Moments ago a 3 judge panel of the United States 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection provisions of the US Constitution.

The 2-1 ruling was made by a 3 judge panel and at first glance it appears it applies only to California. Because the ruling was tailored to apply only to Caifornia and the process of the California Supreme Court ruling followed by Proposition 8 it is possible that the US Supreme Court would reject the case. It is also unclear if there will be a stay imposed during possible appeals or if it would take effect immediately.

The 3 judge panel consisted of liberal judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, moderate Michael Daly Hawkins and conservative N. Randy Smith. Reinhardt and Hawkins voted to strike down Proposition 8 (IE affirm Judge Wakers ruling) while Smith voted to overturn it. All three judges voted that Judge Walker did not need to recuse himself merely because he was gay.

The ruling can be read here

PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor
Sort by:   newest | oldest
ShannonLeee
Guest
ShannonLeee
4 years 7 months ago

“All three judges voted that Judge Walker did not need to recuse himself merely because he was gay”

good for them. seriously, someone could have tried to make an issue out it.

StockBoyLA
Guest
StockBoyLA
4 years 7 months ago

A strike against oppression and bigotry.

SteveK
Guest
SteveK
4 years 7 months ago

That’s great! It kind of makes you want to jump up on stage and sing a song of celebration… Like maybe “Prop 8 – The Musical:)

xyzyx
Guest
xyzyx
4 years 7 months ago

It’s probably going to continue up the hierarchy to the (U.S.) Supreme Court. I wouldn’t consider this settled yet, guys.

roro80
Guest
roro80
4 years 7 months ago

So, for those who are really good at law: was the entire thing being decided in this case whether or not Walker must recuse himself? Is that the issue that would go up to the SCOTUS? Or is it actually on the subject of the constitutionality of Prop 8?

JeffP
Guest
JeffP
4 years 7 months ago

In other news reports, it is discussed in terms of its constitutionality.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,”

Amen to that.

The_Ohioan
Guest
The_Ohioan
4 years 7 months ago
From Liz Goodwin – The Lookout […Reinhardt was explicit in his decision that his ruling is “narrow” and only relates to California, not to the entire nation. In California, gay people had the right to marry for five months before it was taken away by voters. This amounts to a violation of equal protection because a right was specifically taken away from a minority group, Reinhardt writes. But this argument would not apply to gay people in most other states, where gay marriage was never legalized in the first place. “It’s a strong decision but it is not the ringing… Read more »
StockBoyLA
Guest
StockBoyLA
4 years 7 months ago

“In California, gay people had the right to marry for five months before it was taken away by voters.”

Actually (if I recall properly) there never was a prohibition for same sex-marriage in California. It was determined (by the court) that the California constitution, as written, allowed same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples had five months to pursue their dreams to get married before conservatives took away that right by amending the CA constitution.

roro80
Guest
roro80
4 years 7 months ago
Hey StockBoy — No, California had a law against marriage equality voted for during the early Ahnold years, that was not an amendment to the constitution. Then Gavin Newsom decided to start issuing marriage licences to all couples anyway, so there were a few months of frantic marriage in San Francisco. The state put an end to that and effectively divorced thousands of married people, citing the law, so a bunch of the newly-married couples then sued. They won, and the law was declared unconstitutional. Then there were another 5 months of marriages, throughout the state, that were legal. The… Read more »
slamfu
Guest
slamfu
4 years 7 months ago

Cool. Now when the institution of marriage falls apart in the next few years the conservatives will finally get to tell the liberals “I told you so!” and get the vindication all the millions of dollars and hours spent fighting this have justified.

Alternately I was proposing a compromise. One gay marriage license to be issued for every 10 straight divorces filed within a given state. I’m pretty sure gay people would have all the marriage licenses they could handle.

PJBFan
Guest
PJBFan
4 years 7 months ago
I vigorously dissent from most of the decision. The only part of the decision in which I would have joined is the view that Judge Walker need not have recused himself. That would set a dangerous precedent, including mandating non-white Judges recuse themselves in issues of race, or women recusing themselves in cases involving issues of sex. From there on, I disagree with most of the decision. I would not have ruled that there was standing for the Defendants Intervenors. I find no cognizable interest of the proponents damaged by their inability to intervene. Thus, I would not have found… Read more »
petew
Guest
petew
4 years 7 months ago
I agree that the 14th Amendment validates the unconstitutionality of proposition 8 and its disregard for equal protection of the laws, but, I never understood why judging the validity of this matter has had to go beyond the 1st Amendment in the first place. The marriage ritual is traditionally considered to have its proper place as part of the religious belief systems and ceremonies defined by each Church. I know that I am not a legal scholar, but can anyone please tell me why each individual church doesn’t have the sole right of deciding who and how they shall marry… Read more »
roro80
Guest
roro80
4 years 7 months ago
” but where did we get the idea that the type of marriage ceremonies conducted by any church should be guided by any government?” They’re not, actually. Some churches will marry gay couples, and no church is told it must marry gay couples. Some churches will even marry multiple people. The Catholic church, for example, won’t officially marry a couple if the parties have been divorced in the past, or if they’re using birth control, etc. It’s just that if the couple is not issued a license, it will not be civilly recognized. The church can say the union is… Read more »
roro80
Guest
roro80
4 years 7 months ago

By the way, Pete, marriage isn’t necessarily a religious thing. Athiests get married all the time. My wedding was not held in a church, not precided over by a religious official, God was never mentioned, and neither my husband nor I are at all religious. Yet we somehow were allowed to get married anyway.

wpDiscuz