Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[syrenn]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

 

[g5000]

Yep. The federal appeals court has just ruled Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional.

I will post a link to the decision as soon as it becomes publicly available.

This is sure to move on to the US Supreme Court.

 

[syrenn]

California gay marriage ban struck down by federal appeals court - San Jose Mercury News

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Proposition 8, finding that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it deprives gay and lesbian couples of the equal right to wed.

With a decision that pushes the gay marriage issue a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld former San Francisco Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who invalidated Proposition 8 in 2010 after conducting an unprecedented trial.

"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," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.

Judge N. Randy Smith dissented, saying there were "legitimate governmental interests" in restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and woman.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

What a SHOCK. The extremely leftist 9th Circuit Court has ruled in favor of another leftist agenda. I just can't believe it!

 

[rightwinger]

It will all come down to can you vote on what rights others are allowed to have

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

 

[xotoxi]

I am neither gay nor do I live in California.

So I don't really care.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It will all come down to can you vote on what rights others are allowed to have

It will come down to "does the State have a compelling interest in legislating the activities of people in the bedroom" and the answer is yes. Unless you think Polygamy and Incest between consenting adults is ok.

But this issue is not even about sex it is about the ability of the abnormal to marry. And the decision will also hinge on the concept of " what defines marriage". And do the States have a compelling interest in regulating the institution of Marriage. The simple answer is YES the State DOES have a compelling interest. The follow on question being does the State have a compelling interest to define what is and is not marriage. And again the answer is yes they do.


The final decision will be nearly unanimous though, due to the political climate and the cowardice of many the Supreme Court will most likely vote 7-2 or 9-0 to agree with the 9th.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

 

[bodecea]

I have no links yet.... but same sex marriage is a go in California again.

For all my gay brothers and sisters who didn't get married before Prop H8 was passed....


WOOT!

 

[bodecea]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Are you suggesting that we should make a habit of voting on the civil rights of our citizens?

 

[Katzndogz]

It was expected the three judge panel are the three MOST liberal on the bench. Still one voted for Prop 8. The issue wll go to an en banc hearing next. Which is merely a formality. It was always going to end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Prop 8 will probably be struck down in its entirety eventually. It is part of the general trend toward degeneracy. If there was a reversal of direction now, that would be a surprise as the whole of the culture is moving on the path toward even more depravity.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

It doesn't really matter because I'm not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I already said I have no problem with it.

My point is that there is no reason for people to participate in a voter referendum if in the end one party will sue to get the results they ultimately want.

 

[Avatar4321]

So the courts overthrew the California Constitution. How sad. So much for living in a Republic.

 

[bodecea]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

Yes we did. Are you saying that if a group is a minority, they just have to suck it up if the majority votes away their civil rights?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Are you suggesting that we should make a habit of voting on the civil rights of our citizens?

The government should have no involvement in who gets married period.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

Yes we did. Are you saying that if a group is a minority, they just have to suck it up if the majority votes away their civil rights?

Gay MARRIAGE is not a civil right and you cheapen the history of Civil Rights protests by claiming so.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

It doesn't really matter because I'm not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I already said I have no problem with it.

My point is that there is no reason for people to participate in a voter referendum if in the end one party will sue to get the results they ultimately want.

Are you saying that anyone who sues because they didn't get what they want will win? Or does there have to be some constitutional merit to their suit?


Or maybe you are saying that Americans should not be allowed an appeals process?