Why Prop. 8 will be overturned

Talk about anything else: your pets, your car, movies, celebrities, or other things you like. As a reminder, political and religious discussions do not belong in here, nor any other topics that may incite a heated debate! As always keep it clean, please.

Moderators: KimberlyS, Celia

User avatar
DonnaT
Miss Great Goddess
Posts: 8222
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:04 am
Location: No. Virginia

Post by DonnaT »

A federal appeals court Tuesday overturned Proposition 8 on narrow grounds, ruling that Californians took away a right from a minority group without justification when they approved the 2008 ban on same-sex marriage.

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have limited effect outside California because it is based on voter repeal of a right a minority already enjoyed.

"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry," the court said.

Santa Clara University constitutional law Professor Margaret M. Russell said the ruling overturned Proposition 8 on “the narrowest grounds possible,” which makes it less likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would review it.

“It is very much anchored in the role of Proposition 8 in California’s history,” the professor said, adding that it would have little effect outside of California.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... eedfetcher
The ruling was based on a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decisionthat struck down a Colorado initiative that prevented local governments from passing anti-discrimination ordinances to protect gays and lesbians.

The high court in that case said the federal constitution prevents states from taking away rights from minorities because of moral disapproval.
So how did Tennessee get away with it, so far?
In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate the federal court ruling by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship. Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly gay, said after his ruling that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and his partner wished to marry.
DonnaT
Post Reply