Appellate court rules on Prop 8

[eolesen]

You're obviously right, Tree.

I'm sure that the other 29 states who have constitutional amendments in place defining marriage as opposite-sex and/or prohibiting recognition of same-sex partnerships are now all hanging in the balance based on the decision by the Most Overturned Circuit Court in the nation's judiciary branch.

Then again, if that's the case, why did the court go thru the extra step of only mentioning California in their decision, and not the other six states covered by the Ninth who have DOMA provisions in their state constitutions?...

 

[SparrowHawk]

I think the best opinion was given by the Kid From Brooklyn.

 

[Ms Tree]

I do not believe that this was contested in court before. What was contested in CA was Prop 8 not a const amendment. From what I have read, the proponents of equal rights do not wish to take the various states to court because they are unsure how the SCOTUS would rule given their conservative split.

This decision was writen very narrowly as to apply only to CA and not the rest of the states so it is debatable whether the SCOTUS would even accept the case and if they did, the ruling would probably only apply to CA as well. It is unfortunante that the decision was written in this fashion. Politics played into it and the appeals court did not want this to become a political foot ball and it seems they did not want the SCOTUS to enter into the fray either due to the political leaning of the court.

With any luck Obama will be able to replace one of the conservative judges on the court in his second term and equal rights can be afforded to all US citizens. Eventually it will happen. Slowly over time, the disenfranchised have been afforded equal rights. Gays will eventually make it there as well.

 

[SparrowHawk]

With any luck Obama will be able to replace one of the conservative judges on the court in his second term and equal rights can be afforded to all US citizens. Eventually it will happen. Slowly over time, the disenfranchised have been afforded equal rights. Gays will eventually make it there as well.

I would put ZERO stock into appointment of SCOTUS Judges as their alleged political leanings don't always turn into the decisions the person who appointed them may like. there we more then a few decisions Scalia made the pissed off the Bush Administration to no end. More recently Kagan has annoyed the Empty Suit with her votes.

Of course the greatest example of a judicial Backfire was Eisenhower appointing Earl Warren as the Warren Court was probably the most Liberal and Activist court of our lifetime and maybe in the history of the US.

When it comes to civil liberties some of the justices on the so called right have been pretty supportive.

 

[SparrowHawk]

This is from our friends at the Cato Institute. Cato is the leading Libertarian think tank. I'm posting the text and a link so you can view the 7 minute video which is very interesting.

The Circuit Court Ruling on Proposition 8

Posted by David Boaz

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s ban on same-sex marriage — enacted in 2008 in a popular vote on Proposition 8 — violates the constitutional right to equal protection. The court’s decision upheld a 2010 decision by former Judge R. Vaughn Walker, a Reagan-Bush appointee, that found marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and that the proposition “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” Proponents of Proposition 8 will likely appeal the decision either to the full Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sponsor of the case, Perry v. Brown (originally Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Cato Institute chairman Robert A. Levy is co-chairman of AFER’s Advisory Board. He and co-chair John Podesta wrote in the Washington Post in 2010:

Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’ ” That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws.

Now, 43 years after Loving, the courts are once again grappling with denial of equal marriage rights — this time to gay couples. We believe that a society respectful of individual liberty must end this unequal treatment under the law…. The principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation’s character. This is not about politics; it’s about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

Levy and Podesta, along with AFER’s lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, spoke at this Cato Institute forum. And Levy also wrote about the case in this New York Daily News column.

In this 7-minute video Levy, Podesta, Olson, and Boies make the case for equality in marriage law:

Article & Video

Please watch, it is a very well reasoned argument and provides some real insight into the whole issue.

 

[Ms Tree]

I would put ZERO stock into appointment of SCOTUS Judges as their alleged political leanings don't always turn into the decisions the person who appointed them may like. there we more then a few decisions Scalia made the pissed off the Bush Administration to no end. More recently Kagan has annoyed the Empty Suit with her votes.

Of course the greatest example of a judicial Backfire was Eisenhower appointing Earl Warren as the Warren Court was probably the most Liberal and Activist court of our lifetime and maybe in the history of the US.

When it comes to civil liberties some of the justices on the so called right have been pretty supportive.

While there are never any guarantees I am pretty sure I can guess how Roberts or Sotomyer will vote on various given issues. As with most rules there are always exceptions.

 

[Ms Tree]

I forgot about Olsen being the former chief council for Reagan. Great video.

 

[Ms Tree]

...............

 

[delldude]

New Libyan leadership takes harsh stance at UN against gays

A United Nations delegate from Libya’s newly formed government told a human rights panel that gays and other groups threaten “reproduction of the human race,” drawing a stern rebuke from leaders of the international body.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/13/new-libyan-leadership-takes-harsh-stance-against-gays-at-un/#ixzz1mN0YU7Lz

Allah Ahkbar !

 

[SparrowHawk]

Christie Keeps His Promise to Veto Gay Marriage Bill
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 17, 2012


The governor’s veto was conditional, asking the State Legislature to amend the bill, so that rather than legalizing same-sex marriages, it would establish an overseer to handle complaints that the state’s five-year-old civil union law did not provide gay and lesbian couples the same protections that marriage would.

Mr. Christie also affirmed his call for the Legislature to put a referendum on same-sex marriage on the ballot in November.

“An issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,” the governor said in a statement. MORE

 

[Ms Tree]

When it goes before the SCOTUS it will fail. There is no legal government interest in not granting equal rights to everyone. Its just a matter of getting the SCOTUS to accept a case.

I love how Christy believes that equal rights are something that should be up for a popular vote. I wonder if he would feel the same way about if some of his rights were put up for a vote.

 

[SparrowHawk]

When it goes before the SCOTUS it will fail. There is no legal government interest in not granting equal rights to everyone. Its just a matter of getting the SCOTUS to accept a case.

I love how Christy believes that equal rights are something that should be up for a popular vote. I wonder if he would feel the same way about if some of his rights were put up for a vote.

Maybe the SCOTUS hasn't accepted a case yet because they feel it's not a Federal Issue? Maybe they feel that the States should decide? One thing I liked about Christie's comments was to ask for a referendum. I think it's fair and equitable.

 

[tech2101]

One thing I liked about Christie's comments was to ask for a referendum. I think it's fair and equitable.

Referendum votes on rights huh?

What if they put up the right of women to vote for a vote...by men?

How about the right to allow non property owners to vote...even though property owners are the only people in the electorate?

What if civil rights of non-whites was put for a vote...and the only people who can vote are white?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Referendum votes on rights huh?

What if they put up the right of women to vote for a vote...by men?

How about the right to allow non property owners to vote...even though property owners are the only people in the electorate?

What if civil rights of non-whites was put for a vote...and the only people who can vote are white?

You have a right to your property and your Liberty. when it comes to gay marriage I think the definition of personal liberty needs a bit of help from the courts. Meanwhile let the voters decide.

For me I don't think the government should have any role in marriage beyond enforcing property rights at any level. Divorce is merely breaking a legal binding contract and sometimes judges have to intervene to settle property disputes. Again back to protecting property rights. To me there is no moral consideration. Merely one of how much interference into your daily lives should your government have?

Beyond things like Wills, Probate, parental rights of children and such the Government should have no say in what any person decides to do in their personal lives. Failing that, then the individual states should decide and if referendum is the way they choose then OK until we get some definitive guidance from the courts.

 

[eolesen]

Beyond things like Wills, Probate, parental rights of children and such the Government should have no say in what any person decides to do in their personal lives. Failing that, then the individual states should decide and if referendum is the way they choose then OK until we get some definitive guidance from the courts.

Agree. Marriage is a (gasp) religious institution that's outlived any government, and has been borrowed by govermnent out of convenience...

Leave marriage alone, address the property & survivorship rights issues with regard to civil unions, and I suspect a lot of the contention goes away very quickly.