Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
No surprises here:
California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, according to a ruling announced Tuesday by an appeals court.
The long-awaited ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court is likely to lead to more appeals, and marriages probably will remain on hold until that process ends.
The case was pending for months because the court wanted a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing under the state’s citizen’s initiative process to appeal the ruling.
Here’s the decision:
What’s next? Appeals and more appeals:
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.
***
Tweet of the day: @arizonashane “Given the opportunity, the 9th Circus would strike down the Constitution as unconstitutional.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Bigoted anti-bigots: How the gay-marriage mob slimed Manny Pacquiao
May 18, 2012 08:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
116 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
FIFY
Regardless of if I agree or disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, I cannot fault the Federal Appeals court decision here.
The folks arguing in favor of Prop 8 laid out their case exceedingly poorly, and truly DID fail to provide an adequate reason why this particular subset of people should be treated differently than others. It was the same sort of failure that lost them the case in the lower circuit court, and unless they change tactics, will be the same thing that loses them the case in the Supreme Court appeal. Right or wrong, you still have to prove your case in court.
Umm, maybe because this “intrusion” is only in your imagination? Prop 8 does absolutely nothing to tell you what you can and can’t do in your bedroom or with whom.
I can. I hope it is overturned.
You speak as though courts are constrained in their rulings by the quality of the litigants. They are not. If Congress passes a law prohibiting criticism of Obama, and I’m the one who has to argue the case before the court, and I’m so incompetent in my presentation that I try to argue that the First Amendment protects even a direct incitement to riot, that would not stop the court from being able to recognize the obvious fact that the law is unconstitutional regardless of how badly I botch the challenge.
And yes, there is precedent for this.
Fantastic news!
Common Sense is not very common though is it? Especially, not among those in the government who claim to represent us.
My views here lean towards the Libertarian. The question here is not so much about gay marriage as it is about government intrusion and control. If marriage is in fact a religious institute given to man or commanded upon man by God, than it has become a religious matter and if it is something that the individual in their church and in their faith can reconcile with (their) god or God, than so be it. If the state has recognized the religion, it should recognize the religious institutions.
However, these Independent but United States of America are, to a limited degree at least, a collection of democracies and as such, the people either have a right (and a responsibility) to decide how they will be ruled or they must submit wholly to whatever the government decides. The government has apparently made that decision for us now and we are somehow or another all supposed to believe it and just roll over like good little boys and girls while the government overturns the will of the people and decrees that we can and cannot do in front of or behind closed doors.
The ONLY government intrusion into the bedroom has come from leftist policies.
Huh?
If you do not believe it, check the RFID on your new thermostat in your new home in Cali and see whether or not the government has the ability to regulate how much energy you consume in your home. (not that they would ever use such excessive power of course … SNARF)) Go out to WalMart and buy an incandescent bulb and tell me that the government is not inside your homes already!?
If you come over to my home as a guest, I could care not what you do in the bedroom provided for you provided that you do not do any physical damage to my property. However, I do not care if you have a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, you start boinking them on the kitchen table and telling me it is normal and we are going to have issues. (Folsom Street Fair anyone?)
Government should not be able to regulate what I can do what within my home unless it is in violation of the laws of the people and the Supreme Law of the Land. Sadly, they are doing just that and trampling on the rights and the will of we the people in the process.
Look, I said I was sorry. Geez…..
They are in fact, demanding to be treated differently are they not? They already share the same “rights” as anybody else but are demanding that those rights be adjusted to fit in according to their lifestyle if I am not mistaken here? No, I am not trying to be cute either. Personally I am against this as it does open the door … perhaps bestiality is genetic and not psychological in nature … can anyone prove that it is not? Does this mean that it should be accepted as long as the animals do not complain? (You may laugh but such a law was recently passed regarding bestiality, I believe it was in Oregon?) Perhaps pedophilia is a genetic condition and by depriving individuals of the right to molest children, you are preventing them from their most fundamental, God-given (as they see it!?) tight to the pursuit of their happiness? Do the involved parties truly have to be consenting adults to make a valid decision … even if it goes against their genetic makeup? The deal is, people are asking for special rights and to be treated differently, thus, the need to leave the decision up to the voters in counties, cities and states IMHO.
