Prop. 8 Overturned In California, Court Says State Can’t Ban Gay Mariage

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Dedbr, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    Prop. 8 Overturned In California, Court Says State Can’t Ban Gay Marriage

    [IMG]

    A celebration after the August 2010 decision (AP/Jeff Chalu)
    The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.

    [View a slideshow of demonstrations around Prop. 8 here]

    "Proposition 8 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 wrote in the decision. The court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Access to gay marriage will remain on hold pending appeals to the decision.

    You can watch an ABC News report on the ruling below:

    The Circuit Court backed up District Judge Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled in August of 2010 that the state of California has no "rational basis" to single out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage. The group fighting for Prop. 8, which passed in 2008 after thousands of gay couples had already married, appealed Walker's decision arguing that it should be vacated because Walker is gay and has a same-sex partner. The 9th Circuit Court judges denied this motion.

    Walker's sweeping 2010 decision was called a "grand slam" by gay rights advocates, who hoped it would convince the Supreme Court to rule states cannot outlaw gay marriage. But Reinhardt was explicit in his decision that his ruling is "narrow" and only relates to California, not to the entire nation. In California, gay people had the right to marry for five months before it was taken away by voters. This amounts to a violation of equal protection because a right was specifically taken away from a minority group, Reinhardt writes. But this argument would not apply to gay people in most other states, where gay marriage was never legalized in the first place. "It's a strong decision but it is not the ringing endorsement of broader marriage equality that some might have hoped for," Hunter College professor and gay rights advocate Kenneth Sherrill said.

    But University of California Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky tells Yahoo News that the underlying reasoning in the decision is broad--there's no legitimate state interest in denying same-sex marriage rights. Chemerinsky noted that the decision appeals to swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, by citing his decision in a 1996 case striking down a Colorado law that prevented communities from treating gay people as a protected class.

    Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush who represents the plaintiffs, said at a press conference that the decision is the first step to ending discrimination. "Today we are more American because of this decision," he said.

    The pro-Prop. 8 camp has said it will appeal the decision. The group can now ask for 11 members of the 9th Circuit hear their case, instead of just the panel of three who decided against them on Tuesday. "Today's ruling finally clears the field for an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, where we are confident we will be victorious," the Save Prop 8 campaign said in a statement.

    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected. President Obama also opposes same-sex marriage, but says that his opinion on the issue is "evolving."

    This is great. Marriage is an old, outdated institution that has no place in a modern society.......:hail:

    Ded......
    1 people like this.
  2. vvicked0471 vvicked0471

    • Super mod
    • Since: Nov 24, 2005
    • Posts: 3,254
    Good. I honestly don't see why the government is involved in any marriage in the first place. What purpose do they serve?
    2 people like this.
  3. Bud Is good Bud Is good

    • Resident non smoker
    • Since: Jul 15, 2009
    • Posts: 7,408
    Love matters..Male on male or female on female love matters..They should be allowed to get married if they want..
  4. friedfever friedfever

    • Member
    • Since: Jan 15, 2012
    • Posts: 258
    I guess I'll just have to call you guys out on this one. You all talk about the will of the people when it comes to MJ legalization yet when the people vote to ban gay marriage then you're all against it. Would one of you hypocrites explain that to me.
  5. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    Ouch, that hurt......:p

    Insert your favorite smiley in that and I can hang, though......;)

    Back on topic, it's nobody's business if I smoke herb or not, and it sure as hell ain't nobodies business who I'm lovin' touchin' squezzin' on. How's that for an explanation? Just because it's law don't make it right. Hell, I'm against the death penalty but it sure as hell is law right now in Ohio because they been zapping 'em real regular around here.....:bounce1:

    I am not a hypocrite because I advocate the legalization of herb but won't accept the will of voters in California to ban gay marriage. I don't accept the death penalty but it is and will continue to be used in most of the U.S. The people voted on it. I voted against it. I lost. Now I'm a hypocrite? :shrug:

    In the words of Yoda, "Caution should you be." :)

    Ded......
    2 people like this.
  6. FreddyC FreddyC

    • Pot is a better drug than alcohol. Fact!
    • Since: May 4, 2009
    • Posts: 1,417
    Can't disagree with that.

    Freddy

    Check out this documentary and you may just change your mind on how much the "will of the people" had to do with Prop 8.

