Spokane7
68°
February 8, 2012 in Nation/World
California same-sex marriage affirmed
Federal court rules ban discriminatory, unconstitutional
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.
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.
“Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called ‘How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire,’ it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different,” the court said.
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.”
Six states allow gay couples to wed – Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia. Washington state is expected to follow suit following approval last week in the state’s Senate allowing same-sex marriage.
California, as the nation’s most populous state and home to more than 98,000 same-sex couples, would be the gay rights movement’s biggest prize of them all.
The 9th Circuit concluded that a trial court judge had correctly interpreted the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he threw out Proposition 8.
The measure “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the court’s most liberal judges, wrote in the 2-1 opinion.
Opponents of gay marriage planned to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, which came more than a year after the appeals court panel heard arguments in the case.
“We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage – tried in San Francisco – turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court,” said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group based in Arizona that helped defend Proposition 8.
Legal analysts questioned whether the Supreme Court would agree to take the case because of the narrow scope of the ruling. California is the only state to grant gays the right to marry and then rescind it.
Douglas NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the California-specific scope of the 9th Circuit panel’s decision means the Supreme Court can uphold it without ruling “on marriage for same-sex couples on a national scale.”
“In effect, the 9th Circuit’s decision allows the Supreme Court to continue the incremental, case-by-case trajectory of marriage for same-sex couples in the United States,” NeJaime said in an email.
Weddings appeared unlikely to resume anytime soon. The ruling will not take effect until the deadline passes in two weeks for Proposition 8’s backers to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that sponsored the measure said they have not decided if they will seek a 9th Circuit rehearing or file an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.
Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker’s ruling on constitutional grounds and because of the judge’s personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist’s sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. Supporters of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner. The 9th Circuit held a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.
In its ruling Tuesday, the panel majority said it was unreasonable to presume a judge cannot apply the law impartially just because he is a member of the minority group at issue in a case.
“To hold otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts,” the opinion said.
Reinhardt, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Jimmy Carter, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Michael Hawkins, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.
Judge Randy Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, saying he disagreed that Proposition 8 served no purpose other than to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.
Smith said Proposition 8 could serve to promote responsible child-rearing among opposite-sex couples, adding that even if those beliefs were flawed, they would be enough to make the measure constitutional.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
Notapatriot on February 08 at 6:34 a.m.
So again, apparently what the voting public wants doesn’t matter. This is such a pathetic country.
Shazamm on February 08 at 6:36 a.m.
Kids, and ultimately society, will be the real losers if the gay marriage advocates prevail, just as was the case with no-fault divorce. When are people going to figure out that healthy, committed, heterosexual marriages are critical for the raising and well-being of children and the stability of society?
misjustice on February 08 at 6:47 a.m.
Religion does not sanctify marrige. These few words, stated at the end of a marriage ceremony, make it clear where the power to acknowledge marriage is placed:
“By the power vested in me by the State of ______, I now pronounce you husband/wife and husband/wife.”
It is gubmint, the STATE, that sanctifies marriage.
Diana on February 08 at 6:47 a.m.
The ‘voting public” doesn’t get to vote away the civil rights of their fellow Americans.
gotcha on February 08 at 6:55 a.m.
Off to the Supreme Court where it will get overturned. Everyone knows the 9th circuit court are ya-hoos, fruit loop eating, left wing itiots.
I might mention some of them are sneaking into Spokane and are sitting on the City Council.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 08 at 7:04 a.m.
Perhaps when someone comes up with solid evidence to support that contention. To date, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence says there is no significant disadvantage for children raised by same-sex couples.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html
Local on February 08 at 7:08 a.m.
Shazamm I couldn’t agree with you more. But who cares about the kids it’s all about me, me, me and not the kids. If you don’t think a stable household doesn’t impact kids just look around at the families that have been together for a long time versus those in constant flux.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 08 at 7:10 a.m.
“Off to the Supreme Court where it will get overturned.”
I wouldn’t count those chickens as hatched quite yet.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/prop-8-supreme-court-may-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html
And even if it is heard, I wouldn’t be so certain the 9th Circuit will be overturned. As the cited article points out, the Prop 8 decision is very carefully worded so as to force the Supremes to either uphold the 9th Circuit decision or overturn one of their own prior decisions. (Romer v. Evans)
Diana on February 08 at 7:13 a.m.
“If you don’t think a stable household doesn’t impact kids just look around at the families that have been together for a long time versus those in constant flux.”
You’re referring to heterosexual households?
SpokaneLiberal on February 08 at 7:13 a.m.
I have read several articles that suggest that California is the “biggest prize” in the gay rights movement toward equality.
