Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[EarlG]

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the court said.

More: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Boom!

Smack down.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. Great news!

...unless you're a troglodyte, in which case, too bad.

[myrna minx]

3. Oh my god! Woohoo!

[cliffordu]

4. Excellent!!!!!

[xchrom]

5. YES!

[RKP5637]

6. K&R !!! K&R !!! K&R !!!

[Starry Messenger]

7. HELLS YES!!!

FUCKIN' A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Starry Messenger]

8. Dupe

[Pachamama]

9. Just broke out in applause!

Had friends who married and were fearful their marriages would not be upheld....

A great day in my opinion and a step in right direction....

[Roland99]

10. As well it should have been found!

[AtomicKitten]

11. Hoooooray!!

[coffeenap]

12. Yeeee Haaaawww!

Let's keep it rolling....

[Gregorian]

13. My first post when this all began was that it would be called unconstitutional.

What a carbon footprint of bullshit this was.

[onehandle]

14. Duh. I could have told them that. nt

[Hissyspit]

15. Reuters: California gay marriage ban unconstitutional: ruling

@RawStory: Breaking news: An appeals court has declared California's gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional. Developing...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/07/appeals-court-strikes-down-californias-same-sex-marriage-ban

Appeals court strikes down California’s same sex marriage ban

By Andrew Jones
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 13:08 EST

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday afternoon that a Proposition 8, California voter ban on same sex marriage, is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court was right to strike the law down.


@Reuters: FLASH: California's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, ruling says.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2E8D78UD20120207?irpc=932

California gay marriage ban unconstitutional: ruling
By Dan Levine and Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO | Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:05pm EST

By Dan Levine and Peter Henderson

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled that California's gay marriage ban violates the constitution on Tuesday in a case that is likely to lead to a showdown on the issue in the Supreme Court.

The decision was delivered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

- snip -

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable," 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, "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," Reinhardt wrote.

MORE

[sakabatou]

16. HUZZUH!

[Ian David]

17. Time to celebrate!

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Rules Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
http://www.noh8campaign.com/article/breaking-9th-circuit-court-rules-prop-8-unconstitutional

[highplainsdem]

18. Great news! LA Times link:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

-snip-

In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship. Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly gay, said after his ruling that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and partner wished to marry.

ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday's decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.

-snip-

[MineralMan]

19. Not posted yet on the Court's page.

Sounds like they handed out the decision to the media!

Huzzah!

[SoapBox]

20. wow...

Too bad we are far from done with this.

The Haters just won't give up and we have all those Activist Judges on the SCOTUS.

Hey Haters...You can't legislate the Gay Away!

[Kurska]

21. We're in the hands of Anthony Kennedy then.

He'll be the swing vote that decides this on the supreme court. He also authored the ruling that overturned bans of gay sex, hopefully he'll view this as a open and shut constitutional issue of discrimination like that was and seize the opportunity to cement his reputation as one of the most important men in the gay rights struggle.

[FunMe]

102. Love letter to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

As my friend pointed out, the lawyers making sure PropH8 was ruled unconstitutional wrote their part in a way so that Kennedy understood all the legal points necessary to throw PropH8 out.

[morningfog]

109. Considering his reasoneing in Romer v. Evans and the air tight

arguments put forth in Judge Walker's opinion, Kennedy should be ready to make history.

The only real arguments from the asshole bloc I can see are Scalia (with Thomas in pocket) saying marriage isn't in the Constitution and as such is not an actual right. And the Roberts/Alito twins saying it is a state's rights issue.

Each of those arguments were sufficiently neutered in Walker's opinion that they won't win over Kennedy.

[xxqqqzme]

22. At long last!

Seems like years since I attended the rally when the first decision was announced. LDS needs to get their noses out of California politics.


"...the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship...."

Refused to invalidate or didn't even address it? What the hell does Walker being gay have to do w/ anything?

[boppers]

97. LDS kind of started it.

It was the LDS being persecuted when it was decided that marriage was up for a popular vote.

Karma is kind of funny that way.

"What the hell does Walker being gay have to do w/ anything?"

About as much as Clarence Thomas being on Affirmative Action cases.

I love repeating that.

