Appeals Court rejects Proposition 8

[LSN80]

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:

"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:

(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."

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:

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".

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.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker]

I find it appalling how gay marriage is still an issue. Just let them get married already. If two gay people decide to get married it doesn't affect our government it doesn't affect me and it doesn't affect anyone else here. What's the big deal they are not hurting anyone? Who does our government think they are anyway saying who can get married and who can't? You can't put a law on love. You can't hold someone back if they has feelings of love. If two men or two women truly love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together then they should have every right to get married. Then you have these religious nuts who say gay marriage is wrong what happened to all people are equal those religious nuts are the biggest hypocrites on the planet the bible says a lot of things like you shouldn't do like wear 2 different types of fabric, but we see none of them following that rule. It's sad how some people today don't understand love. I think that this whole nonsense against same sex marriage helps cause people to make fun of kids for being gay then the kid ends up killing themselves. If we lived in a world where people actually accepted people for being different and gays could get married just maybe those kids would still be alive. Gays will be able to get legally married one day and one day there will actually be freedom in America.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I don't understand how gay marriage is an issue. Well, yea I do, I see ******ed sheep Christians (not all Christians are like this, I specifically put those abjectives there to descrive the kind of "Christian" they are) like to think that marriage is exclusively a religious event.

There is no evidence that gays are worse people, that being gay is a choice, or that gay parents raise children any worse. The "evidence" there is usually comes from people with an agenda and it's usually like "in this ONE instance this happened..." Plus the part of the bible about gay marriage was pulled from a letter one of the desciples wrote to local government (maybe Paul?) who was simply saying that it was wrong to have sex when you don't love the person. Back then it was commonplace for men to be openly bisexual. Most Christians don't believe this and will say stupid shit like "it's a fad" but if you talk to anyone who is actually educated and can read Hebrew, they'll tell you what I said.

It's really sickening. 60 years ago, it was fairly common to be racist, now we look back and think "how could you have been such an awful person?". In 20 years, hopefully much sooner, we'll look at people now and think the same thing.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a job killer. Weddings are big money, divorces are bigger money. I've been married for four-plus years and any time I look at the desert wasteland that is my bank account it reminds me that I paid for a wedding, honeymoon and now kids. Weddings and divorces provide income and jobs for the lawyers, food preparers/servers, DJs, clothiers, the state and local gov'ts, officiants, banquet halls etc.

So if you are against gay marriage then you are against jobs. If you are against jobs then you are against the American economy. If you are against the American economy then you are against America. If you are against America than our military must blow you up before you blow us up (or blow Israel up, I can never remember).

But don't worry Prop 8 (majority rules as long as it rules in our favor) fans, you have the Westboro Baptist Church on your side. They're a fun group to have at the X-Mas party.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Weddings are big money, divorces are bigger money.

Never thought of it that way. Now, if same-sex marriage opponents see the United Caterers Association and the American Bar Association come out in favor of gay marriage, I'll understand why they're claiming it's strictly a case of self-interest.

As another poster in this topic says, who is getting hurt if two people of the same sex want to get married? How is your life being affected by it? Why should you give a damn, one way or the other? On one hand, I can't believe so many people would take the time to campaign and vote against it. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me at all, given the number of folks who feel competent to tell us "that God doesn't want it." It's the damn abortion argument all over again, isn't it?

If people of the same sex want to get married, let 'em. If I'm blinded by rage because they now have the advantage of filing joint tax returns, hopefully I'll be able to get over it and find better things to do with my time.

 

[Larry]

Wow, so there's really no sense in anyone having an opposing opinion here huh? If you oppose gay marriage this short thread alone provides all kinds of slanderous labels that CLEARLY apply to you for taking a stance against it. What an open conversation. Everyone is completely closed to even listening or considering anything people have to say against it. You've got your hateful anti-christian arguments ready to go, homophobe labels ready to be slapped on, insults to peoples intelligence waiting in the wings, and a complete disregard for the other side of the argument strapped across your chests like badges of honor. But you're reasonable people.

