Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[89Hen]

I guess the same way people can vote and be drafted at 18 but can't drink until 21. The gov decided what was in the best interest of individuals and society. I can only assume that's what people against gay marriage are going on.

And what are your reasons for being against gay marriage?

Who said I'm against gay marriage?

[89Hen]

Look at the trembling wife. Scared shitless a la American Beauty, that bible freak abuses her and had her clit and uterus removed after the second and last kid. He keeps em in a mason jar in formaldehyde in his Supreme Court office.

She's addicted to prescription anti anxiety drugs and has never watched TV in her life. She spends 2 hours every day, scrubbing Roberts' slippers and ironing his SKULLS smoking jacket.

When everyone, including Roberts, is tucked in for the evening, she retreats to a clandestine, damp dungeon Roberts made her dig out in the middle of their fucking house. God have mercy on that poor woman.

Both kids are adopted BTW.

[travelinman67]

I just noticed that this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who has been a bit of a whipping boy before the US Supreme Court. He might be the most reversed Circuit Judge on the entire US Court of Appeals.

Carter & Clinton appointees - v - Bush appointee...no surprise.

As everyone knows, the 9th Circuit is the laughing stock of our nation's judiciary. Their legal contortions are infamous.

This past year has been a waste of time...ultimately, whatever their ruling, SCOTUS, whether by affirming or reversing the lower court, will undoubtedly discard most of the 9th's interpretation.

This is a touchy area for the Supremes. Establishing a "defacto" standard requiring "legitimate reason" to create a class, arguably wipes out the "local" interpretation/subjective standards allowed for decades, becoming the Stare Decisis, and ultimately, opening an unspeakable regional pandora's box (...remembering the sword cuts both ways...regional laws from the south could wind up becoming law in the NE/West...think about that!).

[mainejeff]

And what are your reasons for being against gay marriage?

Who said I'm against gay marriage?

Oh.....so you support legalized gay marriage? Good for you.

[pantherclaw]

I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

Ok my question why do you feel the majority should be tempered by the constitution? In my opinion if the people(the majoriy) feels the constitutuion is wrong, then they should be allowed to change it(vote or revolution) this is what in my opinion occurred the people of California voted in an open election to ban gay marriage, if that's what they want then so be it. But then again I am a state's rights with the exception of defense.

[D1B]

Who said I'm against gay marriage?

Oh.....so you support legalized gay marriage? Good for you.

Hen is actually pretty level headed on this and a number of other things.

[andy7171]

I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

+6.93

[danefan]

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

Ok my question why do you feel the majority should be tempered by the constitution? In my opinion if the people(the majoriy) feels the constitutuion is wrong, then they should be allowed to change it(vote or revolution) this is what in my opinion occurred the people of California voted in an open election to ban gay marriage, if that's what they want then so be it. But then again I am a state's rights with the exception of defense.

I would have thought our short history as a country would be reason enough to show why majority should be tempered. Slavery, civil rights, etc....

I agree that the Constitution should be able to be changed as it is today, but not merely by a majority vote. There are too many pitfalls of a simple majority vote (attendance, message delivery, money influence, etc....) to leave Constitutional amendments up to a majority vote.

And while I do agree that State's should have the right to govern themselves on certain issues, all state governance needs to abide by the US Constitution. If not, you might as well just throw out the United States and have a collection of loosely affiliated independent countries.

[mainejeff]

Oh.....so you support legalized gay marriage? Good for you.

Hen is actually pretty level headed on this and a number of other things.

Except bringing his brood to nice restaurants after 8:00pm.

[mainejeff]

If not, you might as well just throw out the United States and have a collection of loosely affiliated independent countries.

Here's hoping! It would be the best for everyone.

[pantherclaw]

Ok my question why do you feel the majority should be tempered by the constitution? In my opinion if the people(the majoriy) feels the constitutuion is wrong, then they should be allowed to change it(vote or revolution) this is what in my opinion occurred the people of California voted in an open election to ban gay marriage, if that's what they want then so be it. But then again I am a state's rights with the exception of defense.

I would have thought our short history as a country would be reason enough to show why majority should be tempered. Slavery, civil rights, etc....

I agree that the Constitution should be able to be changed as it is today, but not merely by a majority vote. There are too many pitfalls of a simple majority vote (attendance, message delivery, money influence, etc....) to leave Constitutional amendments up to a majority vote.

And while I do agree that State's should have the right to govern themselves on certain issues, all state governance needs to abide by the US Constitution. If not, you might as well just throw out the United States and have a collection of loosely affiliated independent countries.

