It's certainly off to the supreme court now. Wonder if and when they'll actually hear it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?hp

Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California

LOS ANGELES – 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 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.”

 

-----signature-----

Good, let's end this silly issue in this country already so we can focus on more important issues, such as ending discrimination against atheists and marijuana users.

 

-----signature-----

Breaking, 9th circuit court and HHS secretary just hand 2012 elections to Republicans.

 

-----signature-----

Like!

 

-----signature-----

So this is what the Mayans were talking about??

 

-----signature-----

Does this mean Pitt and Jolie can finally get married?

 

-----signature-----

What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?

For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.

What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.

 

-----signature-----

Only if the state legislature does not run contrary to the US constitution and applicable federal laws.

If the state/people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, that would have been unconstitutional as well, and the federal courts would have been well within their jurisdiction to say so.

 

-----signature-----

I don't think people that approve of gay marriage really care how it got done. End result justifying the means and all that.

 

-----signature-----

Such a profanity theory. A state cannot violate your 14 amendment rights just because they want to and they have some states-appointed sovereign right to do so.

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.

“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.”

 

-----signature-----