Gay marriage ban overturned in California


SLM
#1
California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned

(Reuters) - An appeals court on Tuesday found California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional in a case that may lead to a showdown in the Supreme Court.

Supporters of the ban said they would appeal the judgment, calling it "out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision." Their appeal is likely to keep gay marriage in the state on hold pending future proceedings.

But the lawyers who won the appeals court round called the decision a milestone, and outside City Hall in San Francisco, a center for gay rights, dozens of same-sex couples hugged and kissed in public, cheering the ruling.

"It means we are included in the American Dream," said Joe Capley-Alfano, who married his husband, Frank, in the summer of 2008, a window of legal same-sex marriage in California.

The majority in the 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California's Proposition 8 ban did not further "responsible procreation," which was at the heart of the argument by the ban's supporters.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," the ruling reads.

But the appeals court did not address whether marriage was a fundamental right available to same-sex couples as well as heterosexuals, focusing instead specifically on Prop 8.

Some lawyers predicted that the narrow ruling would lead the Supreme Court to limit itself to deciding on the California measure or to refusing the case altogether.

Gay rights supporters have traveled a bumpy road since the first legal U.S. gay marriage was conducted in Massachusetts in 2004. Some courts and legislatures have extended those rights, but voters have consistently opposed gay marriage.

California, the most populous state, joined the vast majority of U.S. states in outlawing same-sex marriage in 2008, when voters passed the ban known as Proposition 8.

That socially conservative vote by a state more known for hippies and Hollywood was seen as a watershed by both sides of the so-called culture wars, and two gay couples responded by filing the legal challenge currently making its way through the federal courts.

A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, and gay marriage opponents appealed that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Opponents of gay marriage have not decided whether to ask a larger 9th Circuit panel to hear the matter, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage and a lawyer on the team, said by email.

Court rules allow at least two weeks before a ruling takes effect, so same sex marriages cannot immediately resume in California, court spokesman Dave Madden said.


California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned | Reuters (external - login to view)

Be interesting to see where it goes.
 
Goober
#2
Gay Marriage ban - California - Unconstitutional

California gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, court rules - The Globe and Mail

A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

However, the appeals court said gay marriages cannot resume in the state until the deadline passes for Proposition 8 sponsors to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. If such an appeal is filed, gay marriages will remain on hold until it's resolved.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.

Backers of Proposition 8 said they would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit ruling.

“No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people,” said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defence Fund, a Christian legal aid group based in Arizona that helped defend Proposition 8.

“We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage — tried in San Francisco — turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favour of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court,” he said.

American Foundation for Equal Rights President Chad Griffin, who formed the group along with director Rob Reiner to wage the court fight against Proposition 8, called the panel's ruling “a historic victory.”

“The message it sends to young LGBT people, not only here in California but across the country, (is) that you can't strip away a fundamental right, and gay marriage is a fundamental right that no one can strip away,” Mr. Griffin said. “Now that Proposition 8 has been declared unconstitutional, the people of California will very soon be able to once again realize their freedom to marry.”

More than 50 people who gathered outside the federal courthouse in downtown San Francisco greeted the ruling with cheers. They held signs and waved rainbow flags.

“Today's ruling is a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice,” said California Attorney-General Kamala Harris.

The appeals panel crafted a narrow decision that applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states. California is the only one of those states where the ability for gays to marry was granted then rescinded.

“Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question,” the court said. “We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.”

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Judge Walker’s ruling on both constitutional grounds and because of the thorny issue of the judge’s personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist’s sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision. Judge Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. However, supporters of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal whether he wanted to marry his partner – like the gay couples who sued to overturn the ban.

Judge Walker’s successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected those claims, and the 9th Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 per cent of the vote in November, 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court’s decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them and its passage followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in the nation’s history.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages, but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.

With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los Angeles, plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8.
 
SLM
+1
#3
No Fair! I just posted that, lol.

At least this one has some traffic....me!

On the topic, glad to hear it and I hope the ball keeps rolling. Such a stupid thing for people to get worked up about anyway.
 