I say tough noogies. It was put to a vote for the people to decide and the people spoke. Now, because you've found some loophole you want to deem it unconstitutional and throw a tantrum until you get your way. Typical. Don't let democracy decide it, don't let the people actually vote on something and therein allow the laws to reflect the will of the people, ya know, the fairest thing we could do. You want to force people to change their laws and ultimately change their values to accept what the majority has deemed unacceptable and rightfully so. Just because you lack the acumen in understanding as to what is wrong with homosexuality in general or the morals and values that make it clear to THE MAJORITY regardless of how many ways on any number of levels it is explained, doesn't mean that other people should have to accept it. It was put to a vote, fair and square, and the pro-gay crowd lost.

Too bad so sad, move to some European country where they don't care what people do, how they conduct themselves, or how it impacts the moral decay of their society and traditions thousands of years old. Here in America, despite how socially and morally acceptable MTV, Hollywood, and other media and pop culture sources try to sell it as being, it is neither. The American people are the ones who decide the values of the nation, not judges in courts. You want to intimidate people and slander them for defending the institution of marriage, but we will not be intimidated. This is not like the "Civil Rights Movement" okay. There is a big difference between an inescapable fact of race and same-sex marriage.

Now, with all that said I would not oppose the idea of "civil unions" not defined as marriage but with the same luxuries married couple receive such as joint tax filing, adoption, hospital visitation rights, or the right to have a wedding ceremony for that matter. You can have all the same rights, but marriage should not be re-defined to accommodate that. That is fair, non-discriminatory as it does allow the same rights and privileges under the law, and appeases the crowd who also wants to defend the definition and institution of marriage. I think that is a happy medium that we should all be able to agree on, and if you don't want to agree with it as a pro-gay person, you are the one being unreasonable and halting your own progress.

What you need to understand is that homosexuality is wrong on many levels to the majority of the nation. No matter how many people face to face will say "Yeah I'm okay with that" or how many of you are willing to type how vehemently you support it, in 31 of 31 cases where it's been voted on, when people got to the privacy of a voting booth they were against it. It is disrespectful of people to try and redefine the institution of marriage, just as it is also disrespectful to disallow homosexuals the same rights and privileges as married couples under the law, so there is a degree of respect to be observed there as well. You aren't going to get anywhere though by trying to do something that in the eyes of the majority of the nation is a destruction of an ancient institution, you have to be willing to compromise too. You can't just disregard the long held values and beliefs of the nation to receive what you deem as equal rights. On the other hand I do believe that if you are to have a fair and just society, homosexuals as well as heterosexuals should be able to be with the partner of their choosing in a serious relationship equivalent to marriage despite peoples disapproval of homosexuality in general. That's just fair, but so is leaving marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I guess it is up to the Supreme Court to decide but ultimately whether someone votes for or against same sex marriage it is a violation of the 14th Amendment. So basically if you are violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amedment that protects people regardless of sex or sexual orientation, then there shouldn't be a vote to begin with.

No one is changing the holy union of marriage between a Man and Woman. Men and Women can still get married in California or anywhere for that matter. In some states two people of the same sex can get married. I really am having a hard time understanding why anyone of any background would be opposed for two adult human beings wanting to be married. I understand the differences in religion but there is also Seperation of Church and State that people seem to be forgetting.

Two people marrying of the same sex of another state isn't infringing on anyone's beliefs or freedom to practice religion. This is the new civil rights of our era because gays and lesbians are discriminated against just like African Americans were. You would think in American of all places you wouldn't be discriminated against despite your race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

[LSN80]

You've got your hateful anti-christian arguments ready to go, homophobe labels ready to be slapped on, insults to peoples intelligence waiting in the wings, and a complete disregard for the other side of the argument strapped across your chests like badges of honor. But you're reasonable people.

I'm a Christian, and I take my faith fairly seriously. No insults here, just opinion. Mine? I think you post stuff like this just to incite people.

I say tough noogies. It was put to a vote for the people to decide and the people spoke.

