Appeals court rules Prop 8 unconstitutional, case now likely to go to SCOTUS.

[Hooch]

Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that banned new same-sex marriages in California from 2008 onwards, was ruled unconstitutional by a district court in August 2010 by Judge Vaughn Walker.

Today his decision was upheld by a federal appeals court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

The three-judge panel issued its ruling Tuesday morning in San Francisco, upholding a decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who had been the chief judge of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California but has since retired. Like Judge Walker, the panel found that Proposition 8 – passed by California voters in November 2008 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent -- violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought the suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex.

The court ruled 2 to 1 that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by discriminating against a group of people, gay men and lesbians.

The full ruling is on Scribd, Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision.

The court also rejected an attempt to have Walker's ruling struck down on the grounds that he himself is gay.

A stay has been put in place that means that marriages won't resume until the case is ruled on by the Supreme Court where it is now sure to proceed.

[TropicalCandy]

.....where Obamas two closet conservative nominees will do a nice job at joining Scalia in knocking it down. Yay for change...

[neiphin]

Court: Prop 8 Is Unconstitutional | Mother Jones

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," wrote Judge Steven

[livingstone]

Very good result. It is a pity that ultimately the decision will come down to the views of Justice Kennedy alone.

Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will probably uphold the decision.

Roberts, Scalia, Clarence and Alito will definitely reject it. Kennedy is the swing and from what I've heard, it could go either way. Apparently one of the attractions of Sotomayor and Kagan for Obama was that, unlike some firebrand liberals, they have the capacity to win over Kennedy with cold logic, and ultimately, the ability to win over Kennedy is the surest way to decide the direction of the court.

[Astral Peaks]

Very good result. It is a pity that ultimately the decision will come down to the views of Justice Kennedy alone.

Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer will probably uphold the decision.

Roberts, Scalia, Clarence and Alito will definitely reject it. Kennedy is the swing and from what I've heard, it could go either way. Apparently one of the attractions of Sotomayor and Kagan for Obama was that, unlike some firebrand liberals, they have the capacity to win over Kennedy with cold logic, and ultimately, the ability to win over Kennedy is the surest way to decide the direction of the court.

If, and I know it is still an "if", the case is ultimately won on Kennedy's vote, for the reasons you outline and the tactic of cold logic, will the gay and lesbian community give Obama the credit for his appointments, despite decrying them as not being liberal enough at the time?

[Telemachus]

So much for direct democracy.

The inhuman death cult must spread its wings, marriage is just another arbitrary construct and can be remolded by man at will, since married men and woman are given a higher status - that in itself is discrimatory.

[TropicalCandy]

If, and I know it is still an "if", the case is ultimately won on Kennedy's vote, for the reasons you outline and the tactic of cold logic, will the gay and lesbian community give Obama the credit for his appointments, despite decrying them as not being liberal enough at the time?

Why would you congradulate a guy opposed to same sex marraige for SOMEONE ELSE recognising your marriage rights?

So much for direct democracy.

The inhuman death cult must spread its wings, marriage is just another arbitrary construct and can be remolded by man at will, since married men and woman are given a higher status - that in itself is discrimatory.

Any real democracy does not allow majority vote to crush minority rights.
This is not the kind of thing that should be put to referendum.

[Astral Peaks]

Why would you congradulate a guy opposed to same sex marraige for SOMEONE ELSE recognising your marriage rights?


.

If that has to be explained.................................?

[TropicalCandy]

If that has to be explained.................................?

Just because he appointed them?? He's opposed to same sex marriage, so it clearly was not a factor in his choosing them , so if they rule on the side of freedom its incidental, not something he designed.

[ben__w]

The inhuman death cult must spread its wings, marriage is just another arbitrary construct and can be remolded by man at will, since married men and woman are given a higher status - that in itself is discrimatory.

Eh, what?