Calif. same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

[Anonymous]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html
[/url]

A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a decision that could lead to the Supreme Court’s consideration of the controversial social issue.

By a 2 to 1 vote, the panel overturned the proposition, which was approved by 52 percent of the state’s voters in 2008 and amended the state’s Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Cheers!

[Anonymous]

This is heading to the Supreme Court. Care to guess how it will come out there?!

[Anonymous]

They'll refuse to hear it and let the Circuit Court decision stand.

The Supreme Court is not going to reinstate a law that blatantly discriminates against a minority group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is heading to the Supreme Court. Care to guess how it will come out there?!

I think it really depends upon how much of the case is a matter of interpreting state law, and how much is federal. I think they steered clear of equal protection claims under 14th and so a conservative court will have a hard time sticking its nose in this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is heading to the Supreme Court. Care to guess how it will come out there?!

enlighten us with your constitutional law knowledge and state's rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is heading to the Supreme Court. Care to guess how it will come out there?!

I think it really depends upon how much of the case is a matter of interpreting state law, and how much is federal. I think they steered clear of equal protection claims under 14th and so a conservative court will have a hard time sticking its nose in this one.

I think they pretty much decided this entirely on the 14th amendment:

"The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 – a response to an earlier state court decision that legalized gay marriage – was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians."

[Anonymous]

Best news I've heard all day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is heading to the Supreme Court. Care to guess how it will come out there?!

I think it really depends upon how much of the case is a matter of interpreting state law, and how much is federal. I think they steered clear of equal protection claims under 14th and so a conservative court will have a hard time sticking its nose in this one.

I think they pretty much decided this entirely on the 14th amendment:

"The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 – a response to an earlier state court decision that legalized gay marriage – was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians."

I do not think your inference is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is heading to the Supreme Court. Care to guess how it will come out there?!

I think it really depends upon how much of the case is a matter of interpreting state law, and how much is federal. I think they steered clear of equal protection claims under 14th and so a conservative court will have a hard time sticking its nose in this one.

I think they pretty much decided this entirely on the 14th amendment:

"The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 – a response to an earlier state court decision that legalized gay marriage – was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians."

I do not think your inference is correct.

What part of "the lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution" did I infer incorrectly?

[Anonymous]

This is the most liberal 2 judges in the country and the original judge was gay, what did you expect. It was funny to see how confident they were to put it up for vote and when they didn't get the outcome desired they sued,so American, litigation over democracy

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:This is the most liberal 2 judges in the country and the original judge was gay, what did you expect. It was funny to see how confident they were to put it up for vote and when they didn't get the outcome desired they sued,so American, litigation over democracy

True, litigation trumping democracy is in some sense characteristically American, because we have the Constitution. Don't you guys fetishize it?

Oh, right - it's all great except for the 14th Amendment (and the 13th, but shhh!).

[Anonymous]

@TMWAU:

Exactly. It's as though the far-right cultural conservatives never got to watch Schoolhouse Rock growing up. Of course, when there's the slightest infringement on religious freedom (which is, of course, more of a 'choice' than sexual orientation) it's the end of the American Experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:@TMWAU:

Exactly. It's as though the far-right cultural conservatives never got to watch Schoolhouse Rock growing up. Of course, when there's the slightest infringement on religious freedom (which is, of course, more of a 'choice' than sexual orientation) it's the end of the American Experiment.

LOL, gays marrying what will they think of next

[Anonymous]

Komen is pulling out of California.