• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Re: The bold-en bit.

As you no doubt know, Baker v Nelson IS the controlling SCOTUS set precedent regarding this issue... The HOW it got to SCOTUS is what makes it controlling as I see it... In that case both EP and DP of the 14th were involved along with the 1st, 8th and 9th...
I can't see the 9th circuit NOT ruling that Prop 8 indeed does violate the (at least) EP of the 14th which is the issue before them. Assuming the convoluted 'standing' issue is not handled correctly I'd hate to have the SCOTUS sending it back due to that issue and not ruling on the underlying issue of merit...

But, let's assume all is well with standing and the 9th does affirm the court below. Why would the SCOTUS now having already decided not to hear a similar issue and considering they ruled on the merits in Baker hear this one?

Times change. Civil rights change. Baker's not an issue. And the Supreme Court has had other fundamental rights jurisprudence since then. The 9th won't apply Baker. And SCotUS has the votes to overturn gay marriage bans. Baker, was decided in a different era. Times have changed and there are 5 on the court that will likely conclude Baker was wrongly decided. Its not the first and won't be the last.

People that oppose gay marriage will presumably be pro-life. How do pro-lifes expect roe v. wade overturned?
 
Last edited:
Times change. Civil rights change. Baker's not an issue. And the Supreme Court has had other fundamental rights jurisprudence since then. The 9th won't apply Baker. And SCotUS has the votes to overturn gay marriage bans. Baker, was decided in a different era. Times have changed and there are 5 on the court that will likely conclude Baker was wrongly decided. Its not the first and won't be the last.

People that oppose gay marriage will presumably be pro-life. How do pro-lifes expect roe v. wade overturned?

Ok... I'm not a Constitution Attorney or Professor but...

Citizens of EP v Bruning in the 8th a 2006 case mentioned Baker... not in the discussion of the 14th Amendment but did so in the final comments. And, since if this Prop 8 case has the precise elements as Baker under binding precedent lower courts cannot find otherwise... "... No substantial Federal Issue ..."

I agree 1971 has been awhile ago but so have other issues that remain binding on the courts below.

I think I'm of the opinion that if this issues gets to SCOTUS (assuming the rule of binding precedent on courts below) I'll go buy a Banana Split and eat the entire thing... And, the 9th will be impeached 🙂...

This is a State issue and ought to remain as such.... We Californians ought to have never passed Prop 8 and ought to reverse that asap...
 
Wow, I must say I'm shocked, a gay judge saying that opponents of gay marriage have nothing to stand on. Yawn.


Yeah I know!!! I am also shocked!

Just like when a religious judge rules on his own believes ... Happens all the time! DUH! You know they are going to let their faith get in front of their ruling!

Where is the LOGIC in this? Can't see any of it in those Right Religious Hacks!
 
w00t

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California on Wednesday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution -- handing supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 136-page opinion, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, is an initial step in what will likely be a lengthy fight over California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At stake in the trial was whether California's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay couples' rights to equal protection and due process, as protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The high-profile case is being watched closely by both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it is destined to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.
Video: Proposition 8 debate rages on
Video: Winning attorneys react
Video: Prop 8 ruling: 'It's huge!'
Video: 'Just the first document'

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five U.S. states and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. The five states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.

"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."

In a separate order, Walker also granted supporters of Proposition 8 a temporary stay, which stops his decision from taking immediate effect. They had argued, prior to his ruling, that same-sex marriages would be performed soon after his decision and could be complicated by rulings and appeals farther down the legal road.
LINKS
PDF: Ruling on Proposition 8

Reaction to the ruling

iReport.com: Your reaction
RELATED TOPICS

Proposition 8
U.S. Supreme Court
GLBT Issues

Walker gave both sides in the case until Friday to submit their responses to the order.

Elated supporters of same-sex marriage gathered to celebrate the judge's opinion in the Castro district of San Francisco. After speeches and songs, they began a march to city hall. People waved rainbow flags and U.S. flags, and carried signs that read, "We all deserve the freedom to marry," and "Separate is Unequal." Similar rallies unfolded in cities across California -- including Los Angeles and San Diego.

"For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else's makes us incredibly proud of our country," said Kristin Perry, a plaintiff.

Perry and Sandy Stier, along with Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, are the two couples at the heart of the case, which if appealed would go next to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before possibly heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said their best bet lies with higher courts and vowed to appeal the federal judge's ruling.

In a national survey, conducted by Gallup in May, 53 percent of respondents said same-sex marriages should not be recognized by law, while 44 percent said they should.

Proposition 8 is part of a long line of seesaw rulings, court cases, debates and protests over the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. It passed in California with some 52 percent of the vote in November 2008.

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html
 
Back
Top