My Twitter Feed

April 19, 2014

Prop 8 Declared Unconstitutional in California

I’ve been watching and waiting for this ruling to come down today. A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of appeals just struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage. This issue is now headed for the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy is likely to be the deciding vote. That ruling could come as early as next year.

The fight is not over, but this was one critical step. It stated:

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

Read the court’s full decision HERE.

Comments

comments

Comments
39 Responses to “Prop 8 Declared Unconstitutional in California”
  1. jenjay says:

    YEA!!!!!

  2. Wallflower says:

    You’ve got to love a panel of judges who can write a clear, reasoned compelling argument, and quote Grouche Marx in the same document! I loved the part that said, (paraphrasing) “Marilyn Monroe’s movie was not called How To Enter Into a State-Certified Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire.”

  3. Mary Morgan says:

    Be aware that the court’s ruling only applies to California because same-sex marriages were legal before Prop 8.

  4. LaniN says:

    Finally! Good news for everyone w
    ho loves someone!

  5. Baker's Dozen says:

    WOOT!

    I love the NInth circuit Court!

    I somehow feel that California is getting its mojo back!

  6. jwa says:

    So, I don’t get it….why isn’t the LDS church in FAVOR of gay marriage. See, if all the f*gs get married to each other, won’t that leave lots of extra unmarried women for all the straight Mormon boys? They could have 2 or 3 each.

    • mike from iowa says:

      I suspect it would upset them more if all Lesbians married each other and depleted the extra wives club for the Mormon lads. I do like your way of thinking.

  7. Mag the Mick says:

    There was a gent on The News Hour from “Defense of the Family” or some such outfit, who kept on insisting that marriage was solely for the progation and rearing of children, so allowing gay people to marry was a direct threat to this. I would like to ask him and his ilk something. I had to have a total hysterectomy in my late 20′s, with no chance thereafter to have children. Am I also barred from marriage? It is just infuriating that national groups are using this kind of hateful, ignorant rhetoric.

    • Baker's Dozen says:

      Perhaps women, once they hit 55, must have their marriages dissolved and their husbands pick out younger wives. Somehow, that seems to fit with a lot of Republican men I know.

      • slipstream says:

        Younger wives? You mean three or four women in their mid to late teens? If marriage is solely for propagation and rearing of children, it’s only logical.

    • beth. says:

      And that, Mag the Mick, is a perfect illustration of the many, many whys (and hows) making the rwnj ‘thinking’ is so damned flawed. *Everything* is either black OR white…there are no shades of gray; heaven forbid there might be gray!

      If you agree with they say, think, or do, you are with them on the “white” side…good; if you don’t agree with them, you are on the black side…bad. For some reason, they aren’t quite capable of flexing their brains enough to comprehend there might be circumstances they, themselves, have not personally experienced and/or have not personally come across, but which are legitimate circumstances, nonetheless. If a rwnj hasn’t personal knowledge of -or about- something, it .. does .. not .. exist! Variations are .. not .. allowed!; there is no –and can never be– gray.

      rwnj ‘thinking’ drives me crazy. beth.

    • mike from iowa says:

      Doesn’t Gingrich claim to be a hystery professor or some such non-sense? I would like to hear his take on this. Not really. To a certain someone in Arizona,I just stocked up on Neopolitan ice cream. Care for a nostalgic trip through old Italy by way of frozen concoctions?

  8. Kath the Scrappy says:

    I remember at the time that Judge Walker (retired, later coming out as being gay), MANY legal minds were saying that he had made a very thoughtful and thorough ruling. They said that most of his ‘findings of fact’ were slated towards USSC Kennedy’s past decisions, so it was likely that Kennedy would be more inclined to side with the more liberal justices. Kennedy is the swing vote typically.

    “In his opinion, Judge Walker presented 80 findings of fact regarding same-sex marriage, which included discussions about the immutability of sexual orientation, the ability of same-sex couples to be good parents, and the inequality of providing LGBT couples with civil unions as opposed to full marriages. These findings of fact are highly significant, because while appellate courts can overturn a lower court’s decision based on its findings of law, they usually defer to those courts’ findings of fact. Today’s ruling affirms Judge Walker’s findings of fact, meaning that they can but used in the future in other trial cases in the 9th Circuit that deal with LGBT rights.”

  9. London Bridges says:

    An important point to remember: Mott Romney’s Mormon Church spent huge sums of money and worked to get Proposition 8 passed. And we know that Mitt makes huge donations to the mormon Church as a huge tax writeoff. Also Blackwater’s Eric Prince’s mommy donated big bucks to help Proposition 8 pass.

