Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional by appeals court

[AnCap Dave]

Source

(02-07) 10:13 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional today, saying a state can't revoke gay rights solely because a majority of its voters disapprove of homosexuality.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Proposition 8's limitations on access to marriage took rights away from a vulnerable minority without benefiting parents, children or the marital institution.

"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," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion.

"The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort."

Prop. 8, passed in November 2008, declared marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. It repealed a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriage in California.

The ban remains in effect while the case proceeds toward the U.S. Supreme Court.

In today's ruling, the court took a narrower approach than that taken by then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who presided over the nation's first federal court trial on same-sex marriage.

Walker ruled in August 2010 that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry their chosen partner - a ruling that, if upheld on appeal, would apply nationwide.

Today's ruling was tied to the history of Prop. 8 and, if upheld, would nevertheless apply only to California.

Took them long enough. To be honest, if the government got out of the marriage business and people understood that marriage is nothing more than a contract between people, this probably wouldn't have been much of a problem in the first place. You have a right to form a contract with any person or persons you want as long as they are a voluntary party.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

Bigger fail on facebook is a guy was trying to say the 10th amendment gave California the right to do this. People like that are what turn people off to state nullification.

[MrBogosity]

The 10th Amendment doesn't allow them to get around restrictions imposed by the Constitution on the states (note the phrase, "nor prohibited by it to the states"), and that includes impairing the obligation of contracts (which marriage is from a legal POV), abridging full faith and credit, and denying equal protection.

[Ibrahim90]

The 10th Amendment doesn't allow them to get around restrictions imposed by the Constitution on the states (note the phrase, "nor prohibited by it to the states"), and that includes impairing the obligation of contracts (which marriage is from a legal POV), abridging full faith and credit, and denying equal protection.

true, but since when has logic or honesty gotten in the way of those against gay marriage?

[Goaticus]

An oldie, but a goodie.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/DefendingMarriage.htm

[Travis Retriever]

An oldie, but a goodie.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/DefendingMarriage.htm

Heh.  That's Harry Browne for ya.  This be one example of how conservatives are NOT libertarians...

[ebalosus]

An oldie, but a goodie.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/DefendingMarriage.htm

How exactly is homosexual marriage (and for that matter, any other form of non-normative marriage) a "threat" to traditional marriage? I know, Shane, that those opposing it are illogical; but still, saying that something is "a threat to traditional marriage" is not an answer. "Because it's a threat to traditional marriage" could literally be an answer for anything 

[MrBogosity]

The same way people say that insider trading is a "threat to the market." Which, admittedly, still doesn't answer your question...

[Ibrahim90]

How exactly is homosexual marriage (and for that matter, any other form of non-normative marriage) a "threat" to traditional marriage? I know, Shane, that those opposing it are illogical; but still, saying that something is "a threat to traditional marriage" is not an answer. "Because it's a threat to traditional marriage" could literally be an answer for anything 

because "same sex marriage is a threat to traditionla marriage" is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platitude

and as such is meaningless, irrelevent, and retarded, but people still try make it look the opposite.


EDIT: in short, you're putting more logic into it than they are.