San Francisco — Same-sex marriage moved one step closer to the Supreme Court on Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled California’s ban unconstitutional, saying it serves no purpose other than to “lessen the status and human dignity” of gays.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave gay marriage opponents time to appeal the 2-1 decision before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume.
“I’m ecstatic. I recognize that we have a ways to go yet. We may have one or two more legal steps,” said Jane Leyland, who was gathered with a small crowd outside the federal courthouse in downtown San Francisco, cheering as they learned of the ruling.
Leyland married her longtime partner, Terry Gilb, during the five-month window when same-sex marriage was legal in California.
“But when we first got together, I would have never dreamed in a million years that we would be allowed to be legally married, and here we are.”
The ban known as Proposition 8 was approved by voters in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. The court said it was unconstitutional because it singled out a minority group for disparate treatment for no compelling reason.
The justices concluded that the law had no purpose other than to deny gay couples marriage, since California already grants them all the rights and benefits of marriage if they register as domestic partners.
The lone dissenting judge insisted that the ban could help ensure that children are raised by married, opposite-sex parents.
The appeals court focused its decision exclusively on California’s ban, not the bigger debate, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine Western states.
Whether same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry “is an important and highly controversial question,” the court said. “We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.”
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) says…
Looks like Webster is going to have to change the "definition" of another word.
Although, I think they should leave it the same and add 2 new ones.
Lezeriage Woman + Woman
Beariage Man + Man
Since "poligamy", Man + Women has won a victory. New words for Woman + Women and Man + Men needs to be determined.
I'll take suggestions here please.
Thanks for your participation.
geekin_topekan (anonymous) replies…
You have this gothic relish-the-pain thing going on; what gives?
I believe you have solved your own problem though--If marriage is betwixt woman/man, man/man, woman/woman, all in the singular, the language of marriage remains clear. You seem to push this multiplicity issue where there is none to be had. The phantom poligamy issue has fixed itself through societal rule.
You can't solve all the world's issues through pessimism. "What if" fears in human behavior are the cause of most problems. Live the solution instead of thinking up problems.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
Now that's just plain silly.
There needs to be different identifications for different things. Who wants to be called one thing when you are another. It's not "Social Justice" to call everything the same thing. It is disrespectful to call someone "Married" when they are "Bearied" or "Lezried". It's not fair.
geekin_topekan (anonymous) replies…
Funny, I have not heard a single call for a gender-correct title so you are more up on the gay movement than I.
Again, when the surge for title correctness and multiplicity arises, I am sure we can count on your input. When there is no issue to be addressed and we want to hear unsubatntiated paranoia, well, we'll be here for you.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
Thanks. I am on the cutting edge of "Social Justice", "fairness", "equality" and "niceness".
boltzmann (anonymous) replies…
don't forget "trolliness".
boltzmann (anonymous) replies…
don't forget "trolliness".
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
phoggyjay (anonymous) replies…
"Lezeriage Woman + Woman"
"Beariage Man + Man"
Would you care to elaborate as to what that means, FalseHopeNoChange?
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
All permutations of loving unions between men, women.
phoggyjay (anonymous) replies…
I'm actually talking about the words "Lezeriage and Beariage" that you used. What do these words mean? Please enlighten us.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
Marriage Equality for all!
jhawkinsf (anonymous) says…
It's time to move forward. It's nobody's business who marries whom. If anyone, gay or straight wants to marry, let them. If a church doesn't want to do it, then do it at city hall.
However, if marriage is to be limited, let the limits be on Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears.
phoggyjay (anonymous) says…
On to the Supreme Court, where it will hopefully become legal in all fifty states. Is America finally ready to grow up and let adults choose who they want to marry, regardless of gender? I think so.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
"The lone dissenting judge insisted that the ban could help ensure that children are raised by married, opposite-sex parents."
Doesn't matter if this is true or not, it is not up to the state to conduct social engineering.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
Not to mention it's a judge addressing a policy question when he should be judging the case based on the legal merits. You know, like the other judges.
