9th Circus Court to rule on Calif Prop 8, changing defn of marriage to include same-sex

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
In 2010 a judge (who himself was gay) issued a ruling to change the fundamental definition of marriage in California, amending it to include same-sex couples. The decision was appealed to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, where a 3-judge panel said they would issue their ruling this morning, Feb. 7. Two of the judges were appointed by liberal Presidents, and one by a moderate.

The 9th Circus Court is the most-overturned Appeals court in the country, by a wide margin.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us_news-life/

Federal court to rule on Calif. ban on gay marriage

by LISA LEFF
updated 2 hours 51 minutes ago 2012-02-07 14:09:12

SAN FRANCISCO — Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that considered the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion 18 months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married.

The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case.

Even if the panel upholds the lower court ruling, it could be a while before same-sex couples can resume marrying in the state. Proposition 8 backers plan to appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel and then to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court. Marriages would likely stay on hold while that process plays out.

The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard arguments on the ban's constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether Proposition 8 sponsors had legal authority to challenge the trial court ruling after California's attorney general and governor decided not to appeal it.

The California court ruled in November that the state's vigorous citizens' initiative process grants official proponents of ballot measures the right to defend their measures in court if state officials refuse to do so.

Further complicating the case was a move in April by lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that put Proposition 8 on the ballot to have the trial court ruling struck down because the now-retired judge who issued it was in a long-term relationship with another man.

Judge's sexual orientation became part of case

Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker disclosed he was gay and had a partner of 10 years after he retired from the bench last year. Proposition 8 backers have argued that Walker's relationship posed a potential conflict-of-interest and that he should have revealed it before he declared the measure unconstitutional in August 2010.
 
Werbung:
well chances are we already know h9ow they will see it. Only question seems to be whether the state constitution stays in effect through the appeals processor not. Or perhaps these guys say not before another court says otherwise leaving still more people in that limbo like Gavin Newsome created in San Fran a few years back.
 
Whatever the decision, it will be appealed. Probably to a full panel on the 9th Circus (this one is just a three-judge panel).

Or possibly straight to the Supremes.

So, just like the previous Obamacare trials, it doesn't really matter what this panel decides.
 
Whatever the decision, it will be appealed. Probably to a full panel on the 9th Circus (this one is just a three-judge panel).

Or possibly straight to the Supremes.

So, just like the previous Obamacare trials, it doesn't really matter what this panel decides.

no, just a step on the path.
 
And I sure hope it is a step on the path to sanity, to freedom, and for religious biggots to stop miggling in people's bedroom!
In fact, it may still take 2 years, 5 years, even 10 years. . .but there is absolutely no doubt that, eventually, the public opinion will push the courts to make the right decision.

Every year more people join the sane crowd and recognizes that gay marriage should not be a "legal," "political, or "religious" decision.
 
And I sure hope it is a step on the path to sanity, to freedom, and for religious biggots to stop miggling in people's bedroom!
In fact, it may still take 2 years, 5 years, even 10 years. . .but there is absolutely no doubt that, eventually, the public opinion will push the courts to make the right decision.

Every year more people join the sane crowd and recognizes that gay marriage should not be a "legal," "political, or "religious" decision.


which is it Open, people's bedrooms of government benefits ? there is nothing stopping bedrooms (ok there are age issues and other criminal ones).
 
And today, the 9th Circus 3-judge panel has said.... Traditional marriage is unconstitutional. The fundamental definition of marriage MUST be changed, and same-sex couples must be included.

Off to the appeals process.....
 
which is it Open, people's bedrooms of government benefits ? there is nothing stopping bedrooms (ok there are age issues and other criminal ones).

Well, I guess if we believe that marriage is only about getting government benefits, we could cancel ALL government benefits based on marriage. . .for EVERYONE!
That is also an option to achieve equal right, AND to assure that the government has nothing to do in people's bedrooms, whether the bedroom is occupied by two people of different or same sex!

