Create Account

Username
Password
Remember me
Email
 
57
evolution
evolution

Court Rules Prop 8 Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional

55 comments, 391 views, posted 6:20 pm 07/02/2012 in Politics by evolution
evolution has 4874 posts, 1881 threads, 4748 points
Team Van Helsing

Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules
February 7, 2012 | Maura Dolan in San Francisco

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.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

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.

Gays and lesbians were entitled to marry in California for six months after the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban in May 2008. The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment of the California Constitution.

While the Proposition 8 case was still pending in state court, two same-sex couples sued in federal court to challenge the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

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

Extra Points Given by:

thecrookedman (25), Edorph (10), Rosie (10), bytehead (5), HariSeldon (5)

Comments

0
11:12 pm 08/02/2012

backroom

Quote by Quaektem:
Do you think their should be, or should I have the freedom to work for who I want to?


You already do.
You work for your employer. He works for his clients.

Quote by Quaektem:
And if I were self employed there would be no repercussion.


Not if you do not count losing your livelihood and source of income as a repercussion. Actually being self employed would expand your liability in a matter like that. There would not be another party to go after... you would be targeted individually.
(finally a source for the paranoia)

Don't believe me?
Go out there and give it a try.
We will be here waiting your responce when the litigation is over in 2024.

0
12:03 am 09/02/2012

Quaektem

Something tells me that telling the KKK to f*ck off will enhance my business... I may just be underestimating all the closet racists out there though.

I have to wonder, what would be the basis for the suit be and what judge would not dismiss it out of hand.

Person K: "I want you to do X". Me: "Not interested." Person K: "I am going to sue you!"

0
12:20 am 09/02/2012

backroom


Of course you mean a liberal judge.

0
3:10 am 09/02/2012

bytehead

Quote by Quaektem:
Do I think they should? No. Do I think they should be allowed to? Yes.

When was the last time you heard anybody doing so? It seems rather ridiculous in today's time doesn't it?

Quote:

It is not up to me to dictate what another man must do to abide my sensibilities as long as he is not harming another.

But isn't he harming somebody in doing so?

0
3:25 am 09/02/2012

Quaektem

Quote by bytehead:
When was the last time you heard anybody doing so? It seems rather ridiculous in today's time doesn't it?



Sure, it does. But there are ridiculous people out there and they are afforded the same rights as everyone else.

Quote by bytehead:
But isn't he harming somebody in doing so?

No. As has been pointed out there are other options available. There are always other options. This isn't a doctor refusing emergency care to a black man or a government agency denying Mormons social services. This is an individual or an private group/business/organization that is making a decision not to do something they object to.

The difference is action vs. inaction. If I choose to do something to you without your consent that is wrong. If I choose not to do something you want me to do, nothing should force me to do so (taxes, laws, etc. aside of course).

For example, I do not believe the government should have the authority to forcefully evacuate you from your home... of course if you don't go after due notice they should have no obligation to rescue your stupid ass.

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!


Teh NookMayrHayasdanJaranWebAngryShirtsGoneGeekEat Liver