Thread: Court rules against California Prop. 8, likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown

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)

If The Obama Bureau is re elected the rest of the courts in this country will be a mirror image of the 9th Circus Court on CA. JMO

Washington state approves gay marriage

Published February 08, 2012
Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.

The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. The state Senate approved the measure last week. And Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign the measure into law next week.

However, gay couples can't begin walking down the aisle just yet.

The proposal would take effect 90 days after the governor signs, but opponents have promised to fight gay marriage with a ballot measure that would allow voters to overturn the legislative approval.

If opponents gather enough signatures to take their fight to the ballot box, the law would be put on hold pending the outcome of a November election.

Otherwise gay couples could wed starting in June.

Washington state has had domestic partnership laws since 2007, and more than a dozen other states have provisions, ranging from civil unions to gay marriage, supporting same-sex couples.

Gay marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C.

Lawmakers in New Jersey are expected to vote on gay marriage next week, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot.

Proposed amendments to ban gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina in May and in Minnesota in November.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled against California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

The three-judge panel gave gay marriage opponents time to appeal the 2-1 decision before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume. The judges also said the decision only applies to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states.

Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 said they have not decided if they will seek a new 9th Circuit hearing or file an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washington state's momentum for same-sex marriage has been building and the debate has changed significantly since 1998, when lawmakers passed Washington's Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage. The constitutionality of that law ultimately was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006. But earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after nearly 30 years of failure, signaling a change in the Legislature.

The quick progression of domestic partnership laws in the state came soon after, with a domestic partnership law in 2007, and two years of expansion that culminated in 2009 with "everything but marriage" expansion that was upheld by voters.

In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples, without calling the unions "marriage."

If a challenge to gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote to uphold the law. And 38 percent said they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

The gay marriage bill also has the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft, Nike and Starbucks.

Washington State Approves Gay Marriage | Fox News