CA: Appeals Panel Overturns Prop 8's same-sex marriage ban

New Posts

Emma Peel

Emma Peel

an unexpected turn of events
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
11,060
Reaction score
8,304
Opponents of same-sex marriage have the option of appealing Tuesday’s decision to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit or taking it directly to the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the matter.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html


The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

FULL COVERAGE: Prop. 8

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

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html


Welcome back, California. :wave:
 
Good for CA.

And, here we are in Minnesota, which will have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2012, thanks to the Republican held legistature, which had it placed on the ballot.

According to a poll taken by Public Policy Polling reported on Jan. 27, 48% of Minnesotans polled support an amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman; 44% oppose. 1200 voters were surveyed.

So, BACKWARD Minnesota may pass a marriage amendment, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, only to have it declared unconstitutional in the near future. Can you believe this?
 
Trino said:
Good for CA.

And, here we are in Minnesota, which will have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2012, thanks to the Republican held legistature, which had it placed on the ballot.

According to a poll taken by Public Policy Polling reported on Jan. 27, 48% of Minnesotans polled support an amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman; 44% oppose. 1200 voters were surveyed.

So, BACKWARD Minnesota may pass a marriage amendment, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, only to have it declared unconstitutional in the near future. Can you believe this?
Click to expand...

Seriously? I always had the impression that MN was quite liberal for the most part. :confused:
 
Gardenlady said:
Seriously? I always had the impression that MN was quite liberal for the most part. :confused:
Click to expand...

Seriously. It's true.

Minnesota USED to be progressive. I don't understand what happened really. This state has changed since the 1980's.
 
Well, don't feel too bad, even we are stuck with Senator Cosmo here in Mass! :D

Hopefully he will soon be trounced back out by Eliz. warren, and we can just ignore his term as some weird abberation lol.
 
Kansas used to be one of the more progressive states in the Union. Read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? to understand the change in so many Heartland states.

But Minnesotans need not despair: 44 to 48% isn't bad and time is on our side. Members of the younger generation have trouble understanding why this is even an issue.

In the meantime, GREAT DAY FOR US CALIFORNIANS!

***

This article:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ay-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html

suggests the Supreme Court may not even agree to hear an appeal. The reason? The appellate court's ruling is very narrow and based entirely on the idea that a majority vote may not target and eliminate the existing rights of a minority. The ruling applies only in California and it stops short of saying gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry a same-sex partner; it just says that once they do have that right, a majority vote can't take it away.

Even people who are uncomfortable with gay marriage should think long and hard about whether you want your civil rights to depend on the whims of a majority vote. Next time, YOU may be the minority under attack.
 
:clap::clap::clap::clap:

:woot:
 
Gardenlady said:
Well, don't feel too bad, even we are stuck with Senator Cosmo here in Mass! :D

Hopefully he will soon be trounced back out by Eliz. warren, and we can just ignore his term as some weird abberation lol.
Click to expand...

Amen. Please try to vote at least twice for Ms. Warren. I'm sure they'll understand if you tell them you are voting once for me.
 
Nova said:
Kansas used to be one of the more progressive states in the Union. Read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? to understand the change in so many Heartland states.

But Minnesotans need not despair: 44 to 48% isn't bad and time is on our side. Members of the younger generation have trouble understanding why this is even an issue.

In the meantime, GREAT DAY FOR US CALIFORNIANS!

***

This article:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ay-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html

suggests the Supreme Court may not even agree to hear an appeal. The reason? The appellate court's ruling is very narrow and based entirely on the idea that a majority vote may not target and eliminate the existing rights of a minority. The ruling applies only in California and it stops short of saying gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry a same-sex partner; it just says that once they do have that right, a majority vote can't take it away.

Even people who are uncomfortable with gay marriage should think long and hard about whether you want your civil rights to depend on the whims of a majority vote. Next time, YOU may be the minority under attack.
Click to expand...

It might be a good thing for the Supreme Court to hear the case. I think there's a good chance the court would call laws against gay marriage discriminatory and unconstitutional.
 
I think gay marriage could be legal nationwide in maybe 80-100 years. Maybe. Not likely, but possible. No sooner.

It took about fifteen generations to take slaves away from the One Percent, and another full century for dark skinned Americans just to get the right to vote in this land. Many thousands of Americans sit in cages at this very moment, their only "crime" being marijuana cultivation, a product safer than pure H2O.

