Comments about ‘Court: California gay marriage ban struck down’

For pity sakes!

Before this article is overwhelmed by heated argument from both sides, I would just like to get in my two cents. Everyday we are asking the government, both state and federal, to do more and more things. We want them to define our words, mandate that employers provide health care, and then determine what kind of health care will be mandated. Each side not only wants their rights to defend their values enforced, but wants the values themselves enforced in national laws. This is a road that I do not believe we wish to follow. It will lead to more divisive arguments, more heated rhetoric, and more pitting of Americans against other Americans. The Founders never intentioned a nation where every issue would be decided at the federal level in a one-size-fits all fashion. Some of us believe abortion and gay marriage are moral issues, but by seeking more powerful and national edicts on these subjects, we should recognize that we construct the apparatus that will lead to a national decision we may not agree with, and will be nearly impossible to reverse.

Love wins!

For the record, it shall be known that Judge Randy Smith, a Mormon from Utah, who studied law at BYU under Dallin H. Oaks, dissented. If he didn't have to recuse himself, neither did Judge Vaughn Walker, who is gay and made the initial ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

Bye-bye, Prop. H8!

"a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians."

civil rights should never be up for a vote, what a great day for America thank you to these judges for doing the right thing.

@Ooreally

Sorry I feel no pity for those that have worked so hard to violate the civil rights of their fellow americans. What a great day for our country.

The 9th circuit court is the most overturned court (by the Supreme Court) in the country, so this issue is still un-decided. It is too bad that we the people have allowed the people in black to be our lawmakers. Why bother with a legislature or public referendum? The checks and balances system that supposedly is the basis of our constitution has somehow stopped with the largely un-elected people called judges. I don't think that was the "original intent". If the elected legislatures of the country and the will of the majority of the people can be cancelled by a few people, (in this case a two to one decision by the 9th circuit,) then what do we really have? Let's just go right to the courts and say, judge, what law would you like us to have? As for the elected lawmakers, go play golf.

Times are changing for the better. Society is starting to understand that people should be given free agency to choose to live the way they want to live. Giving gays the right to marry will not harm anyone. We should allow people to live their lives the way they want to as long as no one is harmed.

I find it funny how my fellow church members preach free agency on certain things. But on other things they want to force people to live the way they do. Wasn't that Satan's plan up in heaven? To force people to live the "right" way.

I am happy to live during these times where people are starting to educate themselves.

Reason has won out over empty rhetoric and false claims, its nice to see our justice system work.

A great day for America and a great day for civil rights.

Congratulations California!!
This is a small yet important step toward liberty and justice for all.

This is what happens when you have no evidence to support your position.

As a recap: The California Courts found that the California Constitution contained the right to same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 was then passed, removing that right. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. This means that you cannot remove an existing right unless there is a valid governmental interest in limiting that right - which usually means there must be a proven social harm involved with the exercising of that right.

The pro Prop 8 people were unable to provide any evidence of a social harm resulting from same-sex marriage.

Without a harm, there is no valid reason for the government to limit the exercise of an existing right.

The Appeals Court reviewed the arguments presented during the trial and agreed with the ruling of the trial Judge.

This is a very narrow ruling based on the facts present in this particular case - namely the fact that California did have the right to same-sex marriage and then it was taken away.

This ruling will have no effect on states like Utah where no such right ever existed.

A minor detail is being overlooked: This ruling does NOT say gay-marriage is constitutional. It only states that the process of a legislative proposition was unconstitutional.

The panel stated Proposition 8 "served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. That violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law."

The Ninth Circuit is reversed by the United State Supreme Court more than any other Circuit. They have promulgated law in employment when Title VII of the Federal Act did not cover protection of same sex relationships in daily employment, they added it into the statute and were reversed by the O'Connor/Powell decisions. Most of the Justices believe this to be a state issue and that should be regulated by state law, without the meddling of the Federal Court who wish to place federal law, not yet placed into statutory regulations part of a state Equal Protection scheme argument under the 14th Amendment?

The panel simply upheld what the US Supreme Court already said in the Loving case, that marriage is a civil/human right that can't be infringed upon by a hostile majority. this is a great day for those who believe in the Constitution and the value/importance of marriage to society.

God inspired the Constitution and those things contrary to it are therefore contrary to God.

The scriptures condemn the use of religious beliefs being used to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others. Prop.8 OBJECTIVELY did that since gays had the right to marry prior to 8 and religous belief was the only thing raised by the proponents of 8 in the trial to justify it. For this same reason, any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to impose Prop.8 nationally likewise violates the scriptural prohibition of using religious beliefs to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others.

Some of these early posts posit an interesting question. One that I honestly don't know the answer to. Is marriage a "right", or is it, like a drivers license, a "privilege". I always thought it came more under the privilege category. I may be wrong. If it is a right, please cite where. If it is a right under the U.S. Constitution, then the the equal protection stuff would strongly apply. If marriage is a right given in some state constitutions, then those states would have more flexibility to determine just what the term "marriage" means. If however marriage is not mentioned in either the Federal or State contitutions then isn't it up to each state to determine what it wants marriage to mean? Isn't that the argument we are having in this country anyway? As you can tell, I'm a big states rights guy. I think we should have 50 arguments about marriage just like we should have 50 arguments about abortion. I don't like a federal blanket thrown very often. You liberals may like it on this issue, but you wouldn't on some other issues that go against your principles. So as they say, be careful what you wish for.........

@ Igualmente: Actually, this ruling says the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional -

the "legislative proposition" case was a different case and the method was found Constitutional under California's Constitution.

This ruling may not say gay marriage is Constitutional, but it does say prohibiting it is unconstitutional - either way you split it, under this ruling gay marriage in California is the right of those that want one. (Keeping in mind that they are on hold temporarily.)

@ m.g. scott: The Courts are fulfilling their role in the checks and balances system. They are to act as a check on the legislative process - whether by elected legislators or by the people directly - to make sure laws which violate the Constitution do not go into effect.

This is what to Courts have done in this case.

If voters were to pass a law defining religion and determining that only those organization that met that definition qualified as religions for protection under the Constitution, it would be well within the role of the Courts to declare such a law unconstitutional.

This is no different.

@m.g. scott:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"--United States Supreme Court, Loving v Virginia, 1967 in a unanimous decision

m.g. scott: "If it is a right under the U.S. Constitution, then the the equal protection stuff would strongly apply."

-------------

Please read the constitution. The 14th amendment says: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

It does not use the word "rights" but does use the word "privileges!"

@ m.g. scott: Prior to the passage of Prop 8, the California Supreme Court found that under the California Constitution, same-sex couples had the RIGHT to marry.

That is why this case is unique and why the ruling is so narrow - Prop 8 removed an existing right from a group of people.

Re: Isrred

Still, that case was about a man and woman of different races being able to marry. It didn't address the same sex issue. Plus, if one is to be very libertarian or "free agency" oriented on marriage, then the issue of plural marriage shouldn't upset anyone, should it? I'm not in favor of plural marriage, just pointing out that it would seem to be as "wrongly judgemental" for that "choice" of marriage to be deemed illegal, by those who think it is wrong to have same-sex marriage illegal.