Today a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it denies gay and lesbian couples equal rights under the law. I could not be more pleased for the LGBT community that Republicans could not get away with their hateful stance in attempting to insert big, oppressive, Republican government into their bedrooms.
A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.
The three-judge panel issued its ruling Tuesday morning in San Francisco, upholding a decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who had been the chief judge of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California but has since retired. Like Judge Walker, the panel found that Proposition 8 – passed by California voters in November 2008 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent — violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought he suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex.
The court ruled 2 to 1 that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by discriminating against a group of people, gay men and lesbians.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”
“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex-couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,” the judge wrote, adding: “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
This will certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and what the fascist five do may well depend on whether the decision was narrow, applying to only to states that grant the right of lesbians and gays to marry and then take it away, or broad, applying to all states. There is no consensus on which it is.
Ed Schultz discusses the decision with Lt. Dan Choi and Melissa Harris-Perry.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Congratulations to the LGBT community!
20 Responses to “Court Rejects GOP Bigotry”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
From the article:
The 14th Amendment reads in part as follows: (From Wikipedia)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Constitution’s Equal Protection clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its borders. This was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
. . . there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently — I do not call religion a legitimate reason to treat LGBTs differently. In wanting to understand the issue a little better, I consulted Wikipedia. The pro group was made up of, among others, the Roman Catholic Church, The Knights of Columbus , The Church of jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Union of Orthodox Congregations, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Evangelical churches, and the list goes on. Just because it offends their view of their religion does not mean that it offends all. For that matter, I find their narrow, holier than thou attitude offensive. Does that mean that I should try to have their religion banned? Of course not.
I am very happy for the LGBT community. This has been a long time coming. Unfortunately, there will surely be an appeal to the Supreme Court and the 5 Injustices cannot be counted on for just and impartial renderings. After all, these are the same that gave corporations personhood.
” it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”
Thank you Judge Stephen Reinhardt…
Indeed. He deserves our thanks.
Excellent analysis, Lynn.
This will most likely be a BIG issue for the Fake Family Values Party in this years elections.
The more the economy improves, the bigger this issue will be.
One of the judges rendering this decision was gay, which may put a monkey wrench in the decision, among other reasons for my being atheist – this is a dominant one – about which jesus spoke not a word, nor does the constitution, which is paid little attention to anyway, at least in this country, nevertheless it does not exclude the GLBT community from equal rights – (but that’s just the constitution) – I believe that this will not go to the super duper 9 beings of absolute power – because of the gay judge, and if it goes to the super duper 9 – it will not be a positive result for the constitution – since when have 5 of them considered “constitutional” issues – they’re politically motivated and that means “religious” dictators and “moral” authorities!
Better check your facts Lee.
Also, you appear to be blaming God for what heretics do.
Not “Congratulations to the LGBT community!“, congratulations to all of us. When the government tries to take natural rights away from any of us we all pay the price.
Very well said Upton. Your point is spot-on.
I tend to think you may well be right here ; I have not read closely- but it does seem too specific a decision–
That’s what I first thought, Nameless, but the one of the Lawyers that brought it argued that it was broad in scope on the Rachel Maddow Show., That’s actually the clip that I wanted to use, but MSNBC never put it up.
Earlier today I was cruising on-line and ran into a comment that sort of went like this — the decision was tailored to the California law, and as such, the writer doubted that SCOTUS would even touch it. It would be nice if SCOTUS stayed out of this!
Amen!
At times, it does seem as though certain segments of our society are growing up. Cheers!
Thanks Phil. I agree.
:: hoots ::
Progress! I’m eager to see if this goes to the Supreme Court or if it has a wider impact on other court decisions.
Only time will tell, my friend.