AP
OneNewsNow.com

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court has declared California's same-sex "marriage" ban unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of "gays" and lesbians. The measure, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008, outlawed same-sex unions just five months after they became legal in the state.

It was unclear when "gay marriages" might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit.

"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.

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

Reaction from Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute:

"This Ninth Circuit ruling is a serious disappointment," the PJI president tells OneNewsNow. "It is a misinterpretation of the United States Constitution. There's not a signer of the United States Constitution who would have expected this or agreed with this type of decision."

"The Ninth Circuit ... has basically declared that the United States Constitution mandates that homosexuals be allowed to marry, and that the historic definition of marriage limited to one man and one woman is somehow now invalid."

"... Without question, the U.S. Supreme Court will be divided on this issue. We at the Pacific Justice Institute are hoping that we have the five votes. We're somewhat optimistic that those five votes are presently there."
Reaction from Kelly Shackelford, president of Liberty Institute:

"Twice, over a period of eight years, the people of California have voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. The Ninth Circuit now asserts -- paternalistically -- the three judges hearing this case know what is better for California than do the people of California."



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 a homosexual and in a long-term relationship with another man.

The ruling came more than a year after the appeals court heard arguments in the case.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the Ninth Circuit to set aside 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.

Walker publicly revealed he was homosexual after he retired. However, supporters of the same-gender marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner -- like the couples who sued to overturn the ban.

Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in northern California, James Ware, rejected those claims, and the Ninth Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent 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.



Court rules against Prop. 8 (OneNewsNow.com)