Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Borrowed from TU:

Here's the story.

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 gay 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 gay, 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.

[Svartalf]

Let's wait for it to go to the Supremes, and off for good goes all legislation about "one man, one woman", pappa can dump Rachel and wed Dolly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a good step. I think it will be upheld, but only because it is a narrow, legalistic decision. Had the decision been based on the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments as it should have been, the USSC would likely strike it down.

[apophenia]

I love the part about contesting his fitness to rule on account of his sexual orientation. As if a heterosexual or bisexual judge doesn't have just as much of a potential conflict of interest.

Bailiff! Do we have any bisexual federal judges who are also eunuchs? Fetch one immediately.





Oh, and,

[Tero]

Let's wait for it to go to the Supremes, and off for good goes all legislation about "one man, one woman", pappa can dump Rachel and wed Dolly.

Wait, if we let gays marry, then Pappa can marry Rachel and Dolly. But he will have to visit Dolly in the barn.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Let's wait for it to go to the Supremes, and off for good goes all legislation about "one man, one woman", pappa can dump Rachel and wed Dolly.

Wait, if we let gays marry, then Pappa can marry Rachel and Dolly. But he will have to visit Dolly in the barn.

[klr]

Great news, but how slowly these things move ...

[Svartalf]

I love the part about contesting his fitness to rule on account of his sexual orientation. As if a heterosexual or bisexual judge doesn't have just as much of a potential conflict of interest.

Bailiff! Do we have any bisexual federal judges who are also eunuchs? Fetch one immediately.





Oh, and,

Maybe this should be moved to Utah and mormon judges?