I disagee. I think that if the polls are correct and Washington actually votes to enact it (or rather not overturn the legislature). That will be the biggest prize. A state that chose by vote to say Washington stands for equality.
Local on February 08 at 7:26 a.m.
You said: “You’re referring to heterosexual households?”
I wrote: “Shazamm I couldn’t agree with you more.”
Now read Shazamm’s post again.
jessiepn on February 08 at 7:28 a.m.
Notapatriot wrote: “So again, apparently what the voting public wants doesn’t matter ”
Let me echo Diana’s comment and emphasize that when it comes to the civil rights of minorities, in this country we don’t leave the decision to the voting public. If we had allowed the civil rights of blacks and of women to be put to a vote, rather than being decided in the courts, equality under the law would have been many, many years longer in coming. And as recently as 1967, sixteen states banned intermarriage between whites and blacks, until the Supreme Court ruled those laws unconstitutional in Loving v Virginia.
detroitdude on February 08 at 7:54 a.m.
Run for your lives! The gay boogeyman is coming to undermine your heterosexual marriage and corrupt your kids! Run!!!!!
Note_to_Self on February 08 at 9:51 a.m.
“Off to the Supreme Court where it will get overturned. Everyone knows the 9th circuit court are ya-hoos, fruit loop eating, left wing itiots.” -gotcah
Don’t count on it. The SCOTUS is moving in the direction of a constitutional right under the 14tn Amendment for gay marriage. This case from the 9th Circuit doesn’t force them to go that far so it is a narrow issue and they may not even take it up. The 9th Cir only found that California violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause by allowing gay marriage and then later taking it away. Pretty smart move for “itiots”.
The treatment of gay people in this country is likely the last civil rights battle and gay and straight people alike should be standing together to make this right.
Remember all the terrible things that were going to happen when Native Americans were made citizens, when women and African-Americans got the right to vote, when interacial marriage was permitted etc? Typical conservatives on the wrong side of history. I’m proud to be a progressive on this one.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 08 at 9:51 a.m.
Yes, straight people are doing a great job raising families.
So all murderers, rapists and other losers who commit violent crimes were ALL raised by gay families right? All drug users and drunks were all raised by gay people, right? Everyone who has done anything wrong in the eyes of the law or society must have been raised by gays because straight families are prefect and kids raised in straight family homes never do wrong.
That argument is just about as stupid as any religious argument you might bring to this topic.
HappyHeathen on February 08 at 10:14 a.m.
Looks to me like the 9th made the correct decision. Separate but equal is un-American.
WHS on February 08 at 10:30 a.m.
• Shazamm on February 08 at 6:36 a.m.
“Kids, and ultimately society, will be the real losers if the gay marriage advocates prevail, just as was the case with no-fault divorce. When are people going to figure out that healthy, committed, heterosexual marriages are critical for the raising and well-being of children and the stability of society?”
As a longtime volunteer and coach in our school systems, I have dedicated several hundred hours a year for the last 12 years working with student athletes. And I can attest that a portion of what Shazamm is saying is true. So, let me rephrase that, but coming from someone that has seen kids raised by hetero, homo and just committed “families
When are people going to figure out that healthy, committed, active and involved relationships are critical for the raising and well-being of children and the stability of society?
Some of the best kids I know have come from non-traditional families. I have witnessed a group of foster kids that went into families and went from troubled too successful. One is young man of color living with a hetero, un-married, white couple that is committed to his success. He is doing phenomenal. Another is a young lady whose parents ran out; she is now living with a wonderful traditional family and is doing phenomenal as well. I also know another kid that is living with a gay interracial couple (men btw) and the kid is also doing just great as well. The single factor in common – Each one of these “families” is involved, active and has created a loving environment for these kids.
WHS
Dazzeetrader11 on February 08 at 10:36 a.m.
Close vote. The constitution doesn’t define any civil right or any other right to marriage.
It’s beyond the scope of the constitution….and the Bill of RIghts….just doesn’t seem to apply.
Justices being activists…never a good policy. Overturning a legitimate vote of the people several times doesn’t sound reasonable. WHy have a vote at all if it doesn’t count??
Silliness afoot. Wrong venues wrong vote…wrong everything.
The case made is that once the state grants right of marriage to heteros , why not homos? It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 08 at 11:09 a.m.
Huh. WHS’s post has been up for 40 minutes already and nobody has questioned why he is able to use the internet during school hours. C’mon people, you’re slipping.
Local on February 08 at 11:32 a.m.
Because WHS belongs to a union and nothing can be done about it.
mkries2 on February 08 at 11:47 a.m.
So does the Mormon church get back all the money that they spent on this? Or is there no refunds?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 08 at 12:09 p.m.
