saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,843
- 2,030
No, what the federal judges had a problem with was that California had granted recognition to gay marriage and then took it away. You can't do that.
Where did they say that?
In their decision.
The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitutions Equal Protection Clause.
Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently, Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.
All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation marriage, the judge wrote, adding, Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge N. Randy Smith wrote that the court was overreaching in nullifying a voter initiative.
The flaw here is that the government cannot demand equal protection to a religious institution. If they had applied that to civil unions, they would be correct.