[url]http://sdgln.com/news/2012/06/05/breaking-news-ninth-circuit-deals-another-blow-prop-8#.T8455G4MuQw.twitter[/url]
[quote]
SAN FRANCISCO – Dealing yet another blow to California’s Proposition 8, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today [B]declined a request for an en banc hearing by a larger panel of judges[/B].
[B]Only one of 25 judges[/B] on the appeals court agreed to the en banc hearing, which requires a majority vote. Read the full filing [url=http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-06-05-En-Banc-Order.pdf]HERE[/url].
Anti-marriage attorneys had filed for an en banc hearing earlier this year after a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel on Feb. 7, 2012, voted [B]2-1[/B] to uphold a lower court ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker that California's Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
The three-judge panel wrote that Prop 8 indeed violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
“[B][I]Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.[/I][/B]”
[B]Prop 8 supporters now have 90 days to decide whether to appeal the Perry v. Brown Proposition 8 case to the U.S. Supreme Court[/B], where Justice Anthony Kennedy is expected to be the swing vote on a deeply divided high court. NBC is reporting that the nation's high court likely would not hear the case until next spring.
Many legal experts have accused the anti-marriage side of intentionally delaying the inevitable: the resumption of marriages by gay and lesbian couples in California. Currently the Ninth Circuit has issued a stay on marriage equality.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) says marriage equality supporters are now waiting for one of two things:
1. Couples start getting married again in California as soon as the stay is lifted (but likely no sooner than 90 days from today);
2. The Prop 8 case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to AFER, the Ninth Circuit also [B]rejected proponents’ renewed attempt to impugn the reputation of the United States District Chief Judge who struck down Proposition 8[/B]. Unable to defend Proposition 8 on its merits, Proponents claim that the now-retired Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker was disqualified from ruling on Proposition 8 and that his historic decision should be vacated [B]because he is gay[/B] and in a committed relationship. [B]The Ninth Circuit unanimously rejected Proponents’ offensive argument, stating: “To do otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts.”[/B]
[/quote]
This means that the case will either be finished, in which case same-sex marriage would become legal again in California in 90 days.
Or, the case will continue to the supreme court, which could declare any kind of anti-same-sex marriage amendments illegal across the country.
Well I do believe that when it does hit the supreme court, they will also say it is unconstitutional and pretty much end all of this bullshit on a state and local level.
that's awesome news go human rights
[editline]5th June 2012[/editline]
next: DOMA
Fuck. Now they're going to make homosexuality mandatory by law. What has this country come to?
[QUOTE=Mr._N;36214694]Fuck. Now they're going to make homosexuality mandatory by law. What has this country come to?[/QUOTE]
If this was sarcastic it didn't really carry well.
What's with the ninth circuit's grudge against Proposition 8?
Could it be because [i]seven eight nine[/i]? :v:
[QUOTE=koeniginator;36215108]What's with the ninth circuit's grudge against Proposition 8?
Could it be because [i]seven eight nine[/i]? :v:[/QUOTE]
GGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
[QUOTE=jordguitar;36213629]Well I do believe that when it does hit the supreme court, they will also say it is unconstitutional and pretty much end all of this bullshit on a state and local level.[/QUOTE]
I'm a bit iffy about the supreme court. They're conservative leaning, though in this case I believe there's a good chance they would strike it down.
I think the Supreme Court has to find that equal protection laws apply here. That is, if it makes it to the Supreme Court.
It would be awkward to say the least if the highest court in the land says "It's legal for you two people to get married, but not YOU two people." when the only difference is one couple is male/female and the other is male/male or female/female.
[QUOTE=Lazor;36216334]I'm a bit iffy about the supreme court. They're conservative leaning, though in this case I believe there's a good chance they would strike it down.[/QUOTE]
I have my doubts. I'm only hoping for a ruling off of Full Faith & Credit so all states must [i]recognize[/i] it but not necessarily [i]issue[/i] same-sex marriage licenses.
Not that I'm against it, but I don't think we're 100% ready for same-sex marriage, even though it's clearly the right thing to do. It just seems like there would be some very serious backlash from opposing states.
Personally I think the main problem is people equate legal gay marriage as churches and other religious institutions being REQUIRED to perform gay marriages.
Since we have a separation of church and state here in the US, the most legal gay marriage means is that gay marriages will have the same legal status as straight marriage. It's strictly a legal contract issue(marriage is a contract).
Religious institutions will not be affected in the least. They do not now, and will not in the future, have to marry anyone they don't want to marry. I think if people understood that, opposition would fade away.
I think you underestimate homophobia.
When people talk about defending marriage, that marriage has always been man and woman, they aren't talking about the country's laws, the US didn't exist two thousand years ago.
They are talking about religious marriage, being married 'in the eyes of God' and so on. That's why I think some of them at least may come around to legalizing gay marriage if they understand gay marriage has nothing to do with their religious ideal of marriage.
I suppose its useless to try and explain to them the flaws with their definition of marriage in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.