The California 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, a three judge panel, ruled against Proposition 8 today in a 2-1 vote. In their decision, they noted that it unconstitutionally singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination. The statement released by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, said the following after rejecting it today:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
As a brief history lesson for those unaware, let's take a look at Proposition 8, and then the 14th Amendment:
Proposition 8 was a voter passed amendment in 2008 that was immediately adopted to the California Constitution the day after it was voted on. In a 52% vote for, the Proposition states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and legal in the state of California. After a similar ruling in 2000 known as Proposition 22(which also was against same sex marriage) was invalidated by the California Supreme Court earlier in 2008, Proposition 8 was introduced, with only slightly different verbiage, and was brought to a vote by the people of California. When passed, it didn't disallow domestic partnerships or marriages that had occurred before November 5th of 2008, but it did immediately make all future ones invalid and illegal.
The 14th Amendment, short and sweet, has an Equal Protection Clause. This requires the state to provide equal protection to all citizens within its state, and in 1954, the State Supreme Court ruled that laws requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause. So, in essence, what the federal court ruled today was that banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8 essentially, violates the Equal Protection Clause. You can see as much in the wording that it works a "meaningful harm" to gays and lesbians.
So what does this mean? Well, for opponents of Proposition 8, it's a step in the right direction. But does it legalize same-sex marriage in California? No. Suporters of Proposition 8 have indicated that they're willing to take their appeal all the way to the Supreme Court in order to keep same sex marriage illegal, so the State Appeals Court provided a provision to keep Proposition 8 in place until until the appeals process plays out. But obviously, this is viewed as a great victory for those who oppose Proposition 8.
Kristen Perry, who was among those who challenged Proposition 8 in the federal court today, along with her son Spencer, said the following today:
Thoughts on this?
"California's Proposition 8 works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
As a brief history lesson for those unaware, let's take a look at Proposition 8, and then the 14th Amendment:
Proposition 8 was a voter passed amendment in 2008 that was immediately adopted to the California Constitution the day after it was voted on. In a 52% vote for, the Proposition states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and legal in the state of California. After a similar ruling in 2000 known as Proposition 22(which also was against same sex marriage) was invalidated by the California Supreme Court earlier in 2008, Proposition 8 was introduced, with only slightly different verbiage, and was brought to a vote by the people of California. When passed, it didn't disallow domestic partnerships or marriages that had occurred before November 5th of 2008, but it did immediately make all future ones invalid and illegal.
The 14th Amendment, short and sweet, has an Equal Protection Clause. This requires the state to provide equal protection to all citizens within its state, and in 1954, the State Supreme Court ruled that laws requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause. So, in essence, what the federal court ruled today was that banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8 essentially, violates the Equal Protection Clause. You can see as much in the wording that it works a "meaningful harm" to gays and lesbians.
So what does this mean? Well, for opponents of Proposition 8, it's a step in the right direction. But does it legalize same-sex marriage in California? No. Suporters of Proposition 8 have indicated that they're willing to take their appeal all the way to the Supreme Court in order to keep same sex marriage illegal, so the State Appeals Court provided a provision to keep Proposition 8 in place until until the appeals process plays out. But obviously, this is viewed as a great victory for those who oppose Proposition 8.
Kristen Perry, who was among those who challenged Proposition 8 in the federal court today, along with her son Spencer, said the following today:
Isn't it sad that a 17 year old boy recognizes something that 52% of his state cannot? Anyway, here is the response of the conservative "Christian" legal foundation Allied Defense Fund, who were the top vocal backers of Proposition 8 from the beginning:(Kristen)"Very soon, Proposition 8 will be gone forever. Today marks the culmination of what has been a transformational year." I have two children, both who are going to be attending college next year." (Spencer)I was raised in a home with a lot of love, but Proposition 8 has done a really, really good job of trying to tear that love apart."
There's still a long ways to go, especially if supporters of Proposition 8 plan on taking the appeal to the Supreme Court, but today is a huge victory for those who oppose it. I suppose it could be considered a dangerous precident for the court to take away something that was voted on by the people of the state. But in ruling that it violated the 14th Amendment, it seems the message being sent here is that it shouldn't have been on the ballot in the first place due to be being Unconstitutional. I agree with that ruling, as this should never have been put into the hands of the people in the first place.It is not surprising that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage -- tried in San Francisco -- turned out this way. But we're confident the Supreme Court would uphold "the expressed will of the American people. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people".
Thoughts on this?