Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Feb 7, 2012 Full story: lezgetreal.com 99

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Prop 8 is Unconstitutional. This is an historic ruling, but one that will have to be defended further as those who seek to make sure that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people are considered second class citizens will appeal the ruling.

Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#1 Feb 7, 2012
HURRAH!!!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2 Feb 7, 2012
Happy Day
Congratulations to those who blieve in liberty and justice for ALL.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3 Feb 7, 2012
Oooopps, got too excited.

Congratulations to those who believe in liberty and justice for ALL.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 Feb 7, 2012
This is HUGE news. The ruling struck down a State Constitutional Amendment! It puts the U.S. Constitution and the 14th Amendment where it should be. The law of the land.

Not the Bible, not prejudice.

I think this may put a damper on future State Amendments that attempt to deny Constitutional protections from U.S. Citizens.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#5 Feb 7, 2012
What happened with the two other parts??

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#6 Feb 7, 2012
Congratulations California! Another step closer to (again) having marriage equality.

The courts have affirmed that even if you get a majority you can't vote away someone's basic rights.

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#7 Feb 7, 2012
Even with the sun hiding from San Francisco, it's still a beautiful day in California.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#8 Feb 7, 2012
Here is the ruling......it lays out exactly how and why they ruled as they did:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-3...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#9 Feb 7, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
What happened with the two other parts??
The 9th granted Standing
The 9th denied the proponents argument on vacating Judge Walker's ruling based on his sexual orientation

And the 9th used Romer as the reason for how they made their ruling......which played into Justice Kennedy's take on Romer!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#10 Feb 7, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
Here is the ruling......it lays out exactly how and why they ruled as they did:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-3...
Thanks for the link.

Except on the bias claim, those rulings are so narrow that you can get paper cuts just from reading them. The proponents might as well throw in the towel now, that is going to be a b*tch to get overturned. The downside is that it has made the Perry case completely useless anywhere else, they went out of their way to make sure that this cannot be used to challenge any other state's amendments.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the link.
Except on the bias claim, those rulings are so narrow that you can get paper cuts just from reading them. The proponents might as well throw in the towel now, that is going to be a b*tch to get overturned. The downside is that it has made the Perry case completely useless anywhere else, they went out of their way to make sure that this cannot be used to challenge any other state's amendments.
Useless? On the contrary, it will be highly influential. The reasoning will certainly not be lost on jurors in New Hampshire should a similar suit need to be filed against repeal of marriage equality here. The findings of fact are also compelling.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Feb 7, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
Useless? On the contrary, it will be highly influential. The reasoning will certainly not be lost on jurors in New Hampshire should a similar suit need to be filed against repeal of marriage equality here. The findings of fact are also compelling.
Oops, forgot about the efforts in New Hampshire, sorry. I had read where the legislation was being given short shrift again by the Republican leadership and it just slipped my mind. This case does put the zealots up there on notice that they will probably now have to shelve their plans permanently, because it'll be hard to win for them in the long run. It will also probably put an end to the annual effort to overturn Varnum in Iowa via constitutional amendment that the Senate refuses to hear.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Feb 7, 2012
Boys and girls, there's more and better.

They said that Prop 8 itself was a violation of Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This is HUGE.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#14 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the link.
Except on the bias claim, those rulings are so narrow that you can get paper cuts just from reading them. The proponents might as well throw in the towel now, that is going to be a b*tch to get overturned. The downside is that it has made the Perry case completely useless anywhere else, they went out of their way to make sure that this cannot be used to challenge any other state's amendments.
I would tend to agree with you after reading most of the ruling.......the 9th made certain that SCOTUS won't hear an appeal, but took a lot of bite out of Judge Walker's ruling moving forward.

I think Justice Smith's dissent sort of gives an indication as to why SCOTUS won't touch this case though!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#15 Feb 7, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Useless? On the contrary, it will be highly influential. The reasoning will certainly not be lost on jurors in New Hampshire should a similar suit need to be filed against repeal of marriage equality here. The findings of fact are also compelling.
You would be correct because the 9th relied heavily on the Romer ruling from SCOTUS......it would certainly put states like New Hampshire, Iowa or even New York on notice as to not attempt this stance!!!

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#16 Feb 7, 2012
We all know how the trial went, without the transcripts. The opposition simply spouted the same drivel that we see here every day.
Frank

United States

#17 Feb 7, 2012
The majority cannot vote on the civil right of a minority.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Oops, forgot about the efforts in New Hampshire, sorry. I had read where the legislation was being given short shrift again by the Republican leadership and it just slipped my mind. This case does put the zealots up there on notice that they will probably now have to shelve their plans permanently, because it'll be hard to win for them in the long run. It will also probably put an end to the annual effort to overturn Varnum in Iowa via constitutional amendment that the Senate refuses to hear.
While rights groups have long claimed that the Republicans can't get enough votes to override the governor, this ruling will not stop them from putting up for a vote. They are not known to be swayed by public opinion or practical considerations.

I do wonder just how bad the discord has been, though. Are they holding off the vote until they can get 266 yeas? Or are they unsure of 201? Will this ruling convince the recalcitrants to ignor the leadership?

Once again, we've been assured of a vote next week.[Is that a wolf crying in the distance?] In any event, we'll know within the next seven weeks, because the House must vote by March 29.
Ex PA Senator Frothy Lube

Wilmington, DE

#19 Feb 7, 2012
Where are the fundie talibangelical posters?

Reeling? Giving in and heading to happy hour at their nearest gay bar? Loading up for a heavy evening on topix defaming glbt people?

They're quiet. A little too quiet.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Feb 7, 2012
Prop 8 removed an EXISTING right ONLY from same-sex couples. THAT is the most signficant part of the ruling. THAT is why it violates the equal protectin clause of the US Constitution. THAT is why is currently can only apply to California, but as others have noted it sets precedent if others states like NH, NY, or IA try to remove their existing marriage rights only from same-sex couples.

And THAT is why the SCOTUS is very unlikely to accept any appeal!!

It's the perfect ruling at the perfect time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Former US Rep. Rick Renzi reports to prison for... Feb 28 David_Duke-GOP 18
California's Gay Marriage Ban Overturned (Feb '12) Feb 26 DNF 4,290
Embattled Sheriff Joe Buys 700 Body Cameras for... Feb 10 I Shot The Sheriff 3
Anti-gay group sues elected officials to stop s... Feb '15 DNF 32
Medical pot in Oakland: Appeals court weighs fa... Jan '15 discocrisco 1
Appeals court won't re-hear Nevada, Idaho gay m... Jan '15 Abrahamanic Relig... 1
Appeals court won't re-hear Nevada, Idaho gay m... Jan '15 St Rick Saintpornum 12
More from around the web