[LynneSin]

23. Prop 8 overturned and Karen Handel resigned from SGK

it's a good day today

[SoapBox]

26. Maybe the Warm and Loving Handel, can get a job at NOM!!!!

Why not...she seems to have more than enough Hate to get a job with them!

LOLOLOL

sorry, I made myself laugh.

[Pachamama]

28. A Great Day indeed!!!!

[racaulk]

59. I just said the same thing on Facebook.

Today has been a great day, indeed!

[YoungDemCA]

24. Awesome!

K&R.

[highplainsdem]

25. Links to the story at MSNBC, WP, and TPM:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/today-today_news/t/court-calif-ban-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/ninth_circuit_rules_prop_8_is_unconstitutional.php

[KamaAina]

27. Another court smackdown for the H8ers!

[AldebTX]

29. yeah!

[Firebrand Gary]

30. To the Mormon Church.......Buzz off

I hope you can still smell the 80 million dollars burned in 2008 on this one issue in California.

[KamaAina]

45. Mitt keeps that much in checking

10 percent of the income of 7 in 10 Utahns, to say nothing of substantial Mormon commmunites elsewhere (esp. ID, NV) makes them wealthy, powerful, and to be feared.

[Irishonly]

30. Great news!

Sanity won!

[Ikonoklast]

32. Here's hoping the opponents spend hundreds of millions more in a losing SC appeal.

Gay Rights are Human Rights, end of discussion.

[beyurslf]

33. On to the supreme court we go.... Come on Kennedy!

[mrs_p]

34. Love always conquers hate

[LadyHawkAZ]

35. Woohoo!

Congrats Ca.!

[OKNancy]

36. so happy, now everyone go to the source and tweet and rec for Facebook

I used to think it was icky and poo-pooed using social media, but since the Koman debacle, I really think expressing opinions on social media can be effective.

[Gregorian]

37. Well there goes the neighborhood. So much for that much desired monoculture of uptight ethics.

Thanks for the heart, whoever you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pinto]

38. Link to the ruling (128 page document) -

http://documents.latimes.com/proposition-8-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/

[cate94]

39. thank god

To be honest I'm stunned. I am stunned every time we gain a little ground.

And I wonder if my IL civil union will be considered a marriage in CA or if we have to get married there as well. (We have property in both states- and plan to retire to CA eventually.)

[Kurska]

44. At minimum a win in the SC would mean gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

But I highly doubt they would strike down's California's law without also ruling on the consituionality of doma. If DOMA dies then we've won fight.

[cate94]

58. no, that wasn't what I meant

Sorry, I was unclear. In IL if I had been married or CU'd elesewhere, I would be considered CU'd here. So I don't know if in CA my CU would be a marriage or if I need another license and ceremony- now that gay marriage is once again legal in CA.
I know we still need to knock out DOMA to get them recognized in every state. Someday maybe. We can hope.

[plantwomyn]

74. CA recognizes ALL civil unions AND marriages.

[cate94]

86. thanks !!

[jeff47]

111. No, it doesn't

The basis for the lawsuit against Prop 8 is that it takes away rights. Same-sex marriage was legal in CA, and then prop 8 made it illegal.

So a win at the Supreme Court would mean states couldn't take same-sex marriage away after it was legal. But it would not require other states to make "Gay Marriage" legal.

[CAPHAVOC]

40. Equal Protection Clause

I think that is the basis for this ruling. I agree. But if this goes to the SCOTUS and is upheld I wonder if it will set up a conflict with the Commerce Clause. The precedents in each clause seem to be opposing each other. Many laws do not follow the Equal Protection Clause.

[maddezmom]

41. Excellent news

[Lil Missy]

42. yeah baby!

[wryter2000]

43. Yeehah!

Our rector has been dying to marry a gay or lesbian couple. He's going to start bugging the former church secretary. Poor Theresa and Laura. He'll be on their case like nobody's business.

[truebrit71]

46. That is AWESOME!!!!

[rocktivity]

47. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!

It's may be narrow and limited, but it's a step in the right direction!


rocktivity

[MineralMan]

48. Link to the PDF of the ruling:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

The site's very busy, but keep trying. A very well-written, cogent ruling it is, too.