Gotland (anonymous) says…
The fascist courts have spoken, the people voice be damned.
deec (anonymous) replies…
Actually a majority of people polled favor gay marriage, or are equally divided for/against.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Crazy_Larry (anonymous) replies…
The Mormon voice be damned. FTFY.
grammaddy (anonymous) replies…
+10
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
How many Mormons do you think there are in California? I understand it was largely the African American vote that help pass prop 8.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
If the courts are going to dictate our laws, let’s stop the charade of voting.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
You seem to forget about the Constitution there.
When the majority try to pass unconstitutional laws, the courts rightly intervene.
Part of those "checks and balances".
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
What part of the constitution?
deec (anonymous) replies…
Equal protection clause, 14th amendment.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
Why should the government fervor monogamist citizens, gay or straight?
Under equal protection clause
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Depends on which unconstitutional law we're discussing.
Your comment was broad, so my response was broad.
In this instance, denying same-sex marriage violates the "pursuit of happiness" clause, as well as Loving v. Virginia, which held that marriage is a fundamental right.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
Obviously the judges of the ninth district believe it is violation of the Constitution but that is just their opinion. Judicial activism leaves plenty of room for creative thinking when applying the law.
deec (anonymous) replies…
Like Citizens United? Or Kelo?
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
The term "judicial activism" is the emptiest, most meaningless phrase ever. Even the person who first coined that phrase could never come up with a definition for it.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
"philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."
Amazingly I found a definition to this mysterious phase.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
It's a bogus definition, not made up by the guy who coined the phrase (who came to regret it). The definition you have cited is one that can be (and usually is) applied to any decision by the side who disagrees with that decision.
The written decision in this particular case is very fairly based on US Supreme Court precedent, so could hardly be said to be based on personal views about public policy but rather on binding case law the appellate court is obligated to follow.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
And the only opinions that will ultimately matter are those of the SC justices who hear a case on this issue.
My general point is that you seem to have forgotten about the whole "checks and balances" part of our system when you say things like "If the courts are going to dictate our laws,..."
Our system is not one which is founded on the simple idea of majority rule, without any other considerations.
Crazy_Larry (anonymous) replies…
Please see my comment above explaining how we live in a republic whereby the Constitution protects the individual and minority from the tyranny of the majority...
Crazy_Larry (anonymous) replies…
Wiki: "The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive, such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state. ProtectMarriage, the official proponents of Proposition 8, estimate that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that "eighty to ninety percent" of the early volunteers going door-to-door were LDS."
rockchalker52 (anonymous) says…
Long time coming & long overdue.
I read that in a 'personals' ad, but it applies here, too.
Peacemaker452 (anonymous) says…
An easy way to solve this problem is to get government completely out of the marriage business. The only interaction that should require government involvement is if the people getting “married” want to record a legal contract before hand, or to apply common law to the “divorce” of no contract is on file.
voevoda (anonymous) says…
If the dissenting judge is determined to see that all children are raised by married, opposite-sex couples, he is going about it the wrong way. Maybe he should start by prohibiting divorce. And then by requiring men to marry their pregnant girlfriends. And then by requiring widows and widowers to remarry. That would eliminate most of the circumstances in which children are raised in homes without married, opposite-sex parents; families with gay parents are not nearly so numerous.
Of course, any judge who tried to do any of this would be forced from the bench. And rightly so.
pocket_of_sunshine (anonymous) replies…
+1,000,000,000,000,00
People would have absolute meltdowns if the law told them they couldn't get a divorce and had to stay married to help protect the so called "sanctity of marriage" so many people like to use as argument.
