Appeals Court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional!

[METALFumasu]

And now this thing's most likely headed to the Supreme Court.

Given the conservative nature of the folks that make up the USSC, it'll be interesting to see that ruling, and how it affects gay marriage nationwide. Or if the Supreme Court takes the case at all, for that matter.

Expect this to be brought up as an issue for the presidential candidates. I guarantee this will happen.

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."

[Director Danguy]

To quote Jack Sparrow: Drinks all around!

[Less Than Liz]

On incredibly narrow grounds.

[Origin of Wealth]

METALFumasu

And now this thing's most likely headed to the Supreme Court.

Given the conservative nature of the folks that make up the USSC, it'll be interesting to see that ruling, and how it affects gay marriage nationwide. Or if the Supreme Court takes the case at all, for that matter.

Expect this to be brought up as an issue for the presidential candidates. I guarantee this will happen.

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."

Mmm, moderate-conservative imo. 5 - 4 decisions generally fall across ideological lines with Kennedy being the swing, but there have been cases in the last years where decisions aren't so ideological.

But anyways, Strike 2 for proponents

[Brothern]

Raptor Goes Hard

Less Than Liz

On incredibly narrow grounds.

Given that it was only 3, 2-1 is not as narrow as one would make it out to be.

Narrow, from what I believe Liz is saying, on the grounds that the 9th Circuit only applied the ruling to the State of California because same-sex marriages were in effect for 5 months before being annulled. The ruling is not applicable to the rest of the nation.

[razorsarz]

Whats the point of have elections and having people vote on something if you are just going to over turn it in the end.

[pockybot]

razorsarz

Whats the point of have elections and having people vote on something if you are just going to over turn it in the end.

Sometimes when it comes to the supreme court and marriage, they have to do what's right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[Less Than Liz]

Raptor Goes Hard

Less Than Liz

On incredibly narrow grounds.

Given that it was only 3, 2-1 is not as narrow as one would make it out to be.

Grown ups are talking.

[razorsarz]

pockybot

razorsarz

Whats the point of have elections and having people vote on something if you are just going to over turn it in the end.

Sometimes when it comes to the supreme court and marriage, they have to do what's right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

damn that sucks that they did not like the out come of the vote but that's life. i guess it shows if you have the most money you can get anything turned over. don't think that i hate gays or anything. this just shows what kind of mentality people in this country have today that its all about me me me me.

[Less Than Liz]

Brothern

Raptor Goes Hard

Less Than Liz

On incredibly narrow grounds.

Given that it was only 3, 2-1 is not as narrow as one would make it out to be.

Narrow, from what I believe Liz is saying, on the grounds that the 9th Circuit only applied the ruling to the State of California because same-sex marriages were in effect for 5 months before being annulled. The ruling is not applicable to the rest of the nation.

Essentially, this. Volokh Conspiracy has an easy summary (ignore the post's title; there's been no grant yet. Kerr just has his troll-face on):

Quote:

UPDATE: Based on a quick skim, Reinhardt decided that the Supreme Court wasn’t ready yet to embrace a full right to same-sex marriage, and that it was wiser to offer AMK a narrow rationale based on Romer rather than a broad rationale based on Lawrence or Loving. So Reinhardt’s reasoning seems to be California-specific: He argues that Prop 8 took away rights provided by the California Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases, and that those who voted for Prop 8 acted out of animus towards or disapproval of gays, making Prop 8 unconstitutional under a Romer rationale regardless of whether same-sex marriage is constitutional in the general case. I assume Reinhardt is figuring that this either will work or at the worst might buy some time: If the Supreme Court grants cert and reverses on the merits, on remand the case presumably goes back to the same panel. On remand, Reinhardt can then strike down Prop 8 again, but this time under a broader theory along the lines of Judge Walker’s opinion below. That would take a few years, though, keeping the issue alive in the meantime — giving the social attitudes more time to develop, more states time to change their laws, and possibly more time for a change in personnel at the Court.

[pockybot]

razorsarz

pockybot

razorsarz

Whats the point of have elections and having people vote on something if you are just going to over turn it in the end.

Sometimes when it comes to the supreme court and marriage, they have to do what's right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

damn that sucks that they did not like the out come of the vote but that's life. i guess it shows if you have the most money you can get anything turned over. don't think that i hate gays or anything. this just shows what kind of mentality people in this country have today that its all about me me me me.

No, it shows that if you have 29 million dollars of gullible perishioners money, you can brainwash a majority of a state to strip away rights from minorities.

[razorsarz]

pockybot

razorsarz

pockybot

razorsarz

Whats the point of have elections and having people vote on something if you are just going to over turn it in the end.

Sometimes when it comes to the supreme court and marriage, they have to do what's right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

damn that sucks that they did not like the out come of the vote but that's life. i guess it shows if you have the most money you can get anything turned over. don't think that i hate gays or anything. this just shows what kind of mentality people in this country have today that its all about me me me me.

No, it shows that if you have 29 million dollars of gullible perishioners money, you can brainwash a majority of a state to strip away rights from minorities.

yeah that sucks but it was put to a vote and the vote went the way it did get it to be re voted on next time. it would be like if the next election had Mitt winning and the supreme court was like no Obama is still going to be president.

[Disa Uniflora]

I think the point here is that Proposition 8 never should've been put to a vote in the first place. The United States isn't supposed to allow a majority of the population to abridge the rights of any minority, and when there is a strong argument that that's exactly what has happened, the courts have a responsibility to arbitrate over the constitutionality of the matter. Its the way the system works, with the hopes that, when they're your civil rights being violated, you too will have someone to vigourously advocate for you and a -hopefully- objective body to hear your appeals.