 10:46:26 AM PST by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Ninth Circus. No surprise there. SCOTUS is homo-heavy. Not sure if it's three or 4, but the fix is in.
2 posted on 02/07/2012 10:49:39 AM PST by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Typical 9th Circus.

Remember when it was supposed to be one person, one vote? Now it’s one judge, one vote; the others don’t count.


3 posted on 02/07/2012 10:52:25 AM PST by Stormdog (A rifle transforms one from subject to Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
4 posted on 02/07/2012 10:52:39 AM PST by SENTINEL (Romney is to Conservatism what Mormonism is to Christianity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Why do they even have voting in California anymore?


5 posted on 02/07/2012 10:54:47 AM PST by Telepathic Intruder (The right thing is not always the popular thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
This headline and story is misleading and confusing.

The 9th Circuit is a FEDERAL court, not a "California" court.

Furthermore, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 IS constitutional.

So, the state ruled it constitutional, and the federal courts overruled it.

-PJ

6 posted on 02/07/2012 10:54:53 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

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


7 posted on 02/07/2012 10:55:14 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: RobinMasters

I have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. I don’t remember marriage being discussed. Maybe they’re talking about the equal protection clause. If that is the case then that doesn’t make any sense either. All homosexuals of adult age are allowed to get married with very few exceptions. They cannot presently be married, and they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. We have the exact same privledges.


8 posted on 02/07/2012 10:57:31 AM PST by W1somoveon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Newt Gingrich...pick up the white courtesy phone, please...


9 posted on 02/07/2012 11:00:49 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Can you imagine these twisted, diseased judges arguing their case before G-d Almighty?


10 posted on 02/07/2012 11:04:44 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,”

What a simplistic, reductio ad absurdum rebuttal. Is the institution of marriage nothing more than an attempt to elevate or increase the status and human dignity of heterosexuals? Or is it much, much more -- namely a cornerstone of our civilization that has been extant in some form for all of recorded history?

Much more rests on the institution of marriage than mere social status or some vague sense of "dignity." If this is the level of logic this court develops in its opinions, it is less a court than a court jester.

11 posted on 02/07/2012 11:06:31 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: W1somoveon

Absolutely. That is the answer to the arguement. I have to deal with this crap in my family (the in-laws). In the future I will simply respond with “But you do have equal protection under the law, no law is stating that gay men cannot marry a woman.


12 posted on 02/07/2012 11:09:03 AM PST by WMarshal (Where is the next Sam Adams?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Look closely at the ruling. They are attempting to lay the groundwork for the elevation of homosexuals as a protected “class.” Even though Title 7 specifically says “ Sex defined as gender, not sexuality or sexual practices.”

More judicial activism and revisionism. “We don’t like that homosexuality is not a fundamental right and therefore not a protected class sufficient for strict scrutiny which would get us the result we want. So we will, inch by inch, bump it up to the level of scrutiny necessary.” Even if there is no legal basis for it. First year law students could rule better on this.


13 posted on 02/07/2012 11:09:57 AM PST by 1malumprohibitum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This decision was already in the word processor two years ago. They just needed proof of the money transfer.


14 posted on 02/07/2012 11:10:49 AM PST by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

“Calif. court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional”

This is the case that will end up in the Supreme Court.

It will be all up to Anthony Kennedy…

No way to predict the final outcome as of yet...

This may end up to become the “Roe v. Wade” of homosexuality.


15 posted on 02/07/2012 11:16:43 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

They’ll never let the People have a say. It’s time for the People start ignoring these elites and their armed dogs.


16 posted on 02/07/2012 11:29:29 AM PST by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

We have long ceased to be a nation whose foundation is based on Judeo-Christian principles.

One can’t think of anything deviant that will not be acceptable by the Court.


17 posted on 02/07/2012 11:29:29 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Ninth Circus, most overturned court in the U.S.


18 posted on 02/07/2012 11:33:52 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stormdog

“Now it’s one judge, one vote; the others don’t count.”

YEP...what the majority of citizens want no longer means ANYTHING!


19 posted on 02/07/2012 11:56:05 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution.