Goober
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

No Fair! I just posted that, lol.

At least this one has some traffic....me!

On the topic, glad to hear it and I hope the ball keeps rolling. Such a stupid thing for people to get worked up about anyway.

My apologies. I did not notice that you had.
 
SLM
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

My apologies. I did not notice that you had.

No problem! Why it's such good news we had to tell everybody twice.
 
L Gilbert
#6
Human idiocy = allowing anyone to get married IF they are "normal" enough. I think people with big ears shouldn't be allowed to get married unless they get married to people with regular ears.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

No Fair! I just posted that, lol.

At least this one has some traffic....me!

On the topic, glad to hear it and I hope the ball keeps rolling. Such a stupid thing for people to get worked up about anyway.

lol.
 
Goober
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Human idiocy = allowing anyone to get married IF they are "normal" enough. I think people with big ears shouldn't be allowed to get married unless they get married to people with regular ears.

lol.

Amazing how we as people put others that are not the same as us in Ghettos. Sad reflection on society as a whole.
 
WLDB
+2
#8
Step in the right direction.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#9
lol I can imagine Coldstream's retort now: "the next thing the courts will say is that it will allow interspecies marriages, God will punt California into the ocean, blah blah blah."
 
SLM
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lol I can imagine Coldstream's retort now: "the next thing the courts will say is that it will allow interspecies marriages, God will punt California into the ocean, blah blah blah."

lol, You know what would be really funny, if everyone posted this thread over and over and that was all he could see when he logged on tomorrow. Maybe his head would explode.
 
L Gilbert
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

lol, You know what would be really funny, if everyone posted this thread over and over and that was all he could see when he logged on tomorrow. Maybe his head would explode.

lmao Super idea!
 
L Gilbert
+1
#12
California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned

(Reuters) - An appeals court on Tuesday found California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional in a case that may lead to a showdown in the Supreme Court.

Supporters of the ban said they would appeal the judgment, calling it "out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision." Their appeal is likely to keep gay marriage in the state on hold pending future proceedings.

But the lawyers who won the appeals court round called the decision a milestone, and outside City Hall in San Francisco, a center for gay rights, dozens of same-sex couples hugged and kissed in public, cheering the ruling.

"It means we are included in the American Dream," said Joe Capley-Alfano, who married his husband, Frank, in the summer of 2008, a window of legal same-sex marriage in California.

The majority in the 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California's Proposition 8 ban did not further "responsible procreation," which was at the heart of the argument by the ban's supporters.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," the ruling reads.

But the appeals court did not address whether marriage was a fundamental right available to same-sex couples as well as heterosexuals, focusing instead specifically on Prop 8.

Some lawyers predicted that the narrow ruling would lead the Supreme Court to limit itself to deciding on the California measure or to refusing the case altogether.

Gay rights supporters have traveled a bumpy road since the first legal U.S. gay marriage was conducted in Massachusetts in 2004. Some courts and legislatures have extended those rights, but voters have consistently opposed gay marriage.

California, the most populous state, joined the vast majority of U.S. states in outlawing same-sex marriage in 2008, when voters passed the ban known as Proposition 8.

That socially conservative vote by a state more known for hippies and Hollywood was seen as a watershed by both sides of the so-called culture wars, and two gay couples responded by filing the legal challenge currently making its way through the federal courts.

A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, and gay marriage opponents appealed that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Opponents of gay marriage have not decided whether to ask a larger 9th Circuit panel to hear the matter, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage and a lawyer on the team, said by email.

Court rules allow at least two weeks before a ruling takes effect, so same sex marriages cannot immediately resume in California, court spokesman Dave Madden said.


California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned | Reuters

Be interesting to see where it goes.
 
Spade
#13
I thought this thread was about time, not a gay time! O, Clodstream...
 
shadowshiv
+2
#14
Does allowing gay people to marry really destroy society? Sheesh. As long as two people(adults) love each other, I don't give a rat's ass if they decide to get married or not. It should be their choice!

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

No Fair! I just posted that, lol.