Is being gay normal? It doesn’t seem like it’s the norm.
It must be.
Try being a straight male and getting hired at California Pizza Kitchen or Cheesecake Factory.
BTW, the comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement…
Gay people can pretty much do what they want, especially with sodomy laws struck down. Now, as long as it isn’t something out of a ZombieTime photo pictorial of the ‘Up Your Alley’ fair where gay sex acts in daylight on public streets were openly ignored by the SFPD, consenting adults and all that, whatever.
Marriage, one man, one woman. Hell, polygamy has more traditional backing. Gays want civil unions with full inheritance and pull the plug rights, fine with me.
Having been in the Navy, there were some not very deeply closeted gays. But open, flamboyant gays, horrible for discipline. There is no Constitutional right to serve, and if someone’s service is disruptive, sorry. BTW, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ may have been a Clinton policy, but it was unofficial policy in the Reagan years. Gay people could serve in the military, they just had to be a little discrete.
But even 30 or 50 years ago, it was no secret Roy Cohn was gay. Paul Lynde, Liberace, they didn’t seem too horribly oppressed. Disgusting to compare segregated bathrooms and lunch counters, the Klan, Jim Crow laws to people who can’t naturally have children, tend to be incredibly promiscuous (reason why AIDS and Hep was and still is a disease of gays and drug addicts) and rarely form true lifetime attachments. Do Kim Karashian or Britney Spears make a mockery of marriage, certainly, but celebrity serial marriers don’t represent the average heterosexual.
Which is exceptionally odd when you consider that the Islamic “religion” is actually a Theocracy whose stated goal is to do away with any other form of government including our constitutionally mandated republican form of government!
Well stated, as usual.
I will add that, at least in the bubblehead community, homosexuals were booted out with zeal, usually after being caught in the barracks. I only recall one on-board, at-sea incident, which was my sad duty to attend Captain’s Mast as a Department LPO.
Which clause in our federal Constitution contains the moral judgement jurisdiction?
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you should be concerned that the will of the people has been subverted.
What? No. The courts are supposed to interpret the constitution, not follow the will of the people. Should I feel bad about Brown Vs. Board of Education, too? Most people were for segregation, after all! Give me a break.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but wasn’t Brown vs Board of Education an actual court case as opposed to being a free vote of the will of the people within the confines of a single state?
WarTip: Yes, but it’s well within the right of the court to review things like Prop. 8, obviously. Checks and balances. This is basic, Schoolhouse Rock stuff, you guys. It’s ridiculous to complain about the system when it doesn’t happen to deliver the result you desire.
But, to return to my original point: Yay!
So we have the right to rule ourselves only so long as the courts agree? I am not trying to be contrary here, but the states are not … and should not be bound the way that the federal government should be … and used to be … restricted to certain powers only.
@WarTip: It’s not like CA suddenly changed the way it operates. This is how the system is set up.
Uhm… that wasn’t their burden. It was those trying to overturn Prop 8 that wanted a group of people treated differently.
Homosexuals can marry. Like everyone else, they need a willing member of the opposite sex to do so. Unless marriage is only about sexual appetite.
Apparently, like pornography, we need a definition of marriage in this country. Because if it’s just about lust and/or love, a lot of marriages are invalid, and a lot of “different” couples can get married.
Anyone want to sponsor my legal case for marrying my chihuahua, in California?
I defy anyone who observes me for more than an hour to deny that I love her more than most men love their wives or children.
While I don’t want to have sex with her… is marriage, after all, just about sex? If “traditional” marriage is invalidated because we let people who can’t have children get married, then certainly people who can’t have sex with their spouse of choice must be as valid as homosexual marriage.
