Page 1 of 49 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,725

    Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    AN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court has declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law.
    This will most likely head to the Supreme Court now.

    And, somewhere in the state of California, there is a man saying "Fabulous".

    Article is here.

    EDIT: Oops, wrong forum. Mods - Please move this to breaking news. DanaRhea does it again. Duh!!
    Last edited by danarhea; 02-07-12 at 02:37 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,873
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Eh, It could go here.

  3. #3
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Either way, good for the courts. I would love to see this reach the SC.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Great news, but no surprise. Cue the usual chorus of crybabies crying about "activist judges"....

  5. #5
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    This was pretty much a sure thing. With the makeup of SCOTUS it will be a little less sure, but still likely to be upheld.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #6
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Moderator's Warning:
    Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutionalOh, and moved to appropriate forum.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #7
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    I just finished reading Smith's dissenting opinion. This section pretty much sums it up...

    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Smith
    "Here, the people of California might have believed that withdrawing from same-sex couples the right to access the designation of marriage would, arguably, further the interests of promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting. The assumptions underlying these rationals may be erroneous, but the very fact that they are "arguable" is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to 'immunize' the congressional choice from the constitutional challenge."
    In other words he argues the people of California made the assumptions that allowing same sex marriage would somehow result in fewer opposite sex couples marrying and having children and even if these assumptions are clearly and factually wrong, the fact that they can be conceived is enough to uphold Prop 8.

    Of course there is no telling whether SCOTUS will agree with Smith that "rational basis review" is the appropriate level of scrutiny or that a state interest needs to only be "conceivable" or "arguable" even if it is untrue.

    It doesn't make for a very strong case saying, "Yo, I recognize these people made some stupid assumptions to pass this law, but the fact that they could come up with assumptions is all that is needed for it stay on the books even if it results in inequality."
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 02-07-12 at 03:49 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,360

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Obvious decision. On to the SCOTUS we go!
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #9
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I just finished reading Smith's dissenting opinion. This section pretty much sums it up...



    In other words he argues the people of California made the assumptions that allowing same sex marriage would somehow result in fewer opposite sex couples marrying and having children and even if these assumptions are clearly and factually wrong, the fact that they can be conceived is enough to uphold Prop 8.

    Of course there is no telling whether SCOTUS will agree with Smith that "rational basis review" is the appropriate level of scrutiny or that a state interest needs to only be "conceivable" or "arguable" even if it is untrue.

    It doesn't make for a very strong case saying, "Yo, I recognize these people made some stupid assumptions to pass this law, but the fact that they could come up with assumptions is all that is needed for it stay on the books even if it results in inequality."
    Well, I am somewhat surprised that 2 of the judges agreed with Walker, since he was clearly wrong on the rational basis test. Smith got it right on that question at least.

    To the SCOTUS we go.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  10. #10
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I just finished reading Smith's dissenting opinion. This section pretty much sums it up...



    In other words he argues the people of California made the assumptions that allowing same sex marriage would somehow result in fewer opposite sex couples marrying and having children and even if these assumptions are clearly and factually wrong, the fact that they can be conceived is enough to uphold Prop 8.

    Of course there is no telling whether SCOTUS will agree with Smith that "rational basis review" is the appropriate level of scrutiny or that a state interest needs to only be "conceivable" or "arguable" even if it is untrue.

    It doesn't make for a very strong case saying, "Yo, I recognize these people made some stupid assumptions to pass this law, but the fact that they could come up with assumptions is all that is needed for it stay on the books even if it results in inequality."
    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Well, I am somewhat surprised that 2 of the judges agreed with Walker, since he was clearly wrong on the rational basis test. Smith got it right on that question at least.

    To the SCOTUS we go.


    Tim-
    This will fail on rational basis alone, even though strict scrutiny is very possible instead. Just because people can believe things with zero evidence to back it up is not a rational basis and I cannot think of any court cases. The arguments Smith offered are not rational and in fact have no evidence to back them, hence the comments that CT quoted.

    Some interesting reading from the always wonderful SCOTUSblog: Ban on gay marriage struck down (FINAL UPDATE) : SCOTUSblog

    In Judge Reinhardt’s explicit effort to keep the decision narrow, the majority opinion stressed that same-sex couples had all of the legal rights as opposite-sex couples – before Proposition 8 was enacted. Thus, it concluded, the ballot measure “had one effect only” — that is, “it stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the state, or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationsjhips. Nothing more, nothing less.”
    As a result, Reinhardt wrote, the ballot measure “could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise chiildren or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freeodom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.”
    Another interesting bit:

    The opinion contained frequent references to a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, Romer v. Evans, which ruled unconstitutional a state constitutional amendment in Colorado that took away from gays and lesbians political rights that they had shared with other citizens. The Romer decision was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who very likely would hold a pivotal vote on same-sex marriage if and when that issue reaches the Supreme Court. Kennedy was also the author of a broader gay rights ruling in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas; there, the Court ruled that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right of privacy to engage privately in sexual activity by consent among adults. That Kennedy opinion, though, said the Court was not taking a position then on same-sex marriage.
    This could be big as tailoring the ruling to appeal to the swing vote on the issue in SCOTUS could very well get this upheld by SCOTUS.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 1 of 49 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •