Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente
The U.S. Supreme Court today paved the way for same-sex couples to marry soon in California, effectively leaving intact a lower-court ruling that struck down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
In a ruling that assures further legal battles, the high court found that backers of Proposition 8 did not have the legal right to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the governor and attorney general, who have refused to press appeals of a federal judge's 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling, which found it had no legal authority to decide the merits of a challenge to Proposition 8, sends the case back to that original decision -- and the only question now is how quickly same-sex couples can marry and whether that ruling will have immediate statewide effect.
The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Gawd...Roberts has gone full-blown lib.
Horrible. Not a surprise though.
The incredible shrinking American culture continues.
Never would I defend Roberts after what he did on Obamacare, however, same Roberts joined and wrote the 5-4 decision on the Voting Rights Act, which is the correct position. He did not join the 4 full-blown libs. Just stating a fact...
I remember when people used to think Roberts was a conservative. Now if you just lie to him, he’ll vote your way.
From what I can gather this was decided on who did and did not have standing to bring case.
Also in this decision the 5-4 split was NOT idealogical.
You can’t vote FOR something and then elect crooked politicians who are against you on that same issue. It’s just dumb. Elections do have consequences. The California politicians pissed all over the California voters who elected them.
Could Harriet Miers have possibly been any worse??
So, who DID have standing to bring the case?
In a nutshell - Jerry Brown and a single judge have more power than the population of California. Citizens have "no legal standing" to appeal the judges ruling. That's what this decision means. I think this is far reaching and not good.
You guys finally ready to get fedgov out of the marriage sanctioning and subsidizing business yet? Or are you hoping a few more elections and you’ll be able to get big government to get rid of the strings attached to all those favors you let it do for you?
A technical ruling on standing as a result of the Governator and CA AG refusing to do their jobs and follow the results of a proposition election. Given the recent choice by the LDS on the Boy Scouts gay youth rule, it’s unlikely the LDS will be a factor in the same way they were in the first Prop.8 battles.
Perhaps we have a hint of what the NSA has learned about Roberts and how he is controlled.
Legally passed laws BY THE PEOPLE
were over turned.
This ruling is on a technical ground, I believe. The state of CA refused to defend this prop even though it passed. So this organization that opposes same-sex marriage defended the prop. The ruling is that this was not valid because this group had no standing to substitute for the state’s lack of defense.
The resulting demise of the prop is terrible, agreed.
But this was a legalism, not a moralism, or so it claims.
What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas? I want to hear it.
The citizens of this country do not have a say any longer.
Laws passed by us are not relevant.
We are ruled.
That is all.
Roberts looks gay so it would surprise me one bit.
So, the voters are chopped liver.
My guess: the same people who have standing to challenge Obama's eligibility.
Roberts was the only thing I had left to thank Bush for. So I thought.
Apparently, not the over 7 million Californians who voted for it.
Marriage is a LICENSING issue, which falls to the States under the Reserved Powers of the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act attempts to override that. In addition, the Federalization of this issue has helped the Gay Marriage lobby in their push to have marriage recognized as a RIGHT. If that is accomplished, what’s to stop the Federal Gov’t from trying to force religious institutions to perform these same sex marriages? They’re doing the same thing with contraception and Obamacare. Leave it to the states and let the chips fall where they may.
Votes by the citizens of America count for absolutely nothing.
The SCOTUS is an ass!
From what I’ve heard, this case can be taken up by any authority, even a town clerk, who legally has standing in the government. So, technically, we start over again.
And Scalia too?
Roberts looks gay so it would not surprise me one bit.
Your “nutshell” is pretty spot on.
There is a tenant in judicial review that if you can avoid making a decision on Constitutional grounds, and can find other dispositive grounds, that is how you decide the case. That’s what happened here.
The worst part is, now that it is done, the case WILL be back (Full Faith & Credit probably) and I would bet pretty much anything that SCOTUS approves gay marriage nationwide.
Shrinking good, enlarging EVIL. No other word for it.
God made Adam and EVE, NOT Adam and STeve.
Laws passed by the people, as you put it, don’t make them constitutional...just sayin’...
I don't think you quite understand what just happened.
You grasp the truth of the matter.
The voters are chopped liver and elected congress members are chopped liver, depending on the case. Sometimes, states are chopped liver. This SCOTUS sure has a lack of consistency.
It was the California Attorney General who was to be defending the law.
BUt the AG was pro gay, so he dropped it.
We are now officially a judicial oligarchy.
It's hard to make this case when the California Supreme Ct, Judge Walkers federal court, and the Ninth Circus ALL deemed the defender of Prop 8 has having standing. How did the Supremes go off the rails so badly on this?
“If that is accomplished, whats to stop the Federal Govt from trying to force religious institutions to perform these same sex marriages?”
My worst fear. Will my pastor have to choose between jail and freedom to practice his religion?
Well, and while I find these rulings terrible and horrifying, that’s kind of what Supreme Courts do in applying their take on a Constitution. Not all legally passed law stand. It’s kind of the system we have.
We don’t have a majority rule system and never have.
The State of California. However they chose not to challenge and, unless they are ready to open up the court to suits from individuals and groups without standing, they had to rule this way.
So don't blame the Court in this one. Blame the administration in California, and the people who elected them.
the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history and in all that time, it has always been between men and women. There is nothing unconstitutional about wanting to maintain that 20,000 year precedent.
he people's representatives create a law with a large majority. A federal judge rules against it. The people themselves voted for a constitutional amendment punctuating the original law, again by a large majority.
Now more federal judges are turning that over.
We are witnessing two things.
1) The tyranny of specific judiciary members..co-opting the will of the people which is lawfully taken according to the laws of their soveriegn state.
2) The compromising of those same judiciary by a criminal, thugish enterprise in this current administration which is, IMHO, either bribing or coersing them to vote as they direct.
This will end badly for those law breakers and oath breakers. It may take a while yet...but if this continues, we will see a remedy similar to what our founders imposed on the King of england.
It is a decision that precludes the people from passing a referendum that the executive branch opposes because the opinion seems to say that only the governor and attorney general of a state have standing to defend it. I don’t know the consequence of an executive branch decision not to defend a law duly and validly passed by a state legislature.
Can anyone on this board tell me with a straight face that they are the least bit surprised by this judicial overreach?
If so, I have a bridge or two I’d like to sell you.