    • Kath the Scrappy says:

      Not only the money. The Mormon Church also bussed in huge numbers of Morman ‘volunteers’ – from out of state – to man phone banks or doorbell, etc. This was more of a Mormon Proposition than a California Proposition.

  10. A Fan From Chicago says:

    MSNBC referenced a new Gallup Poll in the context of this story. I don’t have the numbers in front of me but I think I have them right. People were asked whether they approved of same sex marriage:

    Ages 18 – 34 70%
    35 – 55 53%
    55+ 39%

    For folks of a certain age, progress is coming too slowly. But when the younger generation takes over legislatures and courts and the media and a lot of other institutions they will wonder out loud why it was ever an issue and what took us so long.

    • Baker's Dozen says:

      Interesting cut off points. I personally know of only one person in the 55-65 range who doesn’t support gay marriage. I think that the real tipping point is closer to 70.

  11. Desert Mudpup says:

    That is good news.

    And if you’re ready for one of those thru-the-nose snorters, there’s this story of the Gingrich campaign unethically editing Wikipedia to clean up Gingrich’s history. You know, things like unethical conduct.

    • mike from iowa says:

      “So,your honor, I was walking down the street minding my own business when this loup garou jumped out from behind a bush and proposed to me. I swear I had no choice but to accept his/its proposal. What will I ever tell my wife?” Where the hell is Rick Sanitorium when he’s needed in California?

  12. Irishgirl says:

    Lots of good things happening in America today!

  13. mike from iowa says:

    Now it is the rwnj activist Soopreme Court that will be counted on by all right thinking nut jobs to overturn the liberal left leaning activist ninth circuit court of appeals and save the day for bigots and those that love to discriminate. Not taking any bets here.

  14. Moose Pucky says:

    Well, yahoo.

  15. ks sunflower says:

    Hurray!

    However, I just heard a legal consultant for MSNBC, say he thought the Appeals court wrote a narrow opinion (limiting the ruling to CA) in order to discourage the Supreme Court from taking it up and possibly overruling it. He said it may take one to two years for the issue to work its way up to the S. Court if the Court will even want to take it up because the narrow, carefully crafted holding does not apply to any other state.

    I hope he’s right. The conservative majority (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and almost always Kennedy) might feel threatened and rule against the Appeals Court. It would help balance their impulse if this or other cases like it were not considered until after November and President Obama is re-elected with Dems taking back the House. If Democrats can take both the Senate and House with strong majorities, the Court might reconsider any conservative impulse because legislation might override any regressive decision. Keeping my fingers crossed.

    In the meantime, hurray for CA!

    • leenie17 says:

      Hopefully, by the time this case would even make it to the SCOTUS, President Obama (in his second term, of course!) will have been able to appoint a new judge or two who will balance out the overwhelmingly conservative activism of the current Justices. If we also give him a Democratic Congress, he might actually be able to get his nominations through in addition to much of the legislation that was obstructed so far.

      The future of the SCOTUS is even more critical than the legislation that could be passed in the next four years since the Justices serve for so damn long and have such a colossal impact on this country’s laws!

      • laurie says:

        I wish there were a conservative on the court ready to retire.

        • leenie17 says:

          Scalia and Kennedy will both turn 80 during the next term. So will Ginsberg so there is a possibility of getting up to three new moderate-to-liberal justices in the SCOTUS, two of whom would replace conservatives.

          Okay, so there’s no way we would get liberal judges confirmed, but they would HAVE to be left of Scalia!

    • 24owls says:

      One very important thing to keep in mind is that this case is being represented by two powerhouse lawyers – Ted Olson and David Boies. If those two names sound familar it is because Ted Olson represented George W. Bush and David Boies represented Al Gore in Bush vs Gore. Politically these two are on opposit ends of the political spectrum but they have come together to overturn prop 8 and make sure the case does go to the supreme court for a final ruling. These two have taken the time and energy to make sure that every “t” is crossed and every “i” is dotted so that it is very clear that same sex marriages are as legally binding as any other marriage. Google either name and you’ll get tons of information on the cases, it is really interesting. More so it is wonderful to see such a powerful duo making a case for equality.

  16. UgaVic says:

    It was well stated…nothing more is needed to explain what those against this issue are trying to accomplish….”served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians”!!

  17. Tele says:

    Bravo! This news makes an already-sunny day that much brighter.

Leave A Comment

%d bloggers like this: