• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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". :mrgreen:

Article is here.

EDIT: Oops, wrong forum. Mods - Please move this to breaking news. DanaRhea does it again. Duh!!
 
Last edited:
Eh, It could go here.
 
Either way, good for the courts. I would love to see this reach the SC.
 
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.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Oh, and moved to appropriate forum.
 
I just finished reading Smith's dissenting opinion. This section pretty much sums it up...

Judge Smith said:
"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:
Obvious decision. On to the SCOTUS we go!
 
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-
 
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-

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.
 
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."
Marriage has been a fundmental right at least since Loving v Virginia. Laws involving fundamental rights are reviewed on the basis of strict scrutiny. Writing restrictive laws that apply only to gays has been out since Lawrence v Texas. Judge Smith's words are the sound of the last bubbles emerging from a sunken ship.
 
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-

Given that you never went to law school and you probably learned about the tiers of scrutiny from right wing bloggers, I'm less than inclined to agree.
 
Marriage has been a fundmental right at least since Loving v Virginia. Laws involving fundamental rights are reviewed on the basis of strict scrutiny. Writing restrictive laws that apply only to gays has been out since Lawrence v Texas. Judge Smith's words are the sound of the last bubbles emerging from a sunken ship.

Unless of course you play the Hicup game of equivocation. Then you believe that marriage is only a fundamental right when it deals with race, not with sex. :roll:
 
For the SCOTUS to review the case on appeal, they will need to agree that the party making the appeal has the legal right to do so, as that was an issue on the fed court appeal, and I wonder if the SCOTUS isn't bound by the lower fed court's acquiescence on that matter. So it is possible that the SCOTUS may decline to accept the case.

Regardless, it appears that the definition of marriage is being decided by the courts. Interesting ...

Historically, society decides such things, with "marriage" long defined as "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", which is, essentially, what the CA popular vote upheld, the societal vote in CA.

For there to be discrimination in the matter, the participants would still have to confrom to the definition, like if a Black man and White woman wanted to marry and were being told they couldn't, that would be discrimination.

But as societally pre-defined, two men or two women or three-plus of anyone or one person trying to marry him/her self .. prohibition against that would not qualify as discrimination by definition.

The question here was "what is the definition of marriage?" and the CA society of voters upheld the traditional definition of "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", though not by a wide margin.

The Governator and AG Brown, who initially said when campaigning that he'd support whatever the people decided, flip-flopped when the vote didn't go their way, and, essentially, refused to do his job of appealing the law when a federal judge initially struck it down as unconstitutional. So the sponsors of Prop 8 took it upon themselves to appeal to the 9th Circuit, an appeal they almost didn't get to make because according to protocol the AG's office was the right appealer in the matter.

The issue set forth a foundation, that though gays couldn't marry, they were still able to form civil unions.

The social argument was akin to telling pet owners that, okay, you want to enter your cat (gays) in a pet show for cats and call it a "dog show" (a marriage), or, also appropriate, you want to enter your cat in a dog show where it's supposed to be only about dogs. The dog show people were simply saying that cats don't belong in a dog show, that cat owners can have their own show if they want, with just cats, but they should call it a "cat show" (civil union), and under no circumstances could they call it a "dog show" as that steals the meaning from dog shows, devaluing them.

The argument was reasonable .. but only in so far as a basic majority is considered sufficient by society for deciding such matters.

Traditionally it wasn't an issue, as the overwelming vast majority supported the definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

But today, as the CA vote illustrated, the societal opinion on the matter may be within a mere four to 10 percent on the matter, depending on location.

To me, the question isn't about discrimination, it's about how does one decide in such social matters.

Is the CA vote sufficient?

Is a slim majority enough?

Is a 66% majority or more required?

These, to me are the issues here, as the matter is not discrimination if a sufficient method has occured of socially deciding in America that marriage is societally defined "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

What I hope doesn't end up being the correct conclusion here is that a handful of judges decide the definition.

Better is that the judges decide and declare the appropriate method for allowing society to so define marriage.
 
Given that you never went to law school and you probably learned about the tiers of scrutiny from right wing bloggers, I'm less than inclined to agree.

Dude, why must I have needed to go to law school? Have you? Nope.. At least i have represented myself in many legal battles (mostly family court) and won, and I also took on the Attorney General of Canada, and the Queen of England and beat them as well, so i know a thing or two about the law there sunshine. I understand all the standards for review in every legal action I have ever been involved in. For instance I am currently representing myself (tomorrow in fact) facing contempt charges from my evil ex wife concerning civil contempt. The attorney for my wife is a moron but she keeps using him, even though I have soundly thrashed him on more than a few occassions.. In this latest escapade he made a major error in his contempt pleading and on that alone I will win..