    8: The Mormon Proposition (2010) - IMDb

    8: The Mormon Proposition - YouTube
  7. Bud Is good Bud Is good

    • Resident non smoker
    • Since: Jul 15, 2009
    • Posts: 7,408
    Well id MJ and gay maraige were both legal...Even tho it's really nobodys buisness..You could really start expanding who you hang out with or talk to...Not having to worry about ridecule and so forth..
  8. claygooding claygooding

    • DrugWarVeteran
    • Since: May 13, 2009
    • Posts: 9,611
    I could care less if two men or women want to be married,,as long as the male partners don't ask me to join in on a threesome and the ladies ask me too.
    1 people like this.
  9. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    Washington state lawmakers pass gay marriage bill

    Washington state lawmakers pass gay marriage bill

    [IMG]By RACHEL LA CORTE | Associated Press – 13 mins ago




    OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.

    The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

    The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. Supporters in the public viewing galleries stood and cheered as many on the Democratic side of the House floor hugged after the vote.

    The state Senate approved the measure last week, and the bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law next week.

    Gregoire watched the vote in the wings with the bill's sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, who is gay and has sponsored gay rights legislation for years. Murray said the vote marked "a day that will be remembered in the history of this state."

    Gregoire issued a statement after the vote, saying it was "a major step toward completing a long and important journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation."

    Democratic Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who also has sponsored gay rights bills for several years, said that he and his partner have been grateful for the rights that exist under the state's domestic partnership laws but such protections are "a pale and inadequate substitute for marriage."

    Pedersen, during his remarks on the House floor, read from Tuesday's ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing a section that stated "marriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults."

    Several Republicans argued against the bill, saying that it goes against the tradition of marriage. Rep. Jay Rodne said the measure "severs the cultural, historical and legal underpinnings of the institution of marriage."

    Despite the action, gay couples can't begin walking down the aisle just yet.

    The proposal would take effect 90 days after the session ends next month but opponents have promised to fight gay marriage with a ballot measure that would allow voters to overturn the legislative approval.

    If opponents gather enough signatures to take their fight to the ballot box, the law would be put on hold pending the outcome of a November election. Opponents must turn in more than 120,000 signatures by June 6 if they want to challenge the proposed law. Otherwise gay couples could wed starting in June.

    Several Republican amendments were rejected, including one that would have added private businesses and individuals, such as bakers and photographers, to the exemption in the measure that doesn't require religious organizations or churches to perform marriages and doesn't subject them to penalties if they don't marry gay or lesbian couples.

    Another would have required a one-month residency requirement before people could get married in Washington.

    Two Republicans crossed the aisle and voted in favor of the bill. Three Democrats voted against it. Democrats hold a 56-42 majority in the House.

    Washington state has had domestic partnership laws since 2007, and more than a dozen other states have provisions, ranging from civil unions to gay marriage, supporting same-sex couples.

    Gay marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C.

    Lawmakers in New Jersey are expected to vote on gay marriage next week, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot.

    Proposed amendments to ban gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina in May and in Minnesota in November.

    A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday against California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

    The panel gave gay marriage opponents time to appeal the 2-1 decision before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume. The judges also said the decision only applies to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states.

    Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 said they have not decided if they will seek a new 9th Circuit hearing or file an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Washington state's momentum for same-sex marriage has been building and the debate has changed significantly since 1998, when lawmakers passed Washington's Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage. The constitutionality of that law ultimately was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006. But earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after nearly 30 years of failure, signaling a change in the Legislature.

    The quick progression of domestic partnership laws in the state came soon after, with a domestic partnership law in 2007, and two years of expansion that culminated in 2009 with "everything but marriage" expansion that was upheld by voters.

    In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples, without calling the unions "marriage."

    If a challenge to gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote to uphold the law. And 38 percent said they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

    Same-sex marriage also has the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft, Nike and Starbucks.
  10. stoneygreenbud stoneygreenbud

    • Super Moderator
    • Since: Oct 31, 2005
    • Posts: 6,518

    I am as straight as straight can be, but I know quite a few people that are gay and lesbian,
    and at the end of the day, people are people & love is blind. the Govt. has no place when
    it comes to human contact and human relationships.

    The Govt.'s job is suppose to be pushing a pencil behind a desk, not in someone's bedroom
    monitoring who sleeps with who.

    lol @ dedbr ....... I love yoda [IMG]

    ~Stoney~

    2 people like this.
  11. SourDieselMan SourDieselMan

    • Active Member
    • Since: Jul 13, 2011
    • Posts: 819
    I think anyone has the right to marry who they want if they are same sex or different sex.
  12. Insaneteacher Insaneteacher

    • Fare You Well
    • Since: Jul 30, 2004
    • Posts: 5,050
    the government has no business telling me or anybody else how to live their life. if i wanna smoke pot and marry a dude then so be it, the government should have nothing to do with that. what's hypocritical about wanting freedom for everyone in both of those aspects of life?
    2 people like this.
  13. Linx Linx

    • Banned
    • Since: Jan 13, 2012
    • Posts: 214
    Basically because they (Government) offer certain benefits to married couples, they get involved so that they may regulate mis-use of such benefits. A good example might be the Immigration system where one can be brought over if you get married.