And yes, the “traditional” marriage restrictions are detrimental to my relationship to my chihuahua. If I get sick, she won’t even be able to visit me in the hospital. People not only stare at us as we walk past, they actually stop and make comments! (like, “Oh she’s a pretty puppy!” and “Who’s a good dog?”)
/sarc for the humor impaired.
Yes, you should feel bad about Brown vs Board of Education. Like with all other social engineering decisions, it opened the door for the socialist agenda. It was a fallacious (and possibly unConstitutional) decision.
You throw up Brown vs Board of Education… how about Dred Scott? Where the feds overrode State law…
And Dred Scott was as Constitutional as Brown…
@OK_Loyalist: good point, it was mostly those guys!
@Hiraghm: It always surprises me how many opponents of gay marriage are interested in marrying animals. It comes up again and again. I’m afraid if you can’t really tell why humans and chihuahuas are different, we cannot have a meaningful conversation.
The courts have no rights. They only have delegated and enumerated powers.
While the courts do have the ability, and even the responsibility to review laws, they also have the responsibility to support the Constitution, not subvert it.
@Hiragm: rights/powers: You are splitting hairs. Chihuahua hairs, perhaps.
And now we know who my /sarc tag was intended for
We can’t have a meaningful conversation, because you can’t explain to me why the mental/emotional aberration that makes one lust after and desire to mate with members of one’s own sex is any different than the mental/emotional aberration that would make one lust after and desire to mate with an animal. (btw, dogs aren’t animals; they’re dogs.)
Please explain to me why one sexual appetite is “healthy”, “natural” and “normal” and another is not? I can certainly explain why heterosexual appetite is “healthy”, “natural” and “normal”. I’ve yet to hear equivalent argument in favor of homosexual appetites, or bestiality, or other non-heterosexual appetites.
I am NOT splitting hairs; there is a vital distinction between “rights” and powers. Rights come from God; Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers come from We, the People.
Entirely different things.
I’ve yet to see a valid argument as to how gay people marrying each other hurts anyone.
The fact of the matter is that other human beings who vote, pay taxes, and enjoy the rights under our Constitution should not be denied the same treatment as everyone else.
Perhaps your chihuahua soulmate is impressed with such semantics. No doubt s/he is. Dogs are easily impressed.
I didn’t throw anything up. Pay attention!
@rworks: Oh, you and your fancy-schmancy common sense.
How would a person marrying a whale or a potted plant hurt anyone?
Homosexuals are NOT denied the same treatment. Homosexuals CAN get married; they just have to follow the same requirement as everyone else.
Okay, you didn’t throw it up… you brought it up
Such semantics were important to the Founding Fathers. Sloppy thinkers like sloppy language. It allows them to hide laziness, incompetence, or deceit in the mess.
As for dogs being easily impressed… I’ll have to take your word for that one…
Really, I’d sure like the quote of that.
No one was denied the same treatment as anyone else. Read over Prop 8 and tell me where it mentions anything about homosexuals. I’ll wait.
Do us both a favor, the next time you feel compelled to comment to me, cram it!
You do realize that Proposition 8 amended the California constitution, right?
You’re okay with a small handful of people saying no something the majority of people have voted on? We’re not talking about some law that the state legislature passed, but an amendment to the state constitution.
Think about what that entails. Forget about the specific issue at hand and think about 2 judges nullifying the votes of millions of people.
But radicals regularly cite homosexual behavior in other species to prove that it’s natural.
I always agree with them on that point. Homosexuality is indeed natural …. so is cancer.
Human males and human females are different are they not? Radical homosexuals choose to ignore the fact that one of each of those is the only complimentary combination that satisfies the purpose of having gender, the purpose of a sexual species in general.
So the point becomes, the moment that you abandon recognition of that combination’s uniqueness – you HAVE TO abandon the purpose that that uniqueness serves. I don’t care if it’s two human males or, a human and multiple animals or, a human and an inanimate object – all of those combinations are IDENTICAL in contrast in comparison to a one male one female combination because they all share the same fault – no equivalent relevance in biologic purpose. The chance of offspring from a man and another man versus the chance of offspring from a man and a brick is exactly the same – zero.
