Thread: Federal Appeals Court Holds Prop 8 Unconstitutional

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ca-gay-m...175942895.html

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

A three-judge panel of the 9th 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.

Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for two couples who sued to overturn the ban have said they would appeal to the Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.

Look at that, federal appeals court rules the prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional.

Looks like this is heading to the supreme court.

This is it people, this is the case we have been waiting for all these years. This has the very real possibility of being the case that changes same sex marriage laws on the federal level.

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ca-gay-m...175942895.html

Look at that, federal appeals court rules the prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional.

Looks like this is heading to the supreme court.

This is it people, this is the case we have been waiting for all these years. This has the very real possibility of being the case that changes same sex marriage laws on the federal level.

Of course!

(Someone, please let dixon know.)

BUWHAHAHAHAHHA!

Beat me to it, I was about to post the same story.

Great news.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

BUWHAHAHAHAHHA!

Beat me to it, I was about to post the same story.

I was anxiously awaiting the AFER update on the case.

Yahoo posted the story before I got the update email. Gotta say I was and am extremely pleased with it.

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ca-gay-m...175942895.html



Look at that, federal appeals court rules the prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional.

Looks like this is heading to the supreme court.

This is it people, this is the case we have been waiting for all these years. This has the very real possibility of being the case that changes same sex marriage laws on the federal level.

Not so much. It's a very narrow ruling that completely avoided the larger question of whether same-sex couples have an equal right to marriage recognition. The justices relied heavily on the initial California Supreme Court decision and Romer v. Evans.

With such a narrow ruling, and one that only applies to California, it's unlikely the Supreme Court will see any question federal of law left for them to answer in relation to this case.

The DOMA cases are the better ones for us at this time. We need to overturn the state constitutional amendments - probably state by state - to get marriage equality nationwide.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

Not so much. It's a very narrow ruling that completely avoided the larger question of whether same-sex couples have an equal right to marriage recognition. The justices relied heavily on the initial California Supreme Court decision and Romer v. Evans.

With such a narrow ruling, and one that only applies to California, it's unlikely the Supreme Court will see any question federal of law left for them to answer in relation to this case.

The DOMA cases are the better ones for us at this time. We need to overturn the state constitutional amendments - probably state by state - to get marriage equality nationwide.

It is purposely narrow to give it the best chance of succeeding in the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by DevilMay

It is purposely narrow to give it the best chance of succeeding in the Supreme Court.

I can't help but feel you might be missing the point? Success in terms of the 9th Circuit's ruling would mean having the Supreme Court deciding not to hear an appeal by the proponents of Prop 8. That refusal would allow the 9th's ruling to stand, and would restore access to legal marriage for same-sex couples in California.

If you mean succeed as in the Supreme Court using proponents' appeal as an opportunity to broaden the effect of the 9th's ruling by extending it to all states, then I'd have to opine that you're dreaming. That could garner valid complaints about 'activist judges' and 'legislating from the bench'.

The bottom line is that the courts almost always seek the narrowest ruling possible in order to avoid the unforeseen consequences of making an overly broad interpretation of the law. It's why the 9th ruled as it did, and why SCOTUS won't use this as an opportunity to settle the marriage question for all 50 states in one sweeping ruling. They're going to try to avoid that quagmire for as long as they possibly can - at least until a majority of the states already have marriage equality.

To DevilMay - let me address one more thing. Your original statement was:

This has the very real possibility of being the case that changes same sex marriage laws on the federal level.

This case is about state law, not federal law. It won't have any direct effect on the federal DOMA, for instance. The power to regulate marriage isn't one reserved to the federal government by the Constitution. That makes it a power belonging to the states, or to The People. This is what's at the heart of the cases targeting section 3 of DOMA.

Getting rid of that part of DOMA won't create recognition of marriage in all 50 states. It would only potentially force the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages that have the force of state creation & recognition already in their corner.

Now compare that to Prop 8. It's not actually about federal treatment of marriage. It's also not a case that challenges the ability of states to enact bans on legal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages.

The Prop 8 case has a unique set of facts. These facts render it a case challenging a state's power of removing legal recognition from one class of people, absent any compelling government interest or legitimate purpose. As such, it can't be applied to other states without getting into the question of whether same-sex couples have a right to legal recognition of their marriages. The 9th didn't go there, presumably because they knew that such a broad interpretation of the law would not be sustained by the SCOTUS.

So I have to respectfully disagree. This case doesn't present us with an opportunity to change laws prohibiting same-sex marriage recognition on the federal level. It won't change DOMA. It won't change the law in states other than California. The only thing that makes this a federal case is the issue of whether California's enactment of Prop 8 violated the 14th amendment. IF SCOTUS takes this case, we could see that examined - but NOT in broad application to other states, and not under strict scrutiny. They'll instead deal with whether or not the 9th circuit was correct to apply a heightened level of scrutiny against the facts unique to California.

This simply isn't a case that will give us equal marriage recognition in every state or by the federal government. The facts of the case don't lend themselves to that.

One last thought on this notion that the court has ignored the will of The People:

From a legal standpoint, this becomes a matter of which is greater - the will of the voters in California, or the will of the people of the United States. Here's where I remind you that the latter group adopted a Constitution and its amendments - supreme laws whose application could very well end up thwarting the will of one state's people - a will that seems focused on using the law to express disapproval, rather that enacting a sound law with a legitimate purpose.

So the idea that the court's are ignoring the will of The People is utter nonsense. They are in fact expressing the will of The People through their interpretation of laws The People adopted and accepted.

A referendum is not sacred and untouchable, merely because people voted for it. If their actions pit one expression of the people's will against another such expression of that will, a conflict is created that must be resolved through the careful interpretation of the law - something that is the purview of the courts - a system that is also an expression of the people's will through their adoption of the Constitution and its establishment of the judicial branch of government.

You may not like the court's interpretation of the law. I certainly often don't. But it's the system we have, the system we adopted for ourselves.