Good Point on the majority being tempered.(though I think it is a stretch on slavery, was the Union the Majority or the Minority, don't really feel like having that discussion) To that though what role SHOULD the majority play in the political system and its interaction with the constitiution/states rights? hope you realize I am in now way being confrotational or challenging I am just curious as to other opinions ans you seem at least farily unbiased


As for state rights I wouldn't go to that extreme, however I feel that for the most part the Federal Governement is there for the National Defense/treaties, collect taxes. Other than that I am pretty much everything else is up to the states, just can't think of anything else but am probably forgetting alot of things.

[kalm]

Ok my question why do you feel the majority should be tempered by the constitution? In my opinion if the people(the majoriy) feels the constitutuion is wrong, then they should be allowed to change it(vote or revolution) this is what in my opinion occurred the people of California voted in an open election to ban gay marriage, if that's what they want then so be it. But then again I am a state's rights with the exception of defense.

I would have thought our short history as a country would be reason enough to show why majority should be tempered. Slavery, civil rights, etc....

I agree that the Constitution should be able to be changed as it is today, but not merely by a majority vote. There are too many pitfalls of a simple majority vote (attendance, message delivery, money influence, etc....) to leave Constitutional amendments up to a majority vote.

And while I do agree that State's should have the right to govern themselves on certain issues, all state governance needs to abide by the US Constitution. If not, you might as well just throw out the United States and have a collection of loosely affiliated independent countries.

In other words, the majority can be wrong...sometimes.

[JoltinJoe]

I just noticed that this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who has been a bit of a whipping boy before the US Supreme Court. He might be the most reversed Circuit Judge on the entire US Court of Appeals.

Carter & Clinton appointees - v - Bush appointee...no surprise.

As everyone knows, the 9th Circuit is the laughing stock of our nation's judiciary. Their legal contortions are infamous.

This past year has been a waste of time...ultimately, whatever their ruling, SCOTUS, whether by affirming or reversing the lower court, will undoubtedly discard most of the 9th's interpretation.

This is a touchy area for the Supremes. Establishing a "defacto" standard requiring "legitimate reason" to create a class, arguably wipes out the "local" interpretation/subjective standards allowed for decades, becoming the Stare Decisis, and ultimately, opening an unspeakable regional pandora's box (...remembering the sword cuts both ways...regional laws from the south could wind up becoming law in the NE/West...think about that!).

I just finished reading this decision.

This is a very limited decision by the 9th Circuit which only applies to the situation in California.

Essentially Reinhardt holds that Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution because, before the proposition was passed, gay marriage was legalized in CA for a period of months. He therefore asserts that California law treats gay individuals differently because only gays who were married between the time of the decision of the CA Supreme Court and the passage of prop 8 can be married to a same-sex partner in CA.

So this places the conservative votes on the Supreme Court at some risk. It only takes four votes to grant certiorari review of an appeals court decision, but obviously you need five votes to reverse.

So do the four conservative votes decide to take this narrow decision, which cannot be applied to any state other than California, not sure of where Justice Kennedy is going to land on the narrow grounds relied upon by the Ninth Circuit?

It might end up that they vote to take cert., and then they wind up with a broader decision by a five-judge majority of the Supreme Court which strikes down all prohibitions on same-sex marriage in every state.

The decision to grant cert. on a same-sex marriage case would be easier at a future date after a fifth plainly conservative justice were added to the Court by President Romney.

On the other hand, to let this chance go by now risks that a more liberal justice might be the next choice of a second-term President Obama.

If the Ninth Circuit had held broadly that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, the conservative wing of the Court would have no choice but to take the case. But do they choose to review this narrow decision??

[SuperHornet]

Joe could be right here. But whether he is or not, it's safe to say that NOBODY should celebrate yet. The way I heard it on the news today, this wasn't even the 9th Circuit that made this decision; it was essentially a subcommittee that did it. There WILL be an appeal to the whole Circuit, and a further appeal (regardless of who wins) to SCOTUS.

So there's no reason to over-react on EITHER side yet.

[JoltinJoe]

Joe could be right here. But whether he is or not, it's safe to say that NOBODY should celebrate yet. The way I heard it on the news today, this wasn't even the 9th Circuit that made this decision; it was essentially a subcommittee that did it. There WILL be an appeal to the whole Circuit, and a further appeal (regardless of who wins) to SCOTUS.

So there's no reason to over-react on EITHER side yet.

A request to be heard by the entire Ninth Circuit (a re-hearing "en banc") is possible. That would delay any potential review of the Supreme Court.

I think if I were the attorney on the side of Prop. 8, I would ask for en banc review.

