California gay marriage ban unconstitutional
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that California’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. That affirmed a lower court ruling that overturned the voter-approved Proposition 8. Almost certainly this is not the end of the matter; the case is bound for the Supreme Court.
Read the discuss the court’s ruling below.
February 7, 2012 - 1:47 PM
As more analysis comes out and I’ve had a chance to look a little more at the decision, I’m less convinced the Supreme Court will take this case or decide beyond its application to California if it does. It might do more, but there’s a good argument for this not to be the case for the top court to decide whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.
It’s quite telling, to borrow a phrase from another frequent poster, that it took the most liberal, activist circus, I mean Circuit in the nation to overturn the will the of the voters in this case. I can certainly see why you wouldn’t want this one to be the case the US Supreme Court reviews. Too many places where a slight re-wording could make a similar law pass Constitutional muster using the 9th Circuit’s analysis.
Ain’t it the truth Chuck! Those pesky courts always overturning the rights of the majority to trample on the minority. You would think that all those previous decisions would have registered. Darned Marbury v Madison! This time we told ole Taney’s bones that because gay people had lived on equal rights “soil” they are now entitled to equal rights.
Read more: Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html#ixzz1lkmxKuRU
The winner today was the Constitution and the reason the SCOTUS will probably not need to review this is that is was just that egregiously discriminatory. Rights may well be “inalienable” but that seldom stops those two wolves from deciding the lamb is for dinner does it? The force and rule of law is a beautiful thing when it is applied correctly.
Oddly enough: “MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Sound kinda familiar?
Let me be clear, “Marbury” was the first law that overturned a legislative body (Congress) and Taney refers to “Dred Scott” which was a case decided wrongly. I did not mean to imply they were one case.
It ain’t over till it’s over!
This will go to the SCOTUS and that is another reason to throw Obama out! We need more conservative judges in the lower courts.
Go Rick Santorum! He had a good night!
“Go Rick Santorum! He had a good night!”
Man-on-dog defeats dog-on-roof. You got nothing, John R.