Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 8, 2012

California same-sex marriage ban struck down

February 8, 2012

Advertisement

— 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

purplesage 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

Gotland 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

pace 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

Steve Jacob 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

75x55 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

ljreader 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

Ray Parker 2 years, 2 months ago

There is no right to same-species marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Recriminalize sodomy.

0

somedude20 2 years, 2 months ago

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

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 2 months ago

""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.

0

voevoda 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

Peacemaker452 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

rockchalker52 2 years, 2 months ago

Long time coming & long overdue. I read that in a 'personals' ad, but it applies here, too.

0

Gotland 2 years, 2 months ago

The fascist courts have spoken, the people voice be damned.

0

Liberty_One 2 years, 2 months ago

"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.

0

phoggyjay 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

its_just_math 2 years, 2 months ago

Ah yes, the good ol' 9th strikes again. I thought the left was all about "the will of the people". Guess I was wrong----just part of the "new normal"? I guess it's really "the will of a few liberal activist judges".

0

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 2 months ago

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.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.