9th Circus Court of Appeals bans Calif same-sex "marriages" pending appeal

[Little-Acorn]

Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

by Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer – 17 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in a case that many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

The plaintiffs could now appeal the 9th Circuit decision to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handles emergency motions for the high court

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

 

[dogtowner]

Right thing to do of course. Especially given the groundless nature of the decision.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Right thing to do of course. Especially given the groundless nature of the decision.

realy groundless?

please tell us about your expert view of the constitutional issues at stake, as I am sure you can tell us all about the Cali state constitution and the grounds on witch the Judge made his ruling when he said it was unconstitutional...

wait, let me guess...you have no basis for your statement....

 

[bododie]

All that has to be done is to repeal DOMA and give the states the right to decide for themselves. Homosexuals can go to the state that allows it. NO ONE in this country has the right to decide that the majority of the people in that state have to listen to their special interest. They can freakin' move. Just like I did to get away from California which used to be paradise and is now a toilet because of all the whiny special interest groups.

And when all is said and done, the gays can send a special shout out to Billy Clinton for passing the law in the first place. You know, a DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

All that has to be done is to repeal DOMA and give the states the right to decide for themselves. Homosexuals can go to the state that allows it. NO ONE in this country has the right to decide that the majority of the people in that state have to listen to their special interest. They can freakin' move. Just like I did to get away from California which used to be paradise and is now a toilet because of all the whiny special interest groups.

And when all is said and done, the gays can send a special shout out to Billy Clinton for passing the law in the first place. You know, a DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT.

why should it be a state issue in the first place? Slavery was a state issue at one point...it never should have been...Gays should not have to move to a state to have legal rights..

 

[BigRob]

realy groundless?

please tell us about your expert view of the constitutional issues at stake, as I am sure you can tell us all about the Cali state constitution and the grounds on witch the Judge made his ruling when he said it was unconstitutional...

wait, let me guess...you have no basis for your statement....

The judge argued that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, which are part of the US Constitution...

 

[BigRob]

All that has to be done is to repeal DOMA and give the states the right to decide for themselves. Homosexuals can go to the state that allows it. NO ONE in this country has the right to decide that the majority of the people in that state have to listen to their special interest. They can freakin' move. Just like I did to get away from California which used to be paradise and is now a toilet because of all the whiny special interest groups.

And when all is said and done, the gays can send a special shout out to Billy Clinton for passing the law in the first place. You know, a DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT.

Under your idea, all it would take is for one state to make it legal, and then it would basically be recognized by every state because people would just go get married in the one state, then go back home.

It cannot be a state issue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The judge argued that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, which are part of the US Constitution...

are you sure? I may have been reading a different case when I saw it, but at least the one I saw dealt with State constitution...maybe that was the orig case that made them legal the first time? regardless my point would be the same...just saying there is no merit...and not even reviewing the points made in teh court....where they showed its merit...is just talking with nothing.

one does not have to agree with a ruleing to agree it had merit....Just like I thin there is merit to those who say the right to arms does not apply to all people only the Malita...I may not agree, and could back up my view...but it does not mean the argument is not without merit..

 

[BigRob]

are you sure? I may have been reading a different case when I saw it, but at least the one I saw dealt with State constitution...maybe that was the orig case that made them legal the first time? regardless my point would be the same...just saying there is no merit...and not even reviewing the points made in teh court....where they showed its merit...is just talking with nothing.

one does not have to agree with a ruleing to agree it had merit....Just like I thin there is merit to those who say the right to arms does not apply to all people only the Malita...I may not agree, and could back up my view...but it does not mean the argument is not without merit..

Judges ruling...

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58."

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Under your idea, all it would take is for one state to make it legal, and then it would basically be recognized by every state because people would just go get married in the one state, then go back home.

It cannot be a state issue.

well as it stands, if your gay and get married...it only helps legaly for State benifits...things like Social Security and Federal issues...you still don't have legal standing as it is right now I believe...

The problem with states picking and choosing is, I think its a right under the Federal Constiution and imoral as well...but also when you have states start saying your only married in your state...brings up lots of issues....It would be like if 2 people had a buisness contract, then crossed state lines...and saying one side can just ignore it now as its a new state...or back in the day, to say a black and white where married...but only in some states...or one day a state says people of Islam can't marry now in this state...what happens to people who move there...

a legal marriage should be a legal marriage...end of story in my view. The goverment should not be in the business of picking who can marry based on the bible or any Religion...and if a church wishes to not be for gay marriage that is fine, they are free to not have them...But if one says they do support it, who is the state to say, no to that Religion?

 

[dogtowner]

The judge argued that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, which are part of the US Constitution...

Exactly. If you ammend the state constitution as was done, it cannot be unconstitutional. Regulations regarding the privilidge of marriage are a state matter.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All that has to be done is to repeal DOMA and give the states the right to decide for themselves. Homosexuals can go to the state that allows it. NO ONE in this country has the right to decide that the majority of the people in that state have to listen to their special interest. They can freakin' move.

So if a State were to disallow heterosexual marriage, then you'd be alright with that since the heteros could move to another State that didn't ban their marriages?

 

[bododie]

You can go to Las Vegas and get married immediately, which you can't do in California. You don't have a RIGHT to live in a specific state. Laws in Texas allow the citizens to defend themselves and those they love, whichever sex it may be, in a way that California doesn't. Does that mean that California has to do the same?
Each state has a right if not the downright responsibility to do what the majority of the people living there want. The majority of the people in California voted down this measure.

I don't need a piece of paper to be loyal, and provide benefits for myself. This isn't about love. It's about money.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You can go to Las Vegas and get married immediately, which you can't do in California. You don't have a RIGHT to live in a specific state. Laws in Texas allow the citizens to defend themselves and those they love, whichever sex it may be, in a way that California doesn't. Does that mean that California has to do the same?
Each state has a right if not the downright responsibility to do what the majority of the people living there want. The majority of the people in California voted down this measure.

I don't need a piece of paper to be loyal, and provide benefits for myself. This isn't about love. It's about money.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[bododie]

I don't need a piece of paper to be loyal, and provide benefits for myself.

Yeah I did. The answer is no. I have no loyalty to any particular state in what is now this messed up country that I have paid into my entire life, and I would have no problem moving to another state that was prettier than Texas in a heartbeat.
As a matter of fact it will probably happen, although not for the reasons mentioned above. If it were illegal in that state for me to be married to my husband, we would divorce, and live together, and still be able to provide our own benefits.

The answer to your question is a resounding NO.