Skip to main content

gay rights
Whoo hoo!
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Appeals court: California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional
@jmartpolitico via UberSocial for BlackBerry

10:05 AM PT: More information:

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal. [...]

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

10:08 AM PT: Read the Court's opinion here.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Damn straight (21+ / 0-)

      There's no putting this genie back in the closet.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'ya aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il ya toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:08:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  wanna rethink that comment title? (11+ / 0-)

        I haven't had the chance to look at the opinion, but it may not lead to a SCOTUS decision mandating marriage equality nationwide. If it's purely limited to a discussion of whether a right, once granted by a Court, can be taken away by vote, where the targeted group is a historically disfavored minority, the decision is largely procedural. Other states in the 9th Circuit besides California (Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Hawaii) do not by virtue of this decision have marriage equality. I think Washington passed such a bill, though, and I'm not sure about Hawaii.

        Judge Walker's decision found there to be a due process right to marriage, equally applicable to gays and lesbians, but the appellate courts can approve on any grounds with a basis in the trial record, not necessarily the reasoning of the trial judge.

        The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

        by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:12:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But is sanity really only one Supreme short? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Senor Unoball, entrelac, sunbro, LSophia, rb608

          "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

          by jakewaters on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:18:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see Anthony Kennedy voting to reverse (12+ / 0-)

            as in reinstating Prop 8, but I could easily see him affirming on the narrowest possible ground, one that leaves marriage equality in California but not nationwide. Of course, he's a Sacramento boy, so once his state has it, why not go nationwide.

            The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

            by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:24:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hearing on the TV (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Loge, askew, caul

              that the decision only applies to CA and not to the rest of the states in the 9th.

              I think this means the SC dodges this bullet for now and lets CA go back to having marriage equality.

            •  this decision is already on the narrowest ground (0+ / 0-)

              (I spent about two hours reading it this afternoon).

              It's aimed straight at Kennedy.

              •  No scrubs on my computer (0+ / 0-)

                I'll read it tonight.

                To you comment above, the 9th circuit did take a narrow reasoning, but even if they did a summary affirmance, it would probably still just apply to CA, and that brings back fond memories of fed jur class.

                The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:05:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  doesn't this issue already exist, though? (0+ / 0-)

                  since some states recognize gay marriage and others don't ...

                  what happens if two members of a gay couple from Washington seperate but do not divorce, one of them lives in Kansas, and then they sue each other for personal injury for an injury caused when they met and had an argument in New York, said suit being legal (as between members of a married couple) in WA, not legal (as between members of a married couple) in NY, and legal (as between two non-married persons) in KS?

                  •  That's a DOMA issue (0+ / 0-)

                    i think the issue here is that the people in Iowa trying to overturn equality will argue the should have the right to create their own record, not be stuck with the Cali haters' ineptitude. A broad court holding would say, why bother, you will always lose as a matter of law, but I think that's the next case, not this one.

                    The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                    by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:37:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  look more closely (0+ / 0-)

                      it's not a DOMA issue, it's a conflicts of laws issue. :) the trouble is in figuring out whose law applies. Although I admit DOMA may give the court a way out as saying that KS law applies due to the public policy exception ... assuming they sued in KS. :) If, instead, they sued in NY, it's a much, much harder case.

                      I agree, though, that the people in IA will say they have a right to create their own record. And on the reasoning in Perry, they'd be right.

        •  Agree - Celebrate But Cautiously (14+ / 0-)

          The Supremes may do several things at this point: agree to hear the case (I can almost guarantee a 5-4 decision), agree to let the 9th circuit decision stand on a technicality, or simply not take the case up.

          Not all of those possibilities are desirable - see Plessy v Ferguson which set civil rights back at the turn of the century. Clearly that decision was flat-out wrong but it took a long while to get the issues back to the high court.

          I'm hoping they take up the case and settle it in a positive, life-enhancing way that all here would celebrate across the country. That day will come.

          "Recuerda siempre esto:. Luchan con el dinero y nos resistimos con el tiempo, y que van a quedarse sin dinero antes de que acabe el tiempo" -Utah Philips

          by TerryDarc on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:19:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It will, just hope to see it in this lifetime (7+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LSophia, LynneK, lgmcp, rb608, TerryDarc, Loge, caul

            if not before the next election cycle....

            "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

            by jakewaters on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:24:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Roberts Might Rule for Marriage Equality (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jakewaters, ivorybill, bythesea

            Roberts did pro-bono for Gay Activist and is credited by some with helping to win the landmark 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans which struck down the Colorado Constitutional Amendment banning any laws against sexual discrimination. It has also been rumored that Roberts may himself be Gay given his history and the insta-family he suddenly acquired.

            Kennedy has also been sympathetic on Gay issues. I am actually hopeful that if the court ever takes up Marriage Equality that the decision (with the current composition) will be 6-3 in favor.

            •  well, the corrollary to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivorybill

              not blaming a lawyer for the sins of his client is not crediting him when the client is one of the good guys. Who was he trying to please in 1996?

              At the same time, Roberts strikes me as a natural politician, so if he sees the winds of change moving in the pro-equality direction, he'll want to get out in front of it, the way Chief Justice Burger did with gender decisions in the '70s.

              The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

              by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:48:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  An easier way out would be... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivorybill, bythesea

              ...to decline the case. From my un-credentialed eyes, the decision was quite narrow, as it hinged on Prop 8 taking away the designation of "marriage" that was earlier conferred, and not to any rights