    I assure you, methods will be taken to circumvent such schemes.

    Also, DedBR; you all for free love and no strings? Pretty shallow don't you think? Marriage is the civilized manner of coupling, rather than that common human instinct of kill whomever so toucheth my mate. In hindsight I'd say the system was taken on in ancient times when people were becoming more civilized. Most likely concocted by the Philosophers of old in the religious communities. Whether this is something God gnuinely cares about is beyond me completely.
  14. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    Shallow? No. Brilliant and enlightened I think is better......;)
    Civilized manner of coupling? Nope. I am not married to the woman I am "mated " with. It takes more work to not be married. Being married gives folks a license to be evil in my opinion.......:hail:

    Be honest, live free is the way I look at it.......

    Ded.........
    1 people like this.
  15. friedfever friedfever

    • Member
    • Since: Jan 15, 2012
    • Posts: 258
    I really don't care if you want to fuck some dude in the ass or not. Thats all on you and good for you.The point I was making was throughout this forum, you hear people screaming about states rights and that the states should be able to do whatever they want. Well you can't have it both ways. Yes, let the states control weed but then if the PEOPLE of that state say "no fucking HOMO marriages" then thats their choice as well.
  16. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    FF.....
    What ya mean I can't have it both ways? I will have it both ways, and don't let your prejudices over rule your common sense.......;)

    You had to throw that in there, didn't ya? Fucking HOMO? Degrade the men and women who choose a different sexuality and show your prejudices in your post at the same time. Why not just come out and say what your problem is? Your unsure of your sexuality so you take it out on Gays. I see this all the time from religious zealots who want to impose their laws and ways of thinking on others...... :rolleyes:

    I think you should apologize to the membership for your post. It's just not right and shows your prejudices quite well.......

    Ded.....
    1 people like this.
  17. friedfever friedfever

    • Member
    • Since: Jan 15, 2012
    • Posts: 258
    I never said that there was anything wrong with gays. But others are entitled to their opinions. If a state or a community says "we want legalized weed" then the majority has spoken. If that same group says "no GAY marriages" then move to a state that allows it.
    So Ded, is HOMO a bad word?
  18. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    HOMO? You didn't say homo, you said "Fuckin HOMO".....:rolleyes:

    And yes it's bad, it's a derogatory word used to insult gay or lesbian folks. C'mon, just say it. "I'm sorry that I insulted Gays and did not mean to flame Gays." If I was gay, I would be offended, that's for sure. So be honest, admit your a gay basher and move on. Everybody knows you are already so get it off your chest......:D
    If a state votes for no gay marriages, (and by the way, this whole campaign was funded by Mormon money from the state of Utah, so the folks who wanted this ban the most aren't even citizens of the state), if they vote for no gay marriage, their a bunch of old, bigoted assholes who are too stupid to vote for freedom. In my opinion this shouldn't even be voted on, it's nobodies business........;)

    And that last part, "Move to a state that allows it." That's really funny. My country, love it or leave it, huh? Why not have all the bigoted assholes who voted for this crap move to the desert in Nevada or Utah? That way they could worship their magic helper in the sky any way they want to and not have to worry about a gay person shaking a limp wrist at them.........:hail:

    Ded.........
    1 people like this.
  19. friedfever friedfever

    • Member
    • Since: Jan 15, 2012
    • Posts: 258
    I admit nothing. You don't know me and nobody here knows me. I'm not bashing anyone.
    Why should the vast majority bend to the will of an extreme minority?
  20. Dedbr Dedbr

    • Domestic War Veteran
    • Since: Mar 24, 2001
    • Posts: 21,228
    Your right nobody knows you. What they do know is you are a gay basher, your post illustrated that very well. My sister, who is gay, just called me and wanted to know if it was alright to gay bash here now and I said no, it wasn't, but you'll have that every once in a while......

    Fried, the only thing we do know about you is what you've posted so far, and in my opinion it doesn't look good......:(
    Because it's the right thing to do? Nobodies trying to make anyone gay. Nobodies trying to make any one bend to anything. This is a case of a persons rights being denied them because of sexual orientation, pure and simple......

    I applaud this judge and his eminently wise decision.....:hail:

    It's about time somebody stood up to the friggin right wing conservative religious zealot extremists who pander this crap to the public........:eek:

    Ded......
    2 people like this.

Share This Page