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
this.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
""The justices concluded that the law had no purpose other than to deny gay couples marriage, since California already grants them all the rights and benefits of marriage if they register as domestic partners." === I think this was the esence of the decision, not whether or not the court 'approved' of these arrangements. Should be interesting if the Supremes take it. If they are smart, they'll let it stand and wait some more to see what other cases come up. As I understand it, this was based on the public allowing gay marriage, then taking it away via popular vote. As someone mentioned above, the public cannot vote to deny rights to others. If this were the case, all sorts of strange ballot measures would pop up in some of the states. Good decision so far, IMHO.
somedude20 (anonymous) says…
The logic of some people. So if a woman married another woman and a man married another man that would cause the people of America to go crazy and start marrying appliances, dogs, polygamy?
Same logic would be that allowing people to carry concealed handguns everywhere would lead to people carrying rocket launchers, flamethrowers, TNW's and machine guns everywhere and we can't have that..gateway drug!
Guess when you allow the blind to own and use a handgun, logic is not a common virtue
ljreader (anonymous) says…
Personally, I think all marriage should be banned. End of problem.
While I don't give a rat's fart what combination of genders partakes in said ritual, it is a little disturbing that the will of the voters can be overturned.
It's also hard to believe that California, of all places, would vote to ban gay marriage- Of course, the Catholic population has pretty much taken over that state. Best get used to it.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
It's only disturbing because people fail to understand our constitutional principles and protections, and mistakenly believe that the "will of the voters" is all that counts.
Also, of course, only 52% of the voters approved it, so a large minority of 48% opposed it.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
Indeed. And just a few years later, I'm not sure the vote would come out the same. I've also heard anecdotally from several people who voted yes, thinking that was a vote in favor of gay marriage. Who knows how many voters made that same mistake (both ways).
Which really just lends more support for the idea that something like this should not be put to a popular vote.
crazyks (anonymous) replies…
I thought it was disturbing that the issue was put on the ballot in the first place...
75x55 (anonymous) says…
A curious thing - marriage has been defiled and stripped of it's meaning for years now, and when it becomes obvious to a large segment of the population that wishes to correct this condition (as this proposition showed), we have an activist court affirm that it really has no meaning anymore.
It's too bad that all those foaming for 'gay marriage' would have a very difficult time actually explaining why "the state" or "society" has an interest in the "marriage game" to begin with. Symptom of the problem.
Perhaps a 'civil marriage' and a 'holy marriage' - but I'm sure someone will scream about that differentiation as well.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Sorry, but you could not be more wrong. This has nothing to do with an 'activist court'. Those are just words by the people who hate America and the American way of freedom and equality for all, to try to win other extremely narrow minded busybodies over to their way of thinking. In other words, freedom if you believe as I do. Not very American, eh?
Society and the state have NO business telling two consenting adults that they cannot marry, period. To think otherwise is to hate freedom and equality.
Once again, not very American, and neither are you. Move. Move NOW.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
HAHAHaHahaha...! Must have hit a nerve with Fretster. He/she actually wrote a few sentences. Not that he/she had any more to say.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Just doing to 75 what I do to you. You know, correct all the distortions, negate the immaturity, hold you responsible for what you say. Just the little things.
Wish you could keep up, it's looking real bad for you at this point.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Some people (like snap) can say a lot with one or two sentences. Others seem to say the same thing over and over. Stupid conservatives, stupid this, stupid that, stupid, stupid, stupid. Reminds me of a previous poster.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Suggested for removal, again. When ya gonna grow up and learn?
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Oh, by the way BAA, I never said conservatives are stupid. I am a conservative, you, however, are not.
That is a fact, not that you would know anything about facts.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
That reminds me of that same poster who used to call conservatives stupid and yet claim to be a conservative. Go figure.
75x55 (anonymous) replies…
Americans voted for that proposition that the court struck down.
How does that jibe with our distinctly narrow definition of a 'good american'?
Seems like a familiar tactic, to attack a perceived 'right wing' opinion with a simplistic canard of "un american".
Yawn. You need to try harder.
Especially since you only react to a buzz phrase like 'activist court'. You missed so much other red meat there too.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
"Americans voted for that proposition that the court struck down. How does that jibe with our distinctly narrow definition of a 'good american'?"
