Prop 8, California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Declared Unconstitutional


Published on

Get Factory Unlocked iPhone 4/4S and iPad 2 Tablets here.

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Prop 8, California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Declared Unconstitutional

  1. 1. ==== ==== New Slide-Out iPhone 4/4s QWERTY Bluetooth Keyboard on Sale! ====SAN FRANCISCO Same-sex marriage moved one step closer to the Supreme Court on Tuesdaywhen a federal appeals court ruled Californias ban unconstitutional, saying it serves no purposeother than to "lessen the status and human dignity" of gays.A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave gay marriage opponents time toappeal the 2-1 decision before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume."Im ecstatic. I recognize that we have a ways to go yet. We may have one or two more legalsteps," said Jane Leyland, who was gathered with a small crowd outside the federal courthouse indowntown San Francisco, cheering as they learned of the ruling.Leyland married her longtime partner, Terry Gilb, during the five-month window when same-sexmarriage was legal in California."But when we first got together, I would have never dreamed in a million years that we would beallowed to be legally married, and here we are."The ban known as Proposition 8 was approved by voters in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. Thecourt said it was unconstitutional because it singled out a minority group for disparate treatment forno compelling reason.The justices concluded that the law had no purpose other than to deny gay couples marriage,since California already grants them all the rights and benefits of marriage if they register asdomestic partners."Had Marilyn Monroes film been called `How to Register a Domestic Partnership with aMillionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even thoughthe underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different," the court said.The lone dissenting judge insisted that the ban could help ensure that children are raised bymarried, opposite-sex parents.The appeals court focused its decision exclusively on Californias ban, not the bigger debate, eventhough the court has jurisdiction in nine Western states.Whether same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry "is an important and highlycontroversial question," the court said. "We need not and do not answer the broader question inthis case."Six states allow gay couples to wed Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Massachusetts, NewYork and Vermont as well as the District of Columbia. California, as the nations most populous
  2. 2. state and home to more than 98,000 same-sex couples, would be the gay rights movementsbiggest prize of them all.The 9th Circuit concluded that a trial court judge had correctly interpreted the Constitution andSupreme Court precedents when he threw out Proposition 8.The measure "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and humandignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and familiesas inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the courts mostliberal judges, wrote in the 2-1 opinion.Opponents of gay marriage planned to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, which camemore than a year after the appeals court panel heard arguments in the case."We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage tried in San Franciscoturned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor ofmarriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court," said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the AllianceDefense Fund, a Christian legal aid group based in Arizona that helped defend Proposition 8.Legal analysts questioned whether the Supreme Court would agree to take the case because ofthe narrow scope of the ruling. California is the only state to grant gays the right to marry andrescind it.Douglas NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said theCalifornia-specific scope of the 9th Circuit panels decision means the Supreme Court can upholdit without ruling "on marriage for same-sex couples on a national scale.""In effect, the 9th Circuits decision allows the Supreme Court to continue the incremental, case-by-case trajectory of marriage for same-sex couples in the United States," NeJaime said in anemail.Weddings appeared unlikely to resume anytime soon. The ruling will not take effect until thedeadline passes in two weeks for Proposition 8s backers to appeal to a larger panel of the 9thCircuit. Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that sponsored the measure saidthey have not decided if they will seek a 9th Circuit rehearing or file an appeal directly to theSupreme Court.The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker wasbiased and should have disclosed that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with anotherman.Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walkers ruling on constitutionalgrounds and because of the judges personal life. It was the first instance of an American juristssexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. Supporters of the gay marriage ban arguedthat he had been obliged to previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner. The 9th Circuitheld a hearing on the conflict-of-interest question in December.
  3. 3. In its ruling Tuesday, the panel majority said it was unreasonable to presume a judge cannot applythe law impartially just because he is a member of the minority group at issue in a case."To hold otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts," theopinion said.Reihardt, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Jimmy Carter, was joined in themajority opinion by Judge Michael Hawkins, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.Judge Randy Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, saying hedisagreed that Proposition 8 served no purpose other than to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.Smith said Proposition 8 could serve to promote responsible child-rearing among opposite-sexcouples, adding that even if those beliefs were flawed, they would be enough to make themeasure constitutional.Voters passed Proposition 8 five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sexmarriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.The ballot measure added the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution,thereby overruling the courts decision. Its passage followed the most expensive campaign on asocial issue in the nations history.An estimated 18,000 couples tied the knot during the window before Proposition 8 took effect. TheCalifornia Supreme Court upheld those marriages but ruled that voters had properly enacted thelaw.Gov. Jerry Brown, in his previous role as attorney general, and former Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger refused to defend Proposition 8 in court and left it to the ballot measuressponsors to appeal Walkers decision to the 9th Circuit.___Associated Press writers Paul Elias, Garance Burke and Terence Chea in San Francisco, andRaquel Dillon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.___Online:AP interactive: ==== New Slide-Out iPhone 4/4s QWERTY Bluetooth Keyboard on Sale!
  4. 4. ====