Personally I don't think we'll really see any efforts towards legalizing personal liberty in our lifetimes. Not if the uber conservative supremes can drag it out for a few more generations.
 
marauder said:
Personally I don't think we'll really see any efforts towards legalizing personal liberty in our lifetimes. Not if the uber conservative supremes can drag it out for a few more generations.
Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped

Sadly I have to agree with this sentiment. I would love to see it happen, but I think it will be a long struggle.

As a conservative, who leans libertarian, I would love to see the government stay out of our marriages altogether. If people of the same sex want to marry, or multiple marriages...it doesn't affect me. I just can't see in good conscience, standing in the way of someone else's love.
 
marauder said:
I think gay marriage could be legal nationwide in maybe 80-100 years. Maybe. Not likely, but possible. No sooner.

It took about fifteen generations to take slaves away from the One Percent, and another full century for dark skinned Americans just to get the right to vote in this land. Many thousands of Americans sit in cages at this very moment, their only "crime" being marijuana cultivation, a product safer than pure H2O.

Personally I don't think we'll really see any efforts towards legalizing personal liberty in our lifetimes. Not if the uber conservative supremes can drag it out for a few more generations.
Click to expand...

I fear you are right. But if we can keep gay marriage legal on the coasts and a few other states, such as Iowa, at least gay people will have places where they can live and know their homes and families are protected by law.
 
Trino said:
It might be a good thing for the Supreme Court to hear the case. I think there's a good chance the court would call laws against gay marriage discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

From your mouth to God's ear, as the saying goes.

But after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, I don't trust our Supreme Court to demonstrate common sense or even simple decency.
 
Wow, good for Bill O!! (didn't ever think id say that! :D )

And what the heck, million moms?! Ellen? You're boycotting Ellen? people think Ellen is dangerous? LOL! Leaving aside the bigotry of it all,isn't it just a bit ridiculous to be so afraid of Ellen Degenerous? I mean, that's sort of like boycotting and fearing the nice, funny gal who does your hair, or your kid's favorite teacher, or something!
 
Gardenlady said:
Wow, good for Bill O!! (didn't ever think id say that! :D )

And what the heck, million moms?! Ellen? You're boycotting Ellen? people think Ellen is dangerous? LOL! Leaving aside the bigotry of it all,isn't it just a bit ridiculous to be so afraid of Ellen Degenerous? I mean, that's sort of like boycotting and fearing the nice, funny gal who does your hair, or your kid's favorite teacher, or something!
Click to expand...

I know, right?

I thought about putting it in the Celebrity News section so it would get noticed more.

Then... I thought ... I'm not going to be the one to promote hits for whatever that millionmoms attack-on-Ellen nonsense is.

So ... in the celebrity thread, I went with Arnie & Sly instead. :innocent:
 
Just thinking...

What if Santorium gets elected (favors a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage), and we have a GOP controlled House and Senate? Could an anti-gay amendment be passed? This could set gay rights back for years but could also pose a challenge the Supreme Court would be required to hear.
 
Trino said:
Just thinking...

What if Santorium gets elected (favors a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage), and we have a GOP controlled House and Senate? Could an anti-gay amendment be passed? This could set gay rights back for years but could also pose a challenge the Supreme Court would be required to hear.
Click to expand...

I don't know if SCOTUS can be "required" to hear any case they don't want to hear, can they? (I really don't know.) In theory, they don't rule on constitutional amendments, but I suppose that, as in California, they could be asked to rule whether such an amendment was in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. But that would be way down the road...

First, I don't think Santorum can get elected (or even nominated). In fact, a president has nothing to do with amending the Constitution, so this is only one more ignorant thing Santorum has said. Of course he can make public statements proposing such an amendment whether or not he is president; but his being president doesn't change matters, at least not legally.

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both houses, so it wouldn't be enough for the GOP to simply "control" both. (And in fact I believe at least a few GOP legislators would vote against such an amendment on libertarian grounds.) Some Democrats might vote for it, but I'm not at all sure they could get the required super-majority.

THEN the proposed amendment has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 out of 50. I think we can assume that the states with gay marriage or the equivalent (that's about 17 out of 50, depending on how you define domestic partnerships) would vote against it. And there would be a battle in every other state. That should leave Santorum many states short of ratification.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

It's hard to tell with Santorum, as he really does seem stupid. But I suspect his advisors have explained all this and he is just posturing.
 
This may be a stupid question because I don't keep up with the politics in California like I did when I lived there, but didn't this come before the people in a vote and it was voted down?

It always scares me when the people vote for something and then the government overturns it, no matter what the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 212 more.
Total: 4,397 (members: 213, guests: 4,184)

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
4,184
Total visitors
4,397
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,355
Messages
17,967,942
Members
228,754
Latest member
Annie151
Back
Top