In the mean time, Prop 8 is gone. . .and we are on our way to the Supreme Court!

An other small step in the right direction!

Happy days! :)
 
Well, I guess if we believe that marriage is only about getting government benefits, we could cancel ALL government benefits based on marriage. . .for EVERYONE!
That is also an option to achieve equal right, AND to assure that the government has nothing to do in people's bedrooms, whether the bedroom is occupied by two people of different or same sex!

In the mean time, Prop 8 is gone. . .and we are on our way to the Supreme Court!

An other small step in the right direction!

Happy days! :)

rights are enumerated in the constituion, no marriage there.

but it is off to somewhere I doubt straight to SCOTUS though.
 
rights are enumerated in the constituion, no marriage there.

but it is off to somewhere I doubt straight to SCOTUS though.

Oh. . .so you are stating that marriage is not a constitutional right. . .for anyone!
I tend to agree with you on that. I have no idea why the government has to be in the marriage business to begin with!
Civil unions have something to do with "legality," religious union do not. . .they have to do with "faith," and "beliefs," and that's just fine, and I believe it should stay that way. I believe that EVERYONE (based on Constitutional equals Rights) has the right to civil unions, whether they are gay or straight. I believe that the right to religious marriage should be left to CHURCHES, and if a Minister, or the Pope, or any religious authority refuses to perform a RELIGIOUS ceremony to bless a couple based on that Church's beliefs, that's perfectly fine with me. . .but they shouldn't have the right to decide wich two people should be refused equal protection under the law, especially NOT because of sexuality.

So. . .that goes back to what I said earlier: Let's just either refuse the "legal" standing of civil unions (and the tax etc. . .advantages that go with it), or allow it for everyone.
And let's leave the "religious unions" be decided by each faith group. . .but without affecting the legality or illegality of the union and/or the benefits a civil union currently brings to people.
 
Oh. . .so you are stating that marriage is not a constitutional right. . .for anyone!
I tend to agree with you on that. I have no idea why the government has to be in the marriage business to begin with!
Civil unions have something to do with "legality," religious union do not. . .they have to do with "faith," and "beliefs," and that's just fine, and I believe it should stay that way. I believe that EVERYONE (based on Constitutional equals Rights) has the right to civil unions, whether they are gay or straight. I believe that the right to religious marriage should be left to CHURCHES, and if a Minister, or the Pope, or any religious authority refuses to perform a RELIGIOUS ceremony to bless a couple based on that Church's beliefs, that's perfectly fine with me. . .but they shouldn't have the right to decide wich two people should be refused equal protection under the law, especially NOT because of sexuality.

So. . .that goes back to what I said earlier: Let's just either refuse the "legal" standing of civil unions (and the tax etc. . .advantages that go with it), or allow it for everyone.
And let's leave the "religious unions" be decided by each faith group. . .but without affecting the legality or illegality of the union and/or the benefits a civil union currently brings to people.


well people started asking government to inte4rvene in disputes a LONG time ago and so the civil aspect of marriage was born. not much chance of ditching it. it was born of the people and the people should be who decide what is and is not to be accorded this. I believe that the SCOTUS ought to say that the federal govt has no jurisdiction and leave it alone at the state level where it belongs.
 
Werbung:
well people started asking government to inte4rvene in disputes a LONG time ago and so the civil aspect of marriage was born. not much chance of ditching it. it was born of the people and the people should be who decide what is and is not to be accorded this. I believe that the SCOTUS ought to say that the federal govt has no jurisdiction and leave it alone at the state level where it belongs.

I don't disagree with that. I think it would be just fine to have each state decide on gay marriage. Either way, we know that it will continue to spread from one state to another, with the "Bible belt" staying behind for another 10 or 15 years probably! And that's fine also! It just means that gay people (and there is a greater percentage of well educated, professional and therefore successful people among the gay than in the normal population) will continue to bring their skills and creativity to the "progressive" states and the bible belt will be left even further behind!
 
Back
Top