If anybody’s interested in something a little more substantial than Dazed’s ramblings with respect to marriage and the Constitution, I suggest the following well-written and pro/con balanced treatise.
http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/samesexSAC.pdf
misjustice on February 08 at 12:14 p.m.
Someone whined, “The constitution doesn’t define any civil right or any other right to marriage.”
In this case the legal finding is about due process; the 14th Amendment, specifically and equal protection under the law. Califonia initially gave the okey dokey for marriage equality, then the “voters” took it away; in violation of some citizens of the state rights’ to equal protection under the law.
Get over yourselves, regressive Taliban religious types; marriage equality is happening, and there is not a thing that you and your bibles can do to stop it. It’s not about religion, it’s about the power of the State and the issuing of licenses to those that wish to enter into a contract. The State can not issue licenses to some citizens and deny that license to others.
I can’t wait for the “Gay Agenda” to be fully implemented!
Yeah!
; )
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 08 at 12:21 p.m.
misjustice at 6:47 a.m. – a small correction/amendment. The state doesn’t “sanctify” marriages at all. It gives them legal recognition.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 08 at 1:24 p.m.
misjustice on February 08 at 12:14 p.m.
Someone whined, “The constitution doesn’t define any civil right or any other right to marriage.”
No whining chunkster….it’s true. Someone may want to argue extentions of logic (Jeff seems to be good at the cockeyed arguments) but it’s the states that sanctify/legally recognize marriage. Thus the arguments go back to the state. Did the voters vote? Yes…they voted no. Emphatic NO. Next stop in the 9th with all liberals appointments. They back up yesterday’s decision. Simple….the question then is why send it to the voters if they will be disregarded and overruled?
Seems like the vote doesn’t count. But it’s California and liberal logic seems to hold sway.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 08 at 1:46 p.m.
“…it’s the states that sanctify/legally recognize marriage.”
Okay, if you say so dazed. But if that’s the case, then your own ‘cockeyed argument’ means the Constitution does indeed apply for the very reason MisJ cites; the 14th Amendment.
Let me quote from the ‘14th Amendment mandates equal marriage rights’ portion of that article:
(emphasis mine)That’s the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s ‘equal protection’ clause.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 08 at 1:52 p.m.
“Seems like the vote doesn’t count.”
No. In this case it doesn’t. It wouldn’t matter if the vote of the people is unanimous.
You can’t vote an unconstitutional law into effect.
You can only amend the Constitution.
Diana on February 08 at 2:44 p.m.
Daisy, I had no idea you were a Constitutional scholar.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 08 at 2:46 p.m.
^ ^ ^ Well dangit! “What’s the use of even having a democracy if I can’t get what I want?”
(from the “Drew Carey Show,” back when there was such a thing)
P.S. You folks do know that same-sex marriage, if/when it comes about, will be optional, right?
WHS on February 08 at 2:56 p.m.
thatoneguy (Bruce) on February 08 at 11:09 a.m.
Huh. WHS’s post has been up for 40 minutes already and nobody has questioned why he is able to use the internet during school hours. C’mon people, you’re slipping.
Because they may have actually read my post… But, just for you I will copy and paste the important part again.
“As a longtime volunteer and coach in our school systems, I have dedicated several hundred hours a year for the last 12 years working with student athletes.”
Volunteer, meaning on my time for no pay… Well, during District and State tournaments I get $15 a game or about $150 a year. Which does not cover gas, lodging, food, jerseys, jackets, shoes, etc… In fact, I just bought a lettermans jacket for a young lady that comes from very poor family. It is a gift we are glad to give, because this amazing young lady has to overcome a lot difficulties just to be able to participate… And in the last two years, her Mom has made exactly ZERO games.
WHS
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 08 at 3:18 p.m.
Way to spoil my fun, WHS :-p
Thayne on February 08 at 4:12 p.m.
Diana saying dazzed is a scholar is like saying Newt Getrich is a wholesome family man. They both blather on about topics they’re clueless about. I’m just curious dazey how do you know misjustice’s size? You’ve resorted to calling her names even before you reach the “pint of no return”. Why do the bible thumpers think they can tell everyone how to live? You do your thing and I’ll do mine. If you want to believe in a sky fairy from a book written by men who have revised it numerous times to suit their current needs - doesn’t mean I have to believe it.
Diana on February 08 at 4:32 p.m.
^ speaking of blathering…
misjustice on February 08 at 6:01 p.m.
As I posted upthread, “By the power vested in me by the State of ______, I now pronounce you husband/wife and husband/wife.”
It’s the State that grants the power to the officiant to state those words, not the bible, not the church, not some sky fairy.
Sorry for my previous use of the word sanctify; I meant it to mean “make legitimate” without any religious sky fairy connection.