Is this how the ballot measure read ? If so, does that mean there is now no limit ?
20 posted on 02/07/2012 12:09:19 PM PST by stylin19a (time to Obamanos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.


21 posted on 02/07/2012 12:11:17 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: W1somoveon

I have actually read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. I don’t remember marriage being discussed.

Never was, the major legal issues that exist with family relationships are designating whose job it is to pull your plug if you are left a vegetable, who is on your insurance plan, how your inheritance gets divided, and which kids deserve to be in your custody, but then again, being considered a biological parent, according to court cases, is no longer the great deal it used to be.

If worst comes to worse, I can see major churches no longer asking, in fact plenty asking for you to not get out a government marriage license, which is probably the way it should have been in the first place. The morality of government and the morality of God are wholly incompatible, I would always think twice when seeing how lax the morality of man’s laws are in comparison to the morality of God’s laws.


23 posted on 02/07/2012 12:36:00 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

I look at this measure as a way to authorize 5 wives by the back door.

Well in plenty of ways, having multiple wives is essentially decriminalized. I could have five girlfriends, father children through all of them, have them live in the house, but since there is no marriage license, and they are all adult women, there is no crime. Hugh Hefner is a great example of this, and lives quite the big daddy life.

Polygamy is an example of how something once okay turned ugly. Perhaps one of few cases where the importance of actually only allowing people with a marriage license to simply live together was actually enforced, but ever since the 19th century, our government has been corrupted to the point where it no longer treats adultery, cohabitation, or various other offenses as serious crimes.


24 posted on 02/07/2012 12:40:19 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

“ever since the 19th century”

“My Fair Lady” was on last weekend, and I watched it. I had forgotten that “I’m Getting Married in the Morning” was in it. The father said he was going to be very middle class and marry the woman he’d been living with. I had forgotten all about that implication, but it’s true. A wedding is a very big deal for middle class people, only now, it’s a bit of a burden in many ways.

I was married in judge’s chambers. Then, we went out to dinner. Very private, just 3 witnesses and us. Strange to remember that at this moment. But we are actually fiercely private on many counts.


25 posted on 02/07/2012 12:47:14 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

What a simplistic, reductio ad absurdum rebuttal. Is the institution of marriage nothing more than an attempt to elevate or increase the status and human dignity of heterosexuals? Or is it much, much more — namely a cornerstone of our civilization that has been extant in some form for all of recorded history?

Well, never before have treated marriage like something that everyone has to accept as true, or in a do-or-die fashion. Marriage also wasn’t always about a license either. Some people may think my marriage vows weren’t made with authority from God (atheist) or that my marriage isn’t legit (person believing in the sanctity of the state).
Either way, I decided to bypass getting a marriage license, which I have found, amounts to close to nothing legally. Everything else, such as healthcare directives, will & testament, and registered insurance policy, actually does. Interesting enough, the fact that people make a deal about the marriage license shows people adopting a worshipful attitude toward the state instead of God. Interestingly enough, the Bible has quite a number of harsh words regarding people feeling worshipful, or encouraging worship in the wrong way towards government officials. God was angry that King Saul decided to offer the sacrifice instead of allowing Samuel, through his office of a Levite, to do it. God was enraged at the bondage of Israel under the Egyptian monarchy, which was regarded as dieties on Earth, and Samuel was angry at the fact that the people in Israel actually wanted a monarchy, which he warned would produce all sorts of ills. No thousands of years later, the same inclination still exists, plenty of people who seem to not wish to worship God, seem to exert an equivalent of religious faith in the morality of the state government, such an attitude of government worship is a driving force behind communism, or even simply government corruption. It sometimes appears a secular substitute for religion itself.


26 posted on 02/07/2012 12:52:14 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]



Boop His Cute Little Tootsies!

Pretty Baby Looks Innocent Now
But He'll Be Huge and Fiery Soon
Donate!


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

27 posted on 02/07/2012 1:21:11 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This is a bit off-topic, but I recall decades ago that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was grossly understaffed based on its allotted number of jurists.

