Prop 8 unconstitutional

They'll appeal it up to the Supreme Court now, where it was headed anyway.

If the Supreme Court hears it, expect a final declaration on the gay marriage issue once and for all. This could be the test case.

 

...Again.

 

I'm willing to wager that the Supreme Courts position on this isn't gonna differ much on the courts.

 

Awesome!

 

Congrats California! Welcome (back) to the civilized world!

 

it is a safe 5-4 vote if they take it on... the question is will Justice Kennedy side with his fellow conservatives, or continue his record of sideing with his Liberal counterparts on issues pertaining to the civil rights for lgbt citizens.

and that is if they even take it on.

 

Is it too much to hope that when I become of age, It'll be finally legal and I'll be able to marry a woman in a church?

 

depends solely on the church.

If it is a christian church, then they will marry you, if it is a anti-jesus false-christian church, they wont.

 

Lol, so I decided to check NOM to see what they're saying, that lovely woman Maggie Gallagher said that the 9th Court told 7 million voters that they're irrational bigots. They just make me amused all the time.

 

I'm actually furious that this wasn't a unanimous vote. I don't know how Judge Smith can rule that this ban is constitutional under any circumstances whatsoever. Marriage is a fundamental right, that's undisputed. Marriage was defined as being LGBT inclusive in California, and then voters took it away. Totally disregarding everything else--Proposition 8 had no business on the ballot in the first place. It's unconstitutional to vote on fundamental rights and there is precedence supporting that fact.

There were nearly 100+ findings of facts in Walker's opinion that were provided by our side, and the anti-gay lawyers walked into court and said that not only did they not have any evidence, they didn't need any. Their arguments don't pass rational basis review. Smith is a political shill, quite frankly, and he should be ashamed. A disgrace to judges everywhere.

 

Kidd, please take a look at the post about linking Right Wing with intelligence

 

The problem is that it isn't absolute. It can and apparently will be appealed to a higher court, where Prop 8 could be re-constitutionalized.

It is a victory, though, and I'm not so much hopeful that same-sex marriage will be legalized, so much as I am confident that it will. It ultimately comes down to the will of the 52% vs the rights of the 10%.

 

I'm hearing from some that the foundation of the arguments that shot down Prop 8 were fundamentally related to the recent politics of gay marriage in California, so its unlikely that this case will be applicable to gay marriage in general if brought to the Supreme Court.

I have no idea if this is true personally - anyone better acquainted with the politics here able to answer this?

 

it is focused on prop 8. however, the arguements made apply to the notion of is it consitutional to deny gays and lesbians marriage rights, and so it sets legal precedence.

if it goes to the supreme court, it will likely be focused only on prop 8 again.

however, for universal marriage equality, the supreme court would require a different case that applys to all states, not just to the matter of prop 8.

 

Yay :rolle:

It's cool and all, but I'm really underwhelmed. The decision is very narrow so it only applies to CA, not the whole 9th circuit, which is not what "experts" had said would happen. The decision will be stayed until further decisions are made so people still can't get married. The case will drag on for years to come and even if it goes to the USSC, and they agree with the 9th circuit, it still only applies to CA, at least that's what the "experts" are saying right now. So two more years for this case and then another five years for a broader case to wind its way through the courts. Wow, very anticlimactic.

What I'd like to know is why didn't the Loving V VA case only apply to VA?

 

No it wouldn't. If the Supreme Court rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional it is because it violates the US Constitution. If they ruled that way, it'd overturn and SSM bans in all 50 states. Judaical Review.

But the odds the Supreme Court will even accept the case is slimming. The 9th Circut in Cali didn't rule it was unconstitutional do deny SSM. They ruled it was unconstitutional to vote on SSM, which does technically make it apply really only to California. That's why it may not be a "Landmark Case" that everyone's expecting. The Supreme Court usually just takes on national issues or state issues that deal with the US Constitution, not individuality state constitutions. But who knows.

 

what the prop 8 case was about was prop 8. the supreme court of california granted marriage rights, prop 8 took those away, and it was deemed unconstutitional for voters to take away 'existing' rights.

That is the crux of what these court cases have been about 'the legality and constitutionality of prop 8'.

I agree that denying marriage rights is unconstitutional, but the court case cannot expand beyond what it was in the beginning, which was focused on california. For that to happen, it would have to go all the way to the beginning, since all that can be done is appeal on the existing merits of the case. you cant add new merits to the appeal to rebuild a lost chance for sucess. what these appeals are is attempts to get it thrown out, or sent back to lower courts so a new trial can begin.

The supreme court can only comment on the merits of the arguements laid out in the various levels of the case so far. that is why though it was many days long in the first trial, every trial since then have basically been one day affairs where people try to argue for or against sending it back or throwing the whole thing out.

 

Dollars to donuts the Supreme Court won't hear it.