Better get yer mind right!
Posted on 02/08/2012 5:22:56 AM PST by Kaslin
Two of three judges on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday found Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Judge Stephen Reinhardt stipulated that the ruling skirted the larger issue of whether same-sex couples have a right to marry. That's a shame, because at least an equal-right-to-marry claim makes for a clean argument.
Reinhardt praised himself for overturning Prop. 8 on "the narrowest ground." It is also on the shakiest ground. The narrow ruling is based on the fiction that Prop. 8 eliminated a right without a legitimate reason. Prop. 8 was born of "animosity toward the class of persons affected," he wrote.
The worst part is that if it were not for political shenanigans and judicial activism, Reinhardt would not be able to reason as he wrote.
A quick history lesson: In 2000, 61 percent of Californians voted for Proposition 22, which prohibited same-sex marriage.
In 2004, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom decide to ignore state law and opened San Francisco City Hall to same-sex marriages. Later, the state Supreme Court ordered Newsom to stop the illicit nuptials and invalidated Newsom-issued marriage licenses. Some gay newlyweds appealed.
In 2008, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court found that marriage is a fundamental right for all. Some 18,000 same-sex couples tied the knot. And they are still married.
Meanwhile, that same year, opponents of same-sex marriage fought back by placing on the ballot a constitutional amendment to ban it. Some 52 percent of California voters approved the measure.
In 2009, the state Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 and the right of the people to write their own state constitution, in a 6-1 decision.
"Prop. 8 didn't take away any right that the state constitution ever really conferred," noted Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an advocacy group. "By adopting Prop. 8, the people of California exercised their sovereign power to correct the state Supreme Court's misreading of the constitution."
Enter the federal court in 2010. Now-retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop. 8. On Tuesday, Reinhardt upheld Walker's outcome.
Because Newsom had flouted state law, there was a hiatus between the decision that allowed same-sex marriage and the decision that banned it. That allowed the judges to maintain their construct that Prop. 8 took away something that only existed because Newsom had gamed the system.
Dissenting Judge N. Randy Smith was not impressed. As he pointed out, unless given no other option, federal courts should defer to state law.
Reinhardt and Judge Michael Hawkins did make two smart findings: They ruled that Walker did not have to vacate his anti-Prop. 8 ruling because of his being gay. (Who would be the next target, Catholic judges?)
They determined that because state officials (i.e., Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown) refused to represent the voters in court, Prop. 8 proponents had a right to argue for the measure. As a result, the Prop. 8 case should reach the U.S. Supreme Court sooner rather than later.
"It's simply one step along the way," opined Jesse Choper, a University of California, Berkeley law professor.
When the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, Newsom stood on the steps of City Hall crowing, "It's going to happen -- whether you like it or not." Newsom didn't bother trying to win Californians over to his cause. He figured the courts would impose same-sex marriage on them. And then voters don't have to like it.
Mandates handed down by America’s robed mullahs. When the judicial accomplishes what the executive and legislative cannot by thwarting “we the people”, you have TRIANGULATION BY TOTALITARIANS.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. To even consider a homo live-in "marriage" is a farce.
I deplore my government pretending that the perversion of homosexuality is normal. It’s not normal, it never has been normal, and it never will be normal, any more than breast cancer is normal.
Before this ruling, in California homosexuals and normal people had the exact same rights: Tom marry anyone who:
Is not a sibling or close blood relative.
Is not already married.
Is of the opposite sex.
Just because they “want” to marry something else, doesn’t mean it’s marriage. Their logic is flawed on so many levels it’s laughable.
Maybe I can “marry” my brother so we can share health benefits. So what if we’re both married. Why should the state tell us who we can or can’t marry, or how many?
/s
The tenure of a few dozen, over paid, federal judges needs to be overturned.
Liberal judges rule based on
“this is how we want it to be”
and nothing else.
In 2000, 61% voted for marriage. In 2008, 52% voted for marriage. I wonder if prop.8 even passes today. If it is upheld by the SC, look for the homosexualists to simply keep trying to repeal it by the popular vote process.
Freegards
Exactly! They have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else does, so where's the 'discrimination'?
“America’s robed mullahs”.
Well said PGalt,
But you know Sandra Day O’Conner says it is wrong to criticize the judiciary.
Tar and feathering seems more appropriate.
—so where’s the ‘discrimination’?—
We’re discriminating against what they “want” to do. Just like a brother and sister, or father and daughter, or a married person wanting to marry another married person.
All of the above, btw, are consenting adult situations. So, why not allow it?
The ultimate goal of the gay activists is to obliterate monogamous marriage. They eventually want polyamory, or group marriage, with marriages containing any number of partners, and any sex of partners.
Some of these situations you describe could come to pass.
The gay activists goal for the past 20 years has been to set the stage for monogamous homosexual marriage. Then, once we have institutionalized homosexual marriage, and obliterated the concept that the sex of the two partners matters, they will then move on to suing over the fact that marriage is monogamous, and thus we should allow same-sex polygamy and God knows what else.
Anyone else ever notice that in all the public debate over homosexual marriage, we seldom hear discussion about whether this is good for society? Instead, we hear that that marriage and family law are discriminatory. We hear that it takes away rights from those who want to live in a same-sex relationship. But we seldom hear the liberals talk about how changing to homosexual marriage is good for society in some way. All we hear is that it’s discriminatory NOT to allow homosexual marriage, without hearing why it would be a benefit to anyone.
It’s very unnerving to think of the legal reasoning involved in this case.
It’s amazing to me, sadly amazing, that nowhere in this opinion is there a discussion that federal law defines marriage as a man and a woman. A state brings their law in line with federal law, and somehow that violates federal law. Are we in Orwell’s 1984?
It’s also sadly amazing to me that nowhere do we see the judges give any mention the fact that Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment. It amended the constitution of California to define marriage. Thus, by definition, it is unconstitutional to overturn the marriage law.
So, even though the liberal Calif. Supreme Court upheld the right of the people to amend the constitution to define marriage, and even though this amendment defines marriage in exactly the same manner as does federal law, somehow California has violated federal law, by defining marriage in the same manner as does federal law.
We are in Orwell’s 1984, as clearly judges are making this up as we go along.
If the people are sovereign,(we are) we must exercise our sovereignty. Like y’all, I am fed up with being ruled by unelected judges and bureaucrats when our Congressional delegations are Constitutionally charged with writing the laws.
Now, I take no back seat to ranting and posting at FR. Unfortunately, they are insufficient.
Congress pays attention when the good people rise up.
So yeah, I will continue to vent here at FR. When I do, I make it a point to email my Congress-critters on most subjects. In these cases I do not want a reply, for I only want them to know my opinion. In those situations I begin the email with *no response necessary*.
If we expect them to display fortitude, they should know we back them up.
My two cents.
President of the U.S.A. 6 times
V.P, of U.S.A.
Chief jJustice of the Supremes
Head Vicar of the U.S. Army
my current congress thief Alcee Hastings
My future congressman Allen West
R.N.C.
Juan (No balls) Boehner 3 times
Mitch McConnel
Folks I’ve written to this week, So FAR...
I have some catchin’ up to do.
Sort of like the woman that married a building in Washington the other day?
So yeah, I will continue to vent here at FR. When I do, I make it a point to email my Congress-critters on most subjects. In these cases I do not want a reply, for I only want them to know my opinion. In those situations I begin the email with *no response necessary*.
Very good advice BUMP!
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.