prop 8 overturned

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on *** marriage as early as next year.

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.



“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.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship. Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly ***, said after his ruling that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and partner wished to marry.

ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday's decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.

Gays and lesbians were entitled to marry in California for six months after the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban in May 2008. The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment of the California Constitution.

While the Proposition 8 case was still pending in state court, two same-sex couples sued in federal court to challenge the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

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

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 thier relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.

It's also not good that courts can overturn what the people have voted for.

I don't think the court would have to do anything since I doubt the 49% would stand for it regardless what the court says. And even though the judges may rule in favor of the 49%, that doesn't mean the government (presumably controlled by the 51%) would do anything about it. The thing about the judicial branch is that its rulings are only as good as the government enforcement behind them. And believe me, history has shown that both the federal government and state governments have told courts "F U" in the past. Not to get too caught up in the slavery issue, but the Civil War was also a fight between the federal and state governments for sovereignty. And when you really look at it, the states had every right to leave the Union...but that's a debate for another time.

There's a lot I could say on the issue given the fact that "marriage equality" just got signed into law by our governor today, but I'll just stick to addressing your post as briefly as possible. Simply put, I don't believe the arguments for same-sex marriage carry any weight to them. Marriage is not a right, but a privilege. On that same note, I would not be opposed to removing all government laws in regards to sanctioning marriages. Also, it's important to keep in mind that nothing stops same-sex couples (or heterosexual couples for that matter) from pursuing a relationship. You don't need a piece of paper from the government to be with or love someone last time I checked.

expect for the fact that married couples save a LOT more money and protection than those who are considered partners or bf/gf.

Here's the thing: marriage is not just "here's a piece of paper that says you are married in the eyes of the government." There are legal rights that come along with marriage which same-sex couples do not have access to (and so therefore the government is arbitrarily denying rights to a group of people for no reason other than the fact that they belong to that group (which is against the 5th and 14th amendments)). Regardless of the fact that entire states choose to break the law (Civil War), it's not legal, and it should be enforced as such.