Federal Appeals Court Rules Prop. 8 Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

[FlaGator]

From the most overturned Appellate Court in the United States

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional.

The court ruled 2-1 to uphold the decision of a lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who determined in Aug. 2010 that Prop. 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/

[Rugnuts]

so CA's constitution has a provision to change it.
CA citizens then changed the constitution following the law.
Now the court says that is unconstitutional.


im lost.

[TVDOC]

9th Circus......80% overturn rate......they should just forward their cases to SCOTUS without comment......it would save the taxpayers a lot of time and money.

A decision from that bunch is worthless......

doc

[thundley4]

so CA's constitution has a provision to change it.
CA citizens then changed the constitution following the law.
Now the court says that is unconstitutional.


im lost.

The Circus Court is saying that the California Amendment would violate the US Constitution's equal protection clause.

[Rugnuts]

The Circus Court is saying that the California Amendment would violate the US Constitution's equal protection clause.

so what about other states gay-marriage bans?

[thundley4]

so what about other states gay-marriage bans?

From what I've read, the panel issued a narrow ruling that will for now , only affect California.

[NHSparky]

Marriage being regulated by the states, not the federal government.

That being said, it just shows how little input the people have in government anymore.  They vote on a law or amendment, and a miniscule minority ignores the will of the people.

The fact that this is even being challenged is a crock.  But at the same time, I would be against a FEDERAL ban on gay marriage.  Let the individual states decide.

[FreeBorn]

Gee, what are the odds that there could be three fairies in the 9th Circus Court of Appeasement?

Like most everything else this "court" graces with their magic activist legislation wand this is certainly headed for the SCOTUS.

Homosexuality is NOT a "civil rights" issue, it is a MORALITY issue.

[Ptarmigan]

Marriage being regulated by the states, not the federal government.

That being said, it just shows how little input the people have in government anymore.  They vote on a law or amendment, and a miniscule minority ignores the will of the people.

The fact that this is even being challenged is a crock.  But at the same time, I would be against a FEDERAL ban on gay marriage.  Let the individual states decide.

Same here. Personally, I think states should get out of marriage altogether.

[sybilll]

So much for the will of the people, eh?

[rich_t]

So much for the will of the people, eh?

The government has been ignoring that for quite some time now.

[TVDOC]

Same here. Personally, I think states should get out of marriage altogether.

There are significant and valid reasons for states to continue to maintain some standards......subject  to the vote of the electorate.

I DO NOT support homosexual marriage (however a civil union is fine with me)....and I do believe that a "slippery slope" exists regarding what can or cannot be defined as a "marriage".  I'll agree that it is not a federal issue, and I therefore remain free to "vote with my feet"......as the founders intended.

doc

[Ptarmigan]

There are significant and valid reasons for states to continue to maintain some standards......subject  to the vote of the electorate.

I DO NOT support homosexual marriage (however a civil union is fine with me)....and I do believe that a "slippery slope" exists regarding what can or cannot be defined as a "marriage".  I'll agree that it is not a federal issue, and I therefore remain free to "vote with my feet"......as the founders intended.

doc

I have no problems with civil unions either. The definition of marriage is man and woman and should be defined.

[thundley4]

After what Obama is doing to Catholic Churches and hospitals about insurance coverage, I have no doubt that the left would force churches to perform Teh Ghey weddings or remove their tax exempt status.

[NHSparky]

After what Obama is doing to Catholic Churches and hospitals about insurance coverage, I have no doubt that the left would force churches to perform Teh Ghey weddings or remove their tax exempt status.

And if that comes about, then you're going to have a REAL fight on your hands regarding a First Amendment issue.

I will say this about that--marriage was a RELIGIOUS institution long before it was a LEGAL one.  Let the states decide whether or not to allow same-sex unions, and allow individual denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages in the eyes of God...because let's face it, people are married in the eyes of God first.

[rich_t]

After what Obama is doing to Catholic Churches and hospitals about insurance coverage, I have no doubt that the left would force churches to perform Teh Ghey weddings or remove their tax exempt status.

Clear violation of the 1st amendment IMO.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Forcing the church to provide a service that clearly is against their religious beliefs, flies in the face of free exercise.

[thundley4]

Clear violation of the 1st amendment IMO.

Forcing the church to provide a service that clearly is against their religious beliefs, flies in the face of free exercise.

AFAIK, there have been no threats to tax exemption regarding the mandated insurance coverage, but there are huge fines for non-compliance. I do think the left would like to see churches lose their exemption though.

[Bondai]

And if that comes about, then you're going to have a REAL fight on your hands regarding a First Amendment issue.

I will say this about that--marriage was a RELIGIOUS institution long before it was a LEGAL one.  Let the states decide whether or not to allow same-sex unions, and allow individual denominations to decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages in the eyes of God...because let's face it, people are married in the eyes of God first.

Thank you....

[vesta111]

After what Obama is doing to Catholic Churches and hospitals about insurance coverage, I have no doubt that the left would force churches to perform Teh Ghey weddings or remove their tax exempt status.

Coming round about here to the unthinkable, Churches forced to allow Satanists  to demand a black wedding with the Crucifix upside down in any church or Temple they choose, just to piss on others beliefs.   

I can imagine the thrill of the unholy turning a Christian Church into a arena to perform the rites of Satan.

This will also cover Synagogue's  that must allow Neo Nazis to demand their rites be preformed in their Temples.

Muslims will be the last to allow desecrating of their Houses of Worship by others.   

All faiths have the RIGHT to keep non believers and trouble makers away from their DOOR.   When Churches are forced to accept non believers into their home, forced to desecrate their faith by allowing their faith to be perverted by outsiders performing acts that go against their faith,   Now What ????

In the long run I see this a future attack on the Free Masons and the religious groups that keep their secretes close to their vest.   The rights to associate with like kind are eroding step by step.

If Gays wish to "Marry" let them build their own Church's, no problem there.  Just not expect them to desecrate the faiths of others on demand or by LAW.

[Maxiest]

AFAIK, there have been no threats to tax exemption regarding the mandated insurance coverage, but there are huge fines for non-compliance. I do think the left would like to see churches lose their exemption though.

Well I am off the belief there should be no exemption but that is another subject.  IMO there should be zero exemptions, breaks, cuts, write-offs.

On point, I think the government deserves no place in marriage.  And the civil union issue should be decided by states no the Federal government.

[vesta111]

Well I am off the belief there should be no exemption but that is another subject.  IMO there should be zero exemptions, breaks, cuts, write-offs.

On point, I think the government deserves no place in marriage.  And the civil union issue should be decided by states no the Federal government.

What about privately owned hospitals and clinics owned and operated by a faith.   Say a group of Nuns open a public clinic for woman in need.  Open to all woman of any faith.   Do these Nuns now have to by law give out birth control or morning after pills??    Do they by law have to direct woman to the closest Abortion clinic???

This question on morality and the law is going to open up a snake pit, the Government has to stay out of religion unless that religion is breaking our laws. Those laws about doing harm to another--Killing kids they think are possessed by Satan, or some kind of mutilation to themselves or others.

Those that want the right to Marry another and another, is so far a no-no, one marriage to one person.  So why are Polygamists in Utah suing the State for the right to have as many wives as they wish ???

If 2 males can marry, why not 3 or more??   Damn the bag of worms is now open and crawling everywhere.