However, this was not a decision by a "subcommittee" of the 9th Circuit. Circuit court panels sit as three-judge panels, and their decisions thereafter become binding on the entire circuit. It is the rare case that the entire circuit will review the case "en banc." Moreover, such review generally only happens, upon the application of a party, after a three-judge panel has ruled.

It should be noted that circuit courts rarely grant applications for a rehearing en banc. However, because of the extraordinary significance of this case, a rehearing en banc is certainly more likely than in the average case.

[SuperHornet]

Joe could be right here. But whether he is or not, it's safe to say that NOBODY should celebrate yet. The way I heard it on the news today, this wasn't even the 9th Circuit that made this decision; it was essentially a subcommittee that did it. There WILL be an appeal to the whole Circuit, and a further appeal (regardless of who wins) to SCOTUS.

So there's no reason to over-react on EITHER side yet.

A request to be heard by the entire Ninth Circuit (a re-hearing "en banc") is possible. That would delay any potential review of the Supreme Court.

I think if I were the attorney on the side of Prop. 8, I would ask for en banc review.

There's already been talk of that.

[Ibanez]

I would have thought our short history as a country would be reason enough to show why majority should be tempered. Slavery, civil rights, etc....

I agree that the Constitution should be able to be changed as it is today, but not merely by a majority vote. There are too many pitfalls of a simple majority vote (attendance, message delivery, money influence, etc....) to leave Constitutional amendments up to a majority vote.

And while I do agree that State's should have the right to govern themselves on certain issues, all state governance needs to abide by the US Constitution. If not, you might as well just throw out the United States and have a collection of loosely affiliated independent countries.

In other words, the majority can be wrong...sometimes.

The Majority has been wrong. I was reading a New York Magazine from 1963. There were two interesting articles. The first was about wealthy politicians and if it is the new norm. It was discussing the wealth of JFK's family and the politicians of the 1800's. THe second article was about Jim Crow and the disenfranchisment of blacks in every part of the country, except for the South. Very interesting. There were exerpts from Midwest, northern, Western mayors and state governments supporting the segregation of the races. THere were photos' of riots, whites only bathrooms in NYC, Coloreds entrance to a theater in Detroit, police putting the fire hoses to blacks in Los Angeles. It was very insightful. People seem to think that Jim Crow, Slavery, the trampling of Civil Rights was only in the south when in fact the United States as a whole is just as guilty. It was a great article.

[kalm]

In other words, the majority can be wrong...sometimes.

The Majority has been wrong. I was reading a New York Magazine from 1963. There were two interesting articles. The first was about wealthy politicians and if it is the new norm. It was discussing the wealth of JFK's family and the politicians of the 1800's. THe second article was about Jim Crow and the disenfranchisment of blacks in every part of the country, except for the South. Very interesting. There were exerpts from Midwest, northern, Western mayors and state governments supporting the segregation of the races. THere were photos' of riots, whites only bathrooms in NYC, Coloreds entrance to a theater in Detroit, police putting the fire hoses to blacks in Los Angeles. It was very insightful. People seem to think that Jim Crow, Slavery, the trampling of Civil Rights was only in the south when in fact the United States as a whole is just as guilty. It was a great article.

All you multicultural/pro gay rights southerners on this board are destroying a beautiful stereotype.

[Ibanez]

The Majority has been wrong. I was reading a New York Magazine from 1963. There were two interesting articles. The first was about wealthy politicians and if it is the new norm. It was discussing the wealth of JFK's family and the politicians of the 1800's. THe second article was about Jim Crow and the disenfranchisment of blacks in every part of the country, except for the South. Very interesting. There were exerpts from Midwest, northern, Western mayors and state governments supporting the segregation of the races. THere were photos' of riots, whites only bathrooms in NYC, Coloreds entrance to a theater in Detroit, police putting the fire hoses to blacks in Los Angeles. It was very insightful. People seem to think that Jim Crow, Slavery, the trampling of Civil Rights was only in the south when in fact the United States as a whole is just as guilty. It was a great article.

All you multicultural/pro gay rights southerners on this board are destroying a beautiful stereotype.

Thank you.

I've seen and know some racists, biggoted people inthe South. But the racists people I've met have been from New York. Those dudes would come to MB, call blacks n*gger andwonder why blacks got pissed. One even said, "I thought saying that was cool down here."

I think the best thing i've ever seen was this huge, black Silverado. super dark tint, DUB rims, a confederate flag License plate and the entire back glass was a confederate flag. These 3 fat black dudes come out of the truck. I looked at my best friend Mike (a black man from Newark, NJ) and busted out laughing. He looked at me and said, "some nigga's ain't right." The plates were from Indiana or Illinois. I forget which one.

[D1B]

Maybe Justice Roberts will change his mind on this subject eventually........

That kid looks exactly like Joltin Joe when he was dandy little one.

[bluehenbillk]

Reading this thread makes me chuckle when I think back at the lunatics on here that were against New Jersey Gov. Christie endorsing a statewide referendum on this same subject versus having 9 judges decide.

[danefan]

Reading this thread makes me chuckle when I think back at the lunatics on here that were against New Jersey Gov. Christie endorsing a statewide referendum on this same subject versus having 9 judges decide.

I would think everyone would fall on the same side of the fence.

If you agree with the 9th Circuit you probably disagree with Christie and vice versa, no?

[Ivytalk]

Joe could be right here. But whether he is or not, it's safe to say that NOBODY should celebrate yet. The way I heard it on the news today, this wasn't even the 9th Circuit that made this decision; it was essentially a subcommittee that did it. There WILL be an appeal to the whole Circuit, and a further appeal (regardless of who wins) to SCOTUS.

So there's no reason to over-react on EITHER side yet.

A request to be heard by the entire Ninth Circuit (a re-hearing "en banc") is possible. That would delay any potential review of the Supreme Court.

I think if I were the attorney on the side of Prop. 8, I would ask for en banc review.

However, this was not a decision by a "subcommittee" of the 9th Circuit. Circuit court panels sit as three-judge panels, and their decisions thereafter become binding on the entire circuit. It is the rare case that the entire circuit will review the case "en banc." Moreover, such review generally only happens, upon the application of a party, after a three-judge panel has ruled.

It should be noted that circuit courts rarely grant applications for a rehearing en banc. However, because of the extraordinary significance of this case, a rehearing en banc is certainly more likely than in the average case.

Thanks, Perfesser!

[Ibanez]

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Po ... 44094.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss.

It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.

[travelinman67]

Carter & Clinton appointees - v - Bush appointee...no surprise.

As everyone knows, the 9th Circuit is the laughing stock of our nation's judiciary. Their legal contortions are infamous.

This past year has been a waste of time...ultimately, whatever their ruling, SCOTUS, whether by affirming or reversing the lower court, will undoubtedly discard most of the 9th's interpretation.

This is a touchy area for the Supremes. Establishing a "defacto" standard requiring "legitimate reason" to create a class, arguably wipes out the "local" interpretation/subjective standards allowed for decades, becoming the Stare Decisis, and ultimately, opening an unspeakable regional pandora's box (...remembering the sword cuts both ways...regional laws from the south could wind up becoming law in the NE/West...think about that!).

I just finished reading this decision.

This is a very limited decision by the 9th Circuit which only applies to the situation in California.

Essentially Reinhardt holds that Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution because, before the proposition was passed, gay marriage was legalized in CA for a period of months. He therefore asserts that California law treats gay individuals differently because only gays who were married between the time of the decision of the CA Supreme Court and the passage of prop 8 can be married to a same-sex partner in CA.

So this places the conservative votes on the Supreme Court at some risk. It only takes four votes to grant certiorari review of an appeals court decision, but obviously you need five votes to reverse.

So do the four conservative votes decide to take this narrow decision, which cannot be applied to any state other than California, not sure of where Justice Kennedy is going to land on the narrow grounds relied upon by the Ninth Circuit?

It might end up that they vote to take cert., and then they wind up with a broader decision by a five-judge majority of the Supreme Court which strikes down all prohibitions on same-sex marriage in every state.

The decision to grant cert. on a same-sex marriage case would be easier at a future date after a fifth plainly conservative justice were added to the Court by President Romney.

On the other hand, to let this chance go by now risks that a more liberal justice might be the next choice of a second-term President Obama.

If the Ninth Circuit had held broadly that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, the conservative wing of the Court would have no choice but to take the case. But do they choose to review this narrow decision??

Whew...just finished reading the decision.

Much better focus/definition/research than Walker's decision. I couldn't find any of the offhanded dismissiveness that pervaded the District Court decision.

You're probably right about Kennedy, but I'm more than a bit surprised that the appellants never went after the issue with their witness' intimidation in the original case (not that it would have affected Walker's decision... ).
The Proponent foundation for appeal (imho) lies in the incoherence of Walker's decision. Attacking his objectivity will be the key to their success. Also kinda curious how the Supremes will view Smith's dissent, basically disables the Romer emphasis and replaces with Baker.

eh...the more I think about it, you're definitely right about dodging Kennedy.