It should never have come to a vote. Something that violates the 14th Amendment shouldn't be decided by the people.

Now, because you've found some loophole you want to deem it unconstitutional and throw a tantrum until you get your way.

As stated above, that loophole you speak of happens to be the 14th Amendment. But let's forget about that and let the people overrule the Constitution. Sounds right.

You want to force people to change their laws and ultimately change their values to accept what the majority has deemed unacceptable and rightfully so.

The majority of the people in this country don't smoke. So if it was put to a vote in your state, and people decided smoking was illegal, you'ld be ok with that? Hey it's what they voted on, right?

I could give more exaggerated examples, but my point stands. In fact, smoking is far more dangerous to this country then same-sex marriage could ever be. I'd much rather see that brought to a vote.

Just because you lack the acumen in understanding as to what is wrong with homosexuality in general or the morals and values that make it clear to THE MAJORITY regardless of how many ways on any number of levels it is explained, doesn't mean that other people should have to accept it. It was put to a vote, fair and square, and the pro-gay crowd lost.

The people who lack the acumen in understanding homosexuality fail to grasp that most scientific evidence points to homosexuality as being a nature trait, not a nurture one. In other words, not a choice. Do you truly think people would choose to have their sexuality ridiculed, brought up to debate constantly, and be refused benefits and insurance for their partner? Makes sense for those people "living in sin."

Too bad so sad, move to some European country where they don't care what people do, how they conduct themselves, or how it impacts the moral decay of their society and traditions thousands of years old.

How exactly is falling in love with someone and wanting to spend your life with them part of the moral decay of our society? I.....have no words here.

There is a big difference between an inescapable fact of race and same-sex marriage.

Not really. If you make the rights of one illegal because of who they are, you're discriminating. It's that simple.

Now, with all that said I would not oppose the idea of "civil unions" not defined as marriage but with the same luxuries married couple receive such as joint tax filing, adoption, hospital visitation rights, or the right to have a wedding ceremony for that matter. You can have all the same rights, but marriage should not be re-defined to accommodate that.

Again, words fail me here. So you have no problem with them getting all the rights of male and female marriages, but you want to deny them a...piece of paper?

That is fair, non-discriminatory as it does allow the same rights and privileges under the law, and appeases the crowd who also wants to defend the definition and institution of marriage. I think that is a happy medium that we should all be able to agree on, and if you don't want to agree with it as a pro-gay person, you are the one being unreasonable and halting your own progress.

It's not reasonable. You're not giving homosexual couples the same rights as you are others, you're denying them the right to be married. You can throw all the fluff in there that you like about rights and allowances but the fact remains, you're still putting them in lower standing then "traditional couples" because you're denying them the right to marry. When you give different groups different rights, it's discrimination.

What you need to understand is that homosexuality is wrong on many levels to the majority of the nation. No matter how many people face to face will say "Yeah I'm okay with that" or how many of you are willing to type how vehemently you support it, in 31 of 31 cases where it's been voted on, when people got to the privacy of a voting booth they were against it.

All this shows is that people discriminate much more in secret than they would ever admit in public. That, and they fail to grasp the 14th Amendment, which was put into place before all this voting took place.

It is disrespectful of people to try and redefine the institution of marriage, just as it is also disrespectful to disallow homosexuals the same rights and privileges as married couples under the law, so there is a degree of respect to be observed there as well.

Unless you're looking at Old Testament law, in which case you're really fishing, noone is re-defining the institution of marriage. All you're suggesting is denying them a piece of paper, but giving them the rest of the luxuries married couples enjoy. How is that not you attempting to re-define the institution of marriage?

Society evolves. And to the harm of noone, people in love wish to be married. It shouldn't matter what sexual orientation they are.

You aren't going to get anywhere though by trying to do something that in the eyes of the majority of the nation is a destruction of an ancient institution, you have to be willing to compromise too.