[Maven]

51. Alternate link to the ruling at the LATimes:

http://documents.latimes.com/proposition-8-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/

[MineralMan]

56. Cool! Their server will be able to handle it.

There are sites all over the place hosting it now.

[closeupready]

49. Excellent! K&R

[IDemo]

50. Hetero marriages inexplicably fail to collapse in flames n/t

[rhett o rick]

52. Wonderful news. Will this be appealed higher? nm

[Brother Buzz]

71. And risk losing a big fat national wedge issue?

[rhett o rick]

75. Great point. And we dont want it to go higher with this SCOTUS. Once they rule it is very hard to

undo.

[primavera]

77. I tremble to think what this court would do with such a case

They'd probably rule that gay people should be shot on sight.

[rhett o rick]

87. And include overruling Roe v Wade to boot. nm

[Bjorn Against]

89. It probably will go to the Supreme Court, but that might be a good thing

While Justice Kennedy is horrible on most issues, if you read the opinion he wrote for the majority in the Lawrence v. Texas case which struck down sodomy laws it is clear that he supports gay rights. I think chances are very good that he will side with us on this one, especially considering the precedent of Loving v. Virginia that bolsters our case.

[rhett o rick]

91. How would they make the decision to hear the case if it goes that far? nm

[Bjorn Against]

99. Four judges would have to agree that they want to hear the case

While at first I thought it was inevitable a case this big would be heard but now I am hearing some good arguments as to why the court may decline to hear this case. If they do decline to hear it that is in one big sense very good because it means gay marriage is then legal in California. If they do decide to hear it and we win that could mean it is legal across the nation, it is a gamble however because while our chances of winning are quite good it is almost certain to be a 5-4 vote either way and if we lose it would be a pretty big set back. Kennedy is the one who will decide it, the really good news however is that the lawyers arguing our case before the 9th circuit were smart and thought ahead. They argued the case using precedent from a decision on equal protection written by none other than Justice Kennedy meaning if he rules against us he would be ruling against his own opinion.

[rhett o rick]

100. The consequences of losing is too great for the risk in my opinion when the possibility

exists for a new member in the next four years. Thanks for the info.

[Bjorn Against]

104. Well it is really not our choice whether or not we take the risk

Our side won this battle so we will not be the ones appealing the decision, the opposition will be taking the risk and if the Supreme Court decides to take the case we will be fighting it whether we think it is the right time or not.

[rhett o rick]

105. I understand completely. I meant that with the risk, I hope it doesnt go at this time. nm

[jeff47]

112. It would not legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states

The basis for the lawsuit is that prop 8 made "gay marriage" illegal after it was legal. So a "win" at the supreme court would mean states could not make same-sex marriage illegal after they make it legal. But it would not make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

(Assuming the justices stay within the case, which they are likely to do)

Since CA is the only state where same-sex marriage rights were granted and then taken away, it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear an appeal - it only affects 1 state.

[DesertRat]

53. Awesome! n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

54. Love cannot be stopped! This is great news.

[frazzled]

55. High fives to the 9th Circuit.

And congratulations to California.

[suffragette]

57. Very good news, indeed!

[felix_numinous]

60. Great news

May Love Prevail

[Odin2005]

61. HUZZAH!!!

[Spazito]

62. In reading the decision, the Court makes their reasoning crystal clear...

and it is beautifully written. From page 4 of the decison:

"...all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right --- the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of 'marriage' which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. 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 and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort". Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620,633 (1996)."

Smack-down to the homophobes and rabid religious right!

[barbtries]

63. of course it's unconstitutional!

but it feels damn good to have a court acknowledge it.

[kpete]

64. xlnt xlnt

just joy joy joy
peace, kpete

[riderinthestorm]

65. Great, great news. It feels like the tide is turning on this.... nt

[grantcart]

66. Just in times for Valentines Day

[Lost-in-FL]

67. Great news, for a change! nt

[Myrina]

68. Kick and Rec !!!!

Ol' Fat Tony and his Konservative Krew better not fark this one up when it gets to SCOTUS, either.

[dhill926]

69. big ole K & R........

