California's Prop 8 Ban on Gay Marriage Overturned! :)

[tampa24]

A federal appeals court in California today ruled against the Proposition 8 referendum banning gay marriage in the state. The ban stays in effect though while the appeals are filed. This sets up a possible Supreme Court showdown if the justices decide to take the case. If the Supreme Court declines to take the case, the ban will likely be lifted.

While there are likely to be several good articles about this all over the net, here is a link to the CNN site for the breaking story.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html?hpt=_t1

 

[another1]

just read the opinion.
without getting into the larger issue of whether same-sex marriage is a federal right, the court ruled that a vote of a transient majority cannot take away a right.
thousands of same-sex couples got married, the marriage is for opposite- sex people then won a vote to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, but preserved all other rights possessed by opposite - sex couples. adopt children, health benefits, survivors benefits, just not the word, 'marriage'.
i think the court was correct. it was correct to keep the decision limited the the fact that california recognized a right and then took it away.
you cannot do that. you might be able to avoid the recognizing a right, but you cannot unrecognize that right.

 

[another1]

because the decision is limited to the actions of the people of california through the initiative process to amend the state constitution to deny a right to one group, after the court had said any law to deny a right to one group was against the state constitution, the supreme court may see no issue to be resolved.
the court held that the federal constitution does not allow a state constitution to deny equal rights to one group of its citizens. certainly not because a current majority believes some should be unequal.
the appeals court said what the state supreme court could not. it said the amendment to the state constitution is unconstitutional.

 

[tampa24]

just read the opinion.
without getting into the larger issue of whether same-sex marriage is a federal right, the court ruled that a vote of a transient majority cannot take away a right.
thousands of same-sex couples got married, the marriage is for opposite- sex people then won a vote to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, but preserved all other rights possessed by opposite - sex couples. adopt children, health benefits, survivors benefits, just not the word, 'marriage'.

i think the court was correct. it was correct to keep the decision limited the the fact that california recognized a right and then took it away.
you cannot do that. you might be able to avoid the recognizing a right, but you cannot unrecognize that right.

I haven't read the opinion myself. Thank you Another1 for breaking it down into very concise terms. That last part especially gives alot of insight into the legal basis on which the appeals judges arrived at their decision. It also explains how this ruling is unique to California. The fact that California had already allowed some same sex citizens to marry and then took that right away for others, and so on.

The Supreme Court will usually only take on matters of this nature if it wishes to set a new federal legal standard, or an interpretation of an existing law, that would be binding on all 50 states. I now see why they are saying that the Supreme Court would have reason to be reluctant to take this case. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't. They will be under heavy pressure to do so. It does give hope though to those of us who do want gay marriage restored in California that the Supreme Court will decline to hear an appeal.

 

[another1]

because the decision is limited to the actions of the people of california through the initiative process to amend the state constitution to deny a right to one group, after the court had said any law to deny a right to one group was against the state constitution, the supreme court may see no issue to be resolved.
the court held that the federal constitution does not allow a state constitution to deny equal rights to one group of its citizens. certainly not because a current majority believes some should be unequal.
the appeals court said what the state supreme court could not. it said the amendment to the state constitution is unconstitutional.

no that overstates it.
a state might be able to amend its state constitution to exclude same-sex marriage. that's a bigger issue than here.
a state may not amend its state constitution to take away the right to same-sex marriage.
the different between hiding the bell and unringing the bell.

 

[tampa24]

Well put Another1. You explain that very well in layman's terms. Thank you!

 

[angelone]

Absolutely amazing! Another1 is a perfect example of the difference between one who is literate and one who is intelligent. If it is a choice between the ability to write well and the intelligence to succinctly explain a problem in lay terms, then give me the latter. When Another1 wrote, "the different hidding the bell and unringing the bell.", this revealed to me a whole shade of meaning of the law that I was unaware of. I had a "Eureka" moment thanks to Another1.

 

[BSB Jason]

I am neither for nor against Same Sex Marriage. I am however a firm believer in the constitution and the rights therefor afforded to all Americans. It is very clear that we must maintain a complete seperation of church and state. That was a primary factor leading to our Independance. The fact remains that marriage being defined as "A union between one man and one women" is a principle defined by the bible and not the State. That any state that shall endorse such a definition is basing legislature on a biblical basis. This is not the America I believe in.
The fact of the matter is Marriage is a religious ceremony unless administered by a justice of the peace. In that respect the decision should be left to neither the State or the Federal Government, it should be left to the individual institution of religions' pergogatives and belief structure.