Because that is how the system provides equal rights for all it's citizens. This is by design, and one of the greatest things America has accomplished.
Seems like a good American would know that.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
We are equal under the law; anyone of age can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
That is not equal, stop being stupid.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
This proposition does nothing to improve marriage - infidelity and divorce rates are quite high among heterosexuals.
Actually, most people who want to safeguard the rights of gay folks would probably be fine if society or the state eliminated the various legal benefits of marriages.
As long as those exist, though, gay folks should be entitled to them.
I'm also fine with civil unions, and religious marriages, as long as everybody can create a civil union - that's actually a pretty good idea to me.
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
Does your wife know about your new attitude towards marriage? I mean, what happens with a large segment of the population effects the entire population, right?
75x55 (anonymous) replies…
Expand your question - it might actually be interesting, instead of the usual crotch-kicking mindlessness that passes for commentary here these days.
srj (anonymous) says…
Leaving the subject out of it, I don't like the fact that the people's voice is not heard. Fair election, the loser goes to court and wins. I'd feel the same the other way too.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
The problem, though, is that something like whether rights that have been granted should now be stripped should (must) never be put to a popular vote. The American constitutional system worked exactly as James Madison and the rest of the founders intended by utilizing all of our checks and balances to make sure the rights of a minority were not infringed by a majority.
pace (anonymous) says…
Maybe we could just vote the trolls should not have the right of free speech. cool huh? Gee what if the trolls voted that caring people should not marry. Now that would be a bummer. We probably should not turn away from civil rights, personal rights. I have no desire to interfere with other's matrimony, except to wish the newly weds the best of luck and good wishes. If a husband doesn't care if the "wife" can't cook, I don't care. If a wife doesn't care if the husband can't mow the lawn, I don't care. I don't care which person wants to be "wife" or "husband". If a man wants to marry a man, I don't care, or a woman wishes to marry a woman I don't care. I only care if some body want to impose his prejudice on another. Gay marriage, cross faith marriage, interracial marriage, is not an assault on other people's marriage. . I can make a commitment of love , gay or straight, is sure better than a commitment of hate. I know this will not sway anyone, most minds are made up. I wish some of the people arguing against other people's right to marry would at least acknowledge they are talking about people who love each other.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
How do you feel about polygamy?
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Polygamy has nothing to do with this, period. You have NO business in the business of anyone else.
Don't like personal freedom? Move.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
If it involves consenting adults, I have no problem with it.
Or with group marriages.
Gotland (anonymous) says…
This is free country. People can do whatever they want but their marriage will not be recognized by the state just as polygamist marriages will not.
purplesage (anonymous) says…
Wrong. You cannot do anything you want in a free country. Legislation has been passing at record rates trying to do what folks used to do for themselvs - control themselves. I cannot, with impunity, scream "FIRE" in a room filled with people, as the old example goes. I cannot drive 80 MPH on Highway 59 - even if I want to.
And you are wrong on another count. The fact is, the country is not free. The Obama Administration is forcing people to violate their conscience by requiring even Roman Catholic institutions to carry "health insurance" tha offends the Church's positions on contraception and abortion. Hillary Clinton talks of "freedom of worship" - a semantic trick to keep religion and religious expression under wraps and out of the public square. And now, despite the will of the people, and that is always dependent upon who exercises the right to vote, some deviation of marriage is being rammed down the throats of Californians by the 9th Circuit.
Say what you want, it isn't "normal" - two men married, two women wed, is, has always been, and will always be a violation of nature and of God's precepts. And by the way, it has nothing to do with whether the folks involved are pleasant, good natured, intelligent, etc.. It just isn't normal. That's all.
deec (anonymous) replies…
If it isn't "normal", then why has it been documented in dozens of other species? If god doesn't like homosexuals, why did he make so many of them? Homosexuality is quite normal; that's why it has been documented throughout history. Marriage, likewise, has had a multitude of variations throughout history.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
There are plenty of behaviors seen in nature not accepted in human society.