In any regard sexual orientation is what Walker was trying to get around with his rationale on gender based discrimination. His decision and ruling was on gender NOT sexual orientation, and he used a rational basis test as the standard of review, which by the way was the correct review. problem is that in order for his ruling to prevail he needed to show that gender was in fact being discriminated against, and it is not, and was not. The plaintiffs in prop 8 needed to show that gender was the basis of discrimination, and in order for that to survive 14th scruitiny they needed to show that both men and women were being discriminated against. However, they failed to do that, men and women are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex. Now if men could marry men, and also women, and women could only marry men, then THIS would be cause for strict scrutiny and a proper 14th challenge. Another way of looking at it is to say that both men and women are being discriminted against, but the law doesn't work that way. :)


Tim-
 
If SCOTUS upholds this ruling does that mean that all state bans on SSM will be overturned?
 
This will most likely head to the Supreme Court now.

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

Article is here.

EDIT: Oops, wrong forum. Mods - Please move this to breaking news. DanaRhea does it again. Duh!!

Oh, boy... I can already hear fox news talking head revving up the hate.

Here's how a far-right conservative sees the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

queer_eye_html.jpg
 
If SCOTUS upholds this ruling does that mean that all state bans on SSM will be overturned?

State constitutions / laws that prohibit same-sex couples from getting a marriage license.

The traditional definition of marriage will not change.
 
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."

Plain and simply...Wrong. Equal protection analysis requires that there be a RATIONAL basis....not just any basis.
 
Regardless, it appears that the definition of marriage is being decided by the courts. Interesting ...

Re: Definition. Churches can still define traditional marriage as they see fit.

City hall just can't deny a marriage license to a same sex couple.
 
Dude, why must I have needed to go to law school? Have you? Nope.. At least i have represented myself in many legal battles (mostly family court) and won, and I also took on the Attorney General of Canada, and the Queen of England and beat them as well, so i know a thing or two about the law there sunshine. I understand all the standards for review in every legal action I have ever been involved in. For instance I am currently representing myself (tomorrow in fact) facing contempt charges from my evil ex wife concerning civil contempt. The attorney for my wife is a moron but she keeps using him, even though I have soundly thrashed him on more than a few occassions.. In this latest escapade he made a major error in his contempt pleading and on that alone I will win..

In any regard sexual orientation is what Walker was trying to get around with his rationale on gender based discrimination. His decision and ruling was on gender NOT sexual orientation, and he used a rational basis test as the standard of review, which by the way was the correct review. problem is that in order for his ruling to prevail he needed to show that gender was in fact being discriminated against, and it is not, and was not. The plaintiffs in prop 8 needed to show that gender was the basis of discrimination, and in order for that to survive 14th scruitiny they needed to show that both men and women were being discriminated against. However, they failed to do that, men and women are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex. Now if men could marry men, and also women, and women could only marry men, then THIS would be cause for strict scrutiny and a proper 14th challenge. Another way of looking at it is to say that both men and women are being discriminted against, but the law doesn't work that way. :)


Tim-

WOW....either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you are just flat out mischaracterizing the lower court holding....either way, you couldn't be more wrong.
 
Unless of course you play the Hicup game of equivocation. Then you believe that marriage is only a fundamental right when it deals with race, not with sex. :roll:

Even evading strict scrutiny in this manner, you cannot escape intermediate scrutiny. Same-sex marriage bans are discrimination on the basis of gender, clearly, and therefore meet the standard for intermediate scrutiny.

I've yet to see someone successfully demonstrate an "important state interest" served by such a ban. Yes, they talk about all that "destroying families" business and "someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN," but actual study universally proves them to be wrong.

State constitutions / laws that prohibit same-sex couples from getting a marriage license.

The traditional definition of marriage will not change.

Which traditional definition? The one where women are literal property?
 
Last edited:
Re: Definition. Churches can still define traditional marriage as they see fit.

City hall just can't deny a marriage license to a same sex couple.
The matter of the definition of marriage has long resided outside the church and instead within society at large, where many simply did not attend/recognize church in the matter.

It is inappropriate to create such a dichotomy here, especially in a country with separation of church and state.

City hall must conform in a democracy to the will of the people in societal matters. There was no litmus test in CA that said you couldn't vote for the traditional definition unless you were a member of a church.

Church and religion are to be excluded from the matter decided in a state vote of all citizens legally allowed to vote in CA, which is indeed what happened, as thus any reference to church/religion in the matter is inappropriate.

The question remains what is the correct method of deciding the definition of marriage for Americans (Californians, in this specific issue)? Is it a democratic popular vote? Is a simple majority sufficient? Does it require two thirds majority to re-establish? Is a national vote required? Do judges decide these matters? What?
 
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.

Thanks for reading the opinion and posting a very interesting point.

I would ask, then what is the state's interest in protecting something that is factually wrong or from some wrong that doesn't really exist? (e.g. banning the killing of unicorns)

Appeal to belief and Appeal to Popularity? -- if law is based on logic and reason, don't we need an actual threat to protect against--harm to property or person?
 
Back
Top Bottom