[msanthrope]

70. Excellent. nt

[Solly Mack]

72. K&R

Good.

[hunter]

73. My rainbow flag is still flying...

... let there be yet greater light!

[cal04]

76. Fantastic News!!!

LOVE RULES
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/proposition-8-california-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruling_n_1260171.html

[SoapBox]

78. NOM statement....Wow!!!

...man oh man...The HATE! Stunning! Not only for gay persons but they are RACIST TOO!

"National Organization for Marriage (NOM): “As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”

wow.

[Zenlitened]

79. Links to full text of appeals court ruling

Via New York Times, in DocumentCloud format:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/08/us/prop8-docs.html?ref=us

Via American Federation for Equality, downloadable PDF:
http://www.afer.org/legal-filings/ninth-circuit-decision-on-prop-8/

[William769]

80. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!

Now the real battle begins.

[happyslug]

81. Here is the actual Court Opinion

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. YAYY!!!! +1!!! K&R!!!!

[christx30]

83. <Insert random applause gif here>

Glad to hear it. Now to push it through on a federal level. The civil rights of a few people cannot be taken away by a majority vote.
Whether it's gay marriage, abortion, gun control, free speech.
Being in the land of the free means you have to be tolerant of other people exercising their freedom. If you don't want to lose your's, don't try to take away anyone else's.

**edited because spelling is not my friend today.**

[sabrina 1]

84. Great news. Thank you.

[Surya Gayatri]

85. Congrats to our LGBT brothers and sisters...

Judicious outcome to a hard-fought battle.


SG

[swimboy]

88. And the justices quoted Groucho Marx and Frank Sinatra in their decision

This decision is wonderful news.

On to the next round . . .

[mikeytherat]

107. That was all kinds of awesome!

Oh, and we did check out Portlandia the other day - Claire dating the guy with the Eddie Vedder tattoo. Recording episodes to the DVR now!

mikey_the_rat

[Politicub]

90. Yahooooo! Great news!

[Fearless]

92. I'm afraid to see how the SJC takes it...

Granted they are "usually" pro-free speech... Time will tell. Let's hope there's some turnover before the case gets to the court... at least one conservative judge needs to go.

[morningfog]

110. Kennedy was the deciding vote in Romer v. Evans, and wrote the opinion, I believe.

I think it looks good in the Supreme Court.

[awoke_in_2003]

93. A big K&R....

at least some people want to try to bring us (with some dumbass people kicking and screaming) into the 21st century.

on edit: changed "bit" to "big"

[cstanleytech]

94. The dissenting judge should be ashamed imo.

Its only intent was to create 2nd class citizenship for specific people and that clearly is a violation of the constitution.

[Skittles]

95. WOOT!!!

[Smilo]

96. I is smiling from ear to ear - one step closer for true equality for ALL Americans.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

98. I will be cautious on this one.

There is one HUGE hurdle left, SCOTUS.

[Marrah_G]

101. FANTASTIC

[roberto IS beto]

103. Dick Santorum has to hate this!

According to Dick Santorum, if gay people are allowed to marry, then women will want to marry their Great Danes (and I ain't talking Beowulf). As for me, I want to marry a corporation!

[SHRED]

106. The legal marriage occurs in the Courthouse...

...and does NOT originate, nor is legally sanctioned by or from any religion.

That is the rub in my opinion.

Trying to get through to people who don't even understand what a legally recognized marriage is.
They want to throw in their personal religious beliefs and that muddies the debate.
We are surrounded by ignorant fools.

[mikeytherat]

108. A point I make all the time!

I don't need "God" to get married, but I cannot get married without the State.

mikey_the_rat

[jeff47]

113. That actually mirrors what happens with opposite-sex couples

My wife and I could not have been married in most churches, because we're atheists. Most churches will not marry people who are not part of their faith.

Yet most people against same-sex marriage pretend that situation doesn't occur. That making same-sex marriage legal at the courthouse would require it to be legal in a church. Since that's already not the case with opposite-sex couples, it's a stupid argument only designed to rile up the base.

[Hosnon]

114. Exactly. If I hear "marriage is a religious term" one more time,

I'm gonna hit someone.