At that time, the hypothesis was broached that the Ninth Circuit sought to keep its numbers small so they could continue to hand down inane decisions similar to the one highlighted in this post.

I noticed the Court ruled 2 to 1. Does anyone know how many justices are currently on the 9th Circuit and how many justices should be seated on that court to place the court at full strength?

By the way, I got over being astonished, surprized, disgusted etc. by 9th Circuit rulings many years ago. The lunacy of the justices is transparent.

EODGUY


28 posted on 02/07/2012 1:50:59 PM PST by EODGUY (Hold on to your copies of the Consititution of the United States. It is going to be re-written.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Round them all up!


29 posted on 02/07/2012 1:51:24 PM PST by Friendofgeorge (SARAH PALIN 2012 OR FLIPPIN BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
They're 'partying' on Folsom Street.
30 posted on 02/07/2012 2:10:24 PM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb

Texas is calling. CA is toxic.


31 posted on 02/07/2012 2:12:50 PM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Missouri gal

will of the people, not-upheld..............again.


32 posted on 02/07/2012 2:36:14 PM PST by sappy (criminaldems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
"Can you imagine these twisted, diseased judges arguing their case before G-d Almighty?"

LOL - there won't be any argument. They'll just be consigned to hell the instant they die. They can scream and holler all they want to, but no one in heaven will hear them.

33 posted on 02/07/2012 2:39:18 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Majority rule?.....We don't need no stinkin majority rule!
34 posted on 02/07/2012 2:46:06 PM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Voting....just like pissing in the wind.


35 posted on 02/07/2012 2:47:31 PM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Great catch. Have you read either ruling to see which one is stronger? It would be great if SCJ’s could build on the CA SC’s ruling.


36 posted on 02/07/2012 2:51:44 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Not just our civilization, but every great civilization every recorded anywhere on earth.


37 posted on 02/07/2012 2:53:39 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

They’re not always overturned and that’s what’s scary about this ruling.


38 posted on 02/07/2012 2:55:50 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
What say we just scrap the House of Representatives, the Senate, both state and federal and just vote on Federal Judges.
Get rid of the middle men and save lots of money.......Just a thought.
39 posted on 02/07/2012 2:58:29 PM PST by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Newt......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
I would have expected nothing less coming out of the NINTH CIRCUS, the most overturned court in the USA. I want to see a GOP go in there and split the court in at least two. Don't they oversea fourteen states, one the most populous in our nation?
40 posted on 02/07/2012 3:05:44 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
Why do they even have voting in California anymore?

I wonder that. Time and time again, the voters of California have voted for some common sense measure designed to protect the rights and liberties that are threatened by liberal policies, and had them overturned by activist courts.

There is no Constitutional reason that Californians should be forced to subsidize the health care and education of illegals who should be deported. There is no Constitutional reason that Californians should have to allow gay "marriage" to be made legal. Yet activist judges have said otherwise.

OTOH, the people of CA seem rather schizophrenic in their voting patterns. While voting for common-sense propositions (and passing them by overwhelming majorities), they turn around and vote for the most whacky liberal politicians on the ballot. Although I wonder if that isn't so much a reflection of the voters' will, as it is a reflection that there are huge political pay-offs for vote fraud in favor of candidates, while vote-fraud in favor of an unpopular proposition doesn't really have a pay-off (especially when corrupt judges will overturn the will of the people anyway).

41 posted on 02/07/2012 3:12:22 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Judges should not be allowed too strike down the will of the people who voted a law into existence. The will of we the people governed by consent should be the final check & balance. Perhaps it’s time too end appointed Judiciary in our nation and elect them instead? It’s definitely past time for Term Limits for all Three Branches of Government.


42 posted on 02/07/2012 3:36:23 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Which is a clearer indicator of right vs. wrong: the will of the people or the will of the government? There seems to be a general divide based on that.


43 posted on 02/07/2012 5:42:48 PM PST by Telepathic Intruder (The right thing is not always the popular thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Geez. No kidding. Its like Rose Bird never left.


44 posted on 02/08/2012 1:43:51 PM PST by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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