Frankly I was always an advocate of the simple solution of "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" as they avoid the political red tape and afford the same rights as those married. Its marriage just with a new name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

[peterh6308]

So well put Another1 and Jason. I'm fortunate to live in a State that recognizes same-sex marriage, the law passed with a high % of votes. And I work for a company that has provided Domestic Partnership Insurance for the last 10 or so years. My company also supports and is involved in the annual Seattle Gay Pride Parade, which they pay us an 8hr shift for a 4 hr walk. I never take for granted how lucky I am to live and work in such a progressive State/City.

 

[tampa24]

Frankly I was always an advocate of the simple solution of "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" as they avoid the political red tape and afford the same rights as those married. Its marriage just with a new name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

I agree with you Jason that "Domestic Parnerships" and "Civil Unions" are a good stepping stone to reaching eventual equality and acceptance in mainstream society for same-sex couples. One of the many legal hurdles though is the same as that of gay marriage. If said couple leaves their state and moves to another, all of those rights are often lost and unrecognized in neighboring states. If they have adopted children together and move to another state, even their rights as parents can fall into a scary legal morass.

 

[garych7]

From my studies, I know that 'the Bible' is one of the most edited books ever compiled in the world and it of course contains principles to be applied to past, present, and on-going situations. It can be used for/against many issues. Some can cite passages condemning homosexuality and therefore apply to any same sex union; others can quote passages supporting any endeavor in human love.
Some will use Scriptures to condemn you and what you do (which I don't agree with) so please don't cite the Bible as a source that infringes on human dignity and respect.
Even with so-called civil unions, partners who may have spent a life-time together in faithfual and supportive companionship may be barred from privilideges with sickness, inheritance, etc. only assigned to the married.

I am neither for nor against Same Sex Marriage. I am however a firm believer in the constitution and the rights therefor afforded to all Americans. It is very clear that we must maintain a complete seperation of church and state. That was a primary factor leading to our Independance. The fact remains that marriage being defined as "A union between one man and one women" is a principle defined by the bible and not the State. That any state that shall endorse such a definition is basing legislature on a biblical basis. This is not the America I believe in.
The fact of the matter is Marriage is a religious ceremony unless administered by a justice of the peace. In that respect the decision should be left to neither the State or the Federal Government, it should be left to the individual institution of religions' pergogatives and belief structure.

Frankly I was always an advocate of the simple solution of "Civil Unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" as they avoid the political red tape and afford the same rights as those married. Its marriage just with a new name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

[another1]

civil unions and marriage are not the same thing.
if you have two names for the same contract, then there is something different or you would have one name for the same contract.
the agrument that one is just like the other is wrong. can opposite-sex couples form civil union? if yes, then can same-sex couples get married? it is more than a matter of interchangable term.
there should be one contract with same rights and responsibilities.
it is the more just, the more exact and the more efficient thing to do.
not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of fairness!

 

[cumrag27]

Sins-of-the-flesh 101

civil unions and marriage are not the same thing.
if you have two names for the same contract, then there is something different or you would have one name for the same contract.
the agrument that one is just like the other is wrong. can opposite-sex couples form civil union? if yes, then can same-sex couples get married? it is more than a matter of interchangable term.
there should be one contract with same rights and responsibilities.
it is the more just, the more exact and the more efficient thing to do.
not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of fairness!

Dear another1,

I agree totally with your argument and this is not only a matter of "symantics". I feel that if the "straight world" under the influence of irrefutible American religious paradigm is going to condemn ALL Gay people seeking a committed and loving relationship as falling in the promiscuous column, then the least they can agree to do is establish a level playing ground for straights and gays alike. We were all created in "God's Image" bestowed with a mortal soul and no creation of a soul is more valuable than another. Simply stated: WE ARE ALL GOD'S CHILDREN! Something that is reasonable to achieve FOR MERE MORTALS, other than a life of TOTAL ABSTINENCE without having to resort to living a life of "isolation", like some "Unclean Leper (Bibically speaking)". There is nothing reasonable about that condition for those not able to live a straight life.

In fact that is what I find so amazing about this whole "His way OR the highway...(to Hell" dichotomy of strictly "Bibically-based" sexual morality. What in the Hell is the difference between using the Biblically-based practice of "Stoning" for those guilty of their "sins-of-the-flesh" (such as the recently revealed Secret Service scandal) OR disenfranchising would be Gay believers today because they openly attempted to have their relationship blessed by their God and honored within their religious congregation (Gay shorthand for...having their cake and eating it too)! Which is the "greater sin", if there was no intent to be "defiant" or "sinful"? What, then, is the harm in unasshamedly asking publicly for God's blessing their loving partnership in the first place? I fail to see the "sinfulness" in this at all!