At least this one has some traffic....me!

On the topic, glad to hear it and I hope the ball keeps rolling. Such a stupid thing for people to get worked up about anyway.

No worries. I just merged the two threads together.
 
Serryah
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lmao Super idea!

Indeed!



California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned

(Reuters) - An appeals court on Tuesday found California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional in a case that may lead to a showdown in the Supreme Court.

Supporters of the ban said they would appeal the judgment, calling it "out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision." Their appeal is likely to keep gay marriage in the state on hold pending future proceedings.

But the lawyers who won the appeals court round called the decision a milestone, and outside City Hall in San Francisco, a center for gay rights, dozens of same-sex couples hugged and kissed in public, cheering the ruling.

"It means we are included in the American Dream," said Joe Capley-Alfano, who married his husband, Frank, in the summer of 2008, a window of legal same-sex marriage in California.

The majority in the 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California's Proposition 8 ban did not further "responsible procreation," which was at the heart of the argument by the ban's supporters.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," the ruling reads.

But the appeals court did not address whether marriage was a fundamental right available to same-sex couples as well as heterosexuals, focusing instead specifically on Prop 8.

Some lawyers predicted that the narrow ruling would lead the Supreme Court to limit itself to deciding on the California measure or to refusing the case altogether.

Gay rights supporters have traveled a bumpy road since the first legal U.S. gay marriage was conducted in Massachusetts in 2004. Some courts and legislatures have extended those rights, but voters have consistently opposed gay marriage.

California, the most populous state, joined the vast majority of U.S. states in outlawing same-sex marriage in 2008, when voters passed the ban known as Proposition 8.

That socially conservative vote by a state more known for hippies and Hollywood was seen as a watershed by both sides of the so-called culture wars, and two gay couples responded by filing the legal challenge currently making its way through the federal courts.

A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, and gay marriage opponents appealed that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Opponents of gay marriage have not decided whether to ask a larger 9th Circuit panel to hear the matter, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage and a lawyer on the team, said by email.

Court rules allow at least two weeks before a ruling takes effect, so same sex marriages cannot immediately resume in California, court spokesman Dave Madden said.


California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned | Reuters (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Does allowing gay people to marry really destroy society? Sheesh. As long as two people(adults) love each other, I don't give a rat's ass if they decide to get married or not. It should be their choice!

Maybe the word "adults" should be emphasized, overemphasized, underlined, surrounded in flashing lights and neoned that way Coldstream will see it and not equate homosexuality to pedophilia or marrying someone's dog.
 
shadowshiv
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SerryahView Post



Maybe the word "adults" should be emphasized, overemphasized, underlined, surrounded in flashing lights and neoned that way Coldstream will see it and not equate homosexuality to pedophilia or marrying someone's dog.

Unfortunately, I doubt that would make much of a difference.
 
JLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Gay Marriage ban - California - Unconstitutional

California gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, court rules - The Globe and Mail

Slow news day!

Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Does allowing gay people to marry really destroy society? Sheesh. As long as two people(adults) love each other, I don't give a rat's ass if they decide to get married or not. It should be their choice!



No worries. I just merged the two threads together.

I agree but should it be any more of a news item than a heterosexual marriage. It belongs in the social pages of a gay newspaper!
 
shadowshiv
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Slow news day!



I agree but should it be any more of a news item than a heterosexual marriage. It belongs in the social pages of a gay newspaper!

Yes, it should be more of a news item than heterosexual marriage, at least until it is fully legalized! As it stands right now, the two are not equal and that isn't right.
 
damngrumpy
+2
#19
First of all you know what they say about people with big ears? Oh well its about time that
the Americans progressed out of the cave man ice age era. This is something that should
never have been an issue. The reason it is, is because the social conservative agenda put
it there. They feel threatened. They also feel it lessons the impact of their own marriage.
Imagine, thinking that is so insecure. People are afraid that if others have the same freedom
as they do, somehow threaten them and the institution of marriage. Mind you, people living
together will soon outnumber those with traditional marriages.
I think the American agenda should concentrate on providing jobs and a rebuilding of the
economy.
 