So once you accept biologically irrelevant homosexual pairings you have no valid reason to not accept every other possible irrelevant combination so I defy you to explain the basis for why, polygamy or bestiality ‘marriage’, etc. should be banned if homosexual ‘marriage’ is accepted?
They are not denied the same treatment under the law. The FACT that a male and female can get a marriage license regardless of their individual sexual preference is absolute, impenetrable, inescapable PROOF that totally nullifies your lame assertion. (Was Jim McGreevey denied marriage under the law?)
When preference becomes the metric for deciding ‘equality’ under the law I will join the homosexual ’cause’ — and stop paying my taxes.
. – Blackstone
It’s not the quality of the litigants that’s at issue, it’s the quality of the case they presented. The litigants supporting Prop 8 have utterly failed (thus far) to provide adequate evidence why this subset of our population (gays/homosexuals) should be treated differently than others, something they have to do in order to provide support for Prop 8 being considered constitutional. Folks here have presented many studies/statistics in the past, when discussing this subject, what could have been used as such evidence. However, my reading on the court proceedings indicated that little if any of this was used by the Prop 8 supporters in court.
By this same line of reasoning, when same-sex marriage is legal non-gay people may also get a marriage license to get gay-married, just as gay people can now get a license to marry someone of the opposite sex. I’m at a loss as to why anyone would want to do that, but nonetheless everyone is being treated equally under the law per the terms you laid out above, arguably more so because the law extends the privilege of marriage to all consenting adults who love each other and share a physical attraction. This is not possible for gay people as long as same-sex marriage is not legal. If marriage is the cornerstone of civilization, expanding the institution should be celebrated, not scorned.
Which of course is what I was referring to, which I think was pretty clear from my post. You’re harping on a semantic point.
Courts are not bound by the arguments presented by the litigants. They’re bound by the law, especially when the law is clear and obvious. You’d really have to put the Constitution through the ringer in order to seriously come to the conclusion that the traditional definition of marriage, unquestioned in our entire history, has been unconstitutional for all this time. Anyone arguing that loses all credibility right from the get-go.
You say that like it’s some sort of earth-shattering conclusion. Of course that’s true. So?
The whole “gay marriage” debate confuses and conflates two completely separate concepts.
1.) Definition of marriage
2.) Freedom to contract
1.) The definition of marriage is fixed and cannot be redefined. A lifelong contractual union between a man and a woman to pool ALL their resources. Anything else is an abberation. Polygamy/polyandry/plural/group marriages, child marriage, bestial marriage, forced marriage, and other mutations are not indicative of marriage any more than same-sex marriage is. They are anomalies, abberations of what marriage is.
To call any of them true examples of marriages is a logical fallacy, the same as a square hexagon.
2.) Freedom to contract. All free adults have the right to willingly enter into contracts with other free adults. The legal side of marriage is such a contract. It grants power of attorney, inheritance rights, and a host of other legal rights.
If two men or two women want to sign a contract that grants them all the legal benefits of marriage, that is their right, but it still would not be a marriage, even if they called it that.
You confuse the term ‘expand’ with the term ‘subvert’. The institution was established for the hopeful outcome of children and their nurture. Subverting that to include same sex pairings offers no such hope and is therefore irrelevant because there is NOTHING to ‘celebrate’.
Human existence would end if all people were homosexual. No humans= no civilization.
If there was a 100% safe and effective pill that an expectant mother could take to guarantee a heterosexual child – give one reason to convince her not to take it?
Just one will do….
Tell that to the folks who keep saying that gay people are asking for special rights because they want same-sex marriage to be legalized. It’s been made several times in this thread, including the quote I cited and was responding to.
It was made once in this thread, and not in the quote or post you responded to. What was stated in that post was that preference is not the proper criterion for determining equality or inequality of treatment. And that’s absolutely correct.