Unlike our own compromised Federal Supreme Court (politically speaking), I think our "Ultimate Judge" is blessed with unlimited wisdom and justice and free of all forms of "favoritism" like paid lobbiest or political constraints. Most others, who are strongly opposed to the sanctity of Gay marriages, have a narrow view God as bringing Great Plagues, Floods, and other Pestilence or Disasters as direct punishments against mankind. For them, God is like the "ULTIMATE MAFIA ENFORCER" that has little time, patience, or value for those so bold as to step even slightly outside the narrowly defined bounds.

I hope all can see that God knows each one's weaknesses better than we do ourself, yet in God's infinite wisdom, He created each of us to be unique in the ways we seek out the truth and living a moral life with our free will in place to guide us back to the Creator. I am convinced that having a Gay Marriage can bring both honor and glory to God just as well as any Straight Marriage can, provided both begin and persevere with the best of intentions, honesty, and level of commitment. For Straights to condemn Gay marriages is like the proverbial "Pot calling the Kettle Black"! To think otherwise in my opinion is unbridled hyprocracy at its most obvious!


Sincerely for the official recognition of ALL Gay Marriages,


The very "single" Stimpy

 

[another1]

of course, this thread spoke to state of the law in california.
man-made law, interpeted by human being.
in this state, two individuals have a right to marry. (subject to review)
what people of faith do within their own organizations is for them to work out.
churchs divide along race lines and other lines.
if my belief that two persons in love should be permitted to enjoy the same right to official state recognition that any other two persons might have, then i will take it up in the hereafter. for now, i believe equal mean equal. there is no almost equal. there is no some are more equal.
not some soy patties are just like beef patties approach!

 

[another1]

no marriage ceremony performed in any church has meaning without official state recognizition.
without a document that says the state will recognize this union there can be no marriage. it's much more a civil matter than anything else.

northern californians can't have a right to camp in open and southern californians say must sleep inside tents. certainly, you can't give southern californians the right to camp in open and then take that right away.

 

[Frontier]

I did read somewhere, and it does make some sense, that many institutions and states have different interpretations of domeestic partnerships. I mean really what is that and does the term in itself need detailed legislative interpretation. The article I was speaking of specifically referred to an attorney whose partner was eriously injured and they ived in a state that recognized domestic partnerships but the hospital refused to ermit him to obtain any information or recognize his rights. Marriage would eliminate any such confussion.

 

[Frontier]

Another point from a non-attorney. It would seem to be that if the Supreme Court decided it would here this case it would be for a specific ruling actually having nothing to do with gay marriage. They would rule on the right of the state to make a constitutional admendment removing a right previously given by the legislature. Give me some feed back am I right? Must be more than one attorney out there. BTW I really don't think we are in the political climate that we want the final word of this issue decided by this court. Opening a big can of worms.

 

[another1]

i have spent much of life doing legal research. so i feel comfortable saying something on this subject.
this is not the political climate for a final word from the supreme court.
in california, the people (a transient majority of the voters) voted to ban same-sex marriage. it was a law subject to the state constitution like any law. the state courts said that a law banning same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution. same-sex couples got married.
this time the people voted to amend the state contitution to ban same-sex marriage.
i'll see your constitutional protection and raise a contitutional amendment.
the california supreme court said it could not declare a part of the state constitution, unconstitutional.
the federal appeals court ruled that having granted the right to marry to all qualified individuals, the state cannot at a later date carve out that right for some and take away that right from others. never mind all those same-sex couples are married, even under the ban.
domestic partnership are like marrige light. many of the same benefits without the papers.
the supreme court would be hard pressed to rule on this case.
no new law here. well maybe there is the question of whether the federal courts should tell the sovereign people of state that their power to amendment their own charter is limited. but i think the once recognized and acted upon rule would apply to rights.
a ruling by the high court now, in this case would say unless you can find in the u.s. constitution some right to same-sex marriage, no right is possessed securely in any state.
sovereignty vs. rights

 

[another1]

if the backers of same-sex marriage had put in the time to gather more signatures, then they could have gotten an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. they went the easier route and got a law which was overturned, which they tried to protect by an amendment.
the easy way was not the best way for them to go.
they went for a fieldgoal, went they should have gone for a touchdown and run it in for two points.

 

[another1]

if the backers of same-sex marriage had put in the time to gather more signatures, then they could have gotten an amendment to ban same-sex marriage. they went the easier route and got a law which was overturned, which they tried to protect by an amendment.
the easy way was not the best way for them to go.
they went for a fieldgoal, went they should have gone for a touchdown and run it in for two points.

if the backers of same-sex marriage ban ... . damn these fingers.