You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
May 24, 2018, 11:02:44 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional: On to the Supreme Court?  (Read 751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CaeliTopic starter

Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional: On to the Supreme Court?
« on: February 07, 2012, 09:15:09 PM »
This is only one of many articles that I've seen on the news. Here is another Washington Post article with some excerpts from the ruling.

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. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.” - U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt

The panel took a narrow route in knocking down California’s prohibition and did not address whether same-sex couples have a federal constitutional right to marry. Such unions are unlikely to resume in the nation’s most populous state until the appeals process is completed.

But it was a significant development in a contentious national battle over gay rights, including the ability to serve openly in the military. Besides California, 28 states have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage, and 12 others have laws that restrict unions to one man and one woman.

Six states and the District of Columbia allow gay couples to marry, and three others are considering joining them. Polls show a striking generational difference in acceptance, with young people far more in favor of allowing same-sex unions.

There is a partisan difference as well. And if the issue reaches the Supreme Court, as opponents of same-sex-marriage want, the arguments could occur in the fall when the nation is consumed with a presidential election.

The ideological differences were apparent on the three-judge panel. Reinhardt, a Jimmy Carter appointee who is considered one of the nation’s most liberal appellate judges, was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented.

But the majority did not issue a broad ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Instead, it focused on the fact that gay couples in California for a brief time had the right to marry, and that Proposition 8 took that away.

I'm leery of celebrating right now, since it seems that the decision will more than likely continue on to the Supreme Court. But I think this can still be counted a victory for gay rights activists and Proposition 8 opposition.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional: On to the Supreme Court?
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2012, 09:26:17 PM »
Oh yeah.. I'm wondering if they are going to go to the circuit or straight to the Ladies and Gents in DC right off.

Offline Oniya

Re: Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional: On to the Supreme Court?
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2012, 10:00:11 PM »
This week's ruling was from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the next stop (if any) would be the Supremes. 

Yes, it amuses me to associate them with a Motown singing group.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: The Valley of the Sun
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional: On to the Supreme Court?
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2012, 10:58:11 AM »
I was reading about it on The commentators there seemed to feel that it was unlikely that the ruling would go to the Supreme Court simply because it's so narrow. The court didn't rule that gay marriage itself is a right, etc, but ruled that the specific case of California, where the rights were taken away by ballot vote, is unconstitutional. Because the ruling was so narrow and affects only California's case, they said it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would take it, since the Supreme Court is supposed to be concerned with rulings that affect the country rather than just one state.

Essentially, since the court was careful not to overreach, their decision may well stand up much better.