They are compromising. In fact, if you read my thread fully, you would see that they kept Proposition 8 in place to allow for those opposed to finish their litigation against the ruling. So people who wish to marry and be allowed the rights afforded male/female marriages aren't afforded that luxury, yet.

You can't just disregard the long held values and beliefs of the nation to receive what you deem as equal rights.

Your ideas, values, and beliefs may differ from mine. Often times, there's no right answer. In this case, the tie-breaker goes to the Constitution, specifically, the 14th Amendment.

On the other hand I do believe that if you are to have a fair and just society, homosexuals as well as heterosexuals should be able to be with the partner of their choosing in a serious relationship equivalent to marriage despite peoples disapproval of homosexuality in general. That's just fair, but so is leaving marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Again, this is ludicrous. This is opposing religious values on law, which shouldn't happen in this day and age, especially when you have Constitutional amendments that decry people should be allowed equal rights. This ruling Tuesday recognizes this. You're simply worried about a piece of paper, and its meaning.

I'm married, and I value that piece of paper very much. Which is part of why I don't want to see anyone who desires to hold that paper and treasure the sanctity if it, regardless of orientation, be denied that right.

As long as the Federal government only recognizes heterosexual marriages, any claim that homosexual marriage bans are unconstitutional using the US Constitution as a basis is quite a reach. They may be unconstitutional according to each state's Constitution, at the state level, but cannot be unconstitutional per the US Constitution. It is entirely possible that the ban violates California's state Constitution, but it does not violate the US Constitution...at least no more than the Federal government itself violates it. (that is entirely different argument)

I apologize if I wasn't more clear. In 1954, the California state Constitution was ratified, which changed the law surrounding it. So Proposition 8, and Proposition 22 before it, violated the state's Constitution, not the Federal one. My apologies here if I wasn't clear.

 

[Davi323]

Just a simple question:

How is it unconstitutional for a state to declare marriages are only recognized as that between a man and a woman, but not for the US Government to do the same? Isn't it the policy of the Federal government to only recognize heterosexual marriages? As long as it is legal for the Federal government to only recognize heterosexual marriages, it CANNOT truly be unconstitutional at the Federal level for states to do the same. IE, the California Appeals court improperly used the 14th Amendment as it's basis for decision.

As long as the Federal government only recognizes heterosexual marriages, any claim that homosexual marriage bans are unconstitutional using the US Constitution as a basis is quite a reach. They may be unconstitutional according to each state's Constitution, at the state level, but cannot be unconstitutional per the US Constitution. It is entirely possible that the ban violates California's state Constitution, but it does not violate the US Constitution...at least no more than the Federal government itself violates it. (that is entirely different argument)

NOTE before some of you get your panties into a bunch: I am NOT defending the ban, I am simply pointing out the obvious inconsistencies with a state court declaring it unconstitutional while the Federal government does the exact same thing perfectly legally.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Wow, so there's really no sense in anyone having an opposing opinion here huh? If you oppose gay marriage this short thread alone provides all kinds of slanderous labels that CLEARLY apply to you for taking a stance against it. What an open conversation. Everyone is completely closed to even listening or considering anything people have to say against it. You've got your hateful anti-christian arguments ready to go, homophobe labels ready to be slapped on, insults to peoples intelligence waiting in the wings, and a complete disregard for the other side of the argument strapped across your chests like badges of honor. But you're reasonable people.

TWJC said ******ed sheep Christians, which I think is unnecessary, but other than that I don't see what you're referring to. There's a few responses in this thread, and they're saying they don't see what the problem is and they disagree with the anti-gay marriage position, how is that closing the argument off to others? I openly welcome any other people to post in topics with a differing opinion, go right ahead, nothing is fun about jerking eachother off about how right we are.

You seem to think that just because people have voiced an opinion in oppositition to yours that they're saying you have no right to your opinion. I haven't even read the rest of your post, but I assume it's for anti-gay marriage campaigns. You can have that opinion, and my opinion is I think you're wrong and I'll explain why I think that is, and then if you want to try to convince me why you're right, I'll listen and respond to that, what can be more fair than that?