JLM
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Yes, it should be more of a news item than heterosexual marriage, at least until it is fully legalized! As it stands right now, the two are not equal and that isn't right.

Where is that carved in stone?
 
shadowshiv
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Where is that carved in stone?

Let's see. In pretty much every corner of the world a heterosexual couple can get married. However, a gay couple has many places where it's illegal to get married, hell, it can even lead to their death just by being gay! That is definitely not equality!
 
gopher
#22
people should the same marriage right as corporations
 
JLM
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Let's see. In pretty much every corner of the world a heterosexual couple can get married. However, a gay couple has many places where it's illegal to get married, hell, it can even lead to their death just by being gay! That is definitely not equality!

I don't really give a rat's ass what gays do and I doubt if many other heterosexual couples do either- what they do is THEIR business and they should keep it that way.
 
shadowshiv
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I don't really give a rat's ass what gays do and I doubt if many other heterosexual couples do either- what they do is THEIR business and they should keep it that way.

I'm sure that they would like nothing less than to have it just be their business, but when the government makes it illegal it's a little hard to do that.
 
damngrumpy
#25
I don't know too much about the gay community I'm an old grandpa with twenty four grand kids.
I will say that the gay community is in the position where they have to keep their issues in the
public eye in order not to have government discriminate against them. If the government just
moved on and stopped persecuting them and delaying equal treatment they would just get on
with living. The reason some government positions are anti gay and social discriminating is
because it inflames people and social conservatives who are more bullies than spiritual beings,
can rally around red herring issues such as the gay community. Its about votes even more
than hate or sin.
Its time the general public who really doesn't care to demonstrate that with a giant vote against
these narrow minded people who, use the system for their own self serving ends.
 
Walter
#26
Prop 8 was legally on the ballot in 2010. A majority of voters in California voted for the proposition but the courts, so far, have overturned what the people voted for.
 
damngrumpy
#27
The courts are not there to patronize the wishes of citizens the courts are there to ensure
that people are treated fairly and they are not being treated fairly. These people are US
citizens, they pay taxes and they just want to be treated like everyone else.
That is why the US have the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial
Branch to attempt to ensure that unfair laws are overturned.
I also believe we need to make changes to government constitutions to ensure all religious
groups obey the law of the land like everyone else. that is another injustice but we will
leave that for another time. By obey the law of the land I mean they should be required
to obey the law ahead of religious teachings if they conflict with the law.
 
JLM
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

By obey the law of the land I mean they should be required
to obey the law ahead of religious teachings if they conflict with the law.

I'm not so sure about that, I would say with all the assinine examples of each, it's probably a dead heat!
 
damngrumpy
+1
#29
You got that right JLM but the narrow vision of that particular group is hell bent on making
us conform to their view of the world. We have Evangelicals in the West and the Islamic
Fundamentalist in the Middle East and God knows who will emerge out of Asia there is a
movement due from there sure as anything.
Walter has to understand just because voters in a referendum vote for something it should
necessarily become law. The judicial branch ensures rights of individuals are maintained
or we would be subjected to a police state, and the whim of the loony left or right.
 
gerryh
+7
#30  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

You got that right JLM but the narrow vision of that particular group is hell bent on making
us conform to their view of the world. We have Evangelicals in the West and the Islamic
Fundamentalist in the Middle East and God knows who will emerge out of Asia there is a
movement due from there sure as anything.
Walter has to understand just because voters in a referendum vote for something it should
necessarily become law. The judicial branch ensures rights of individuals are maintained
or we would be subjected to a police state, and the whim of the loony left or right.


and the other thing "people" like you need to do...is take a fu cking step back and don't over step your bounds. In Canada, for example, Gays can legally be married. They have the option of being married by a JP or being married in a Church that allows Gay marriages. Churches and Religions that do NOT believe in Gay marriages should NOT be forced to preform them. There are plenty of other options without stepping on the RIGHTS of those that do NOT agree with SSM.
 
no new posts