I say tough noogies. It was put to a vote for the people to decide and the people spoke. Now, because you've found some loophole you want to deem it unconstitutional and throw a tantrum until you get your way. Typical. Don't let democracy decide it, don't let the people actually vote on something and therein allow the laws to reflect the will of the people, ya know, the fairest thing we could do. You want to force people to change their laws and ultimately change their values to accept what the majority has deemed unacceptable and rightfully so. Just because you lack the acumen in understanding as to what is wrong with homosexuality in general or the morals and values that make it clear to THE MAJORITY regardless of how many ways on any number of levels it is explained, doesn't mean that other people should have to accept it. It was put to a vote, fair and square, and the pro-gay crowd lost.

Your first point is that because a majority feels a certain way, that's the way it should be done. What if the majority of the country felt that Blacks should have their own swimming pools and water fountains again, is that acceptable because the majority wants it? Majority rule isn't the be all, end all of deciding things, especially if it infringes upon rights or discriminates against some of the population.

Explain to me the acumen of why gay marriage is wrong - I would love to hear what it is that I don't understand. Please explain.

Too bad so sad, move to some European country where they don't care what people do, how they conduct themselves, or how it impacts the moral decay of their society and traditions thousands of years old. Here in America, despite how socially and morally acceptable MTV, Hollywood, and other media and pop culture sources try to sell it as being, it is neither. The American people are the ones who decide the values of the nation, not judges in courts. You want to intimidate people and slander them for defending the institution of marriage, but we will not be intimidated. This is not like the "Civil Rights Movement" okay. There is a big difference between an inescapable fact of race and same-sex marriage.

What's the difference between the discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual preference? What's the big difference?

Now, with all that said I would not oppose the idea of "civil unions" not defined as marriage but with the same luxuries married couple receive such as joint tax filing, adoption, hospital visitation rights, or the right to have a wedding ceremony for that matter. You can have all the same rights, but marriage should not be re-defined to accommodate that. That is fair, non-discriminatory as it does allow the same rights and privileges under the law, and appeases the crowd who also wants to defend the definition and institution of marriage. I think that is a happy medium that we should all be able to agree on, and if you don't want to agree with it as a pro-gay person, you are the one being unreasonable and halting your own progress.

It is discriminatory. "Look, everyone can marry people, except you people, you can have civil marriages, but we won't call what you people have a 'marriage'" That's exactly what discrimination is, your making a distinction based on sexual preference, call it what it is dude.

What you need to understand is that homosexuality is wrong on many levels to the majority of the nation. No matter how many people face to face will say "Yeah I'm okay with that" or how many of you are willing to type how vehemently you support it, in 31 of 31 cases where it's been voted on, when people got to the privacy of a voting booth they were against it. It is disrespectful of people to try and redefine the institution of marriage, just as it is also disrespectful to disallow homosexuals the same rights and privileges as married couples under the law, so there is a degree of respect to be observed there as well.

How is gay marriage disrespecting marriage? You say that and then you just leave it at that, as if it's self-explanatory. You're making the charge that gay people having a union called marriage is disrespectful to a man-and-woman marriage - how? In what way?

You aren't going to get anywhere though by trying to do something that in the eyes of the majority of the nation is a destruction of an ancient institution, you have to be willing to compromise too. You can't just disregard the long held values and beliefs of the nation to receive what you deem as equal rights. On the other hand I do believe that if you are to have a fair and just society, homosexuals as well as heterosexuals should be able to be with the partner of their choosing in a serious relationship equivalent to marriage despite peoples disapproval of homosexuality in general. That's just fair, but so is leaving marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Shit is changed all the time man. Laws are changed, and the constitution has been amended plenty of times. You know what was also a tradition, women not being able to vote, but they changed that. You talk about the destruction of marriage, the destruction of tradition with no actual input as to why that is the case, and why changing tradition is bad. Traditionally marriage is between a man and a woman, we want to change that to between two persons, that's changing tradition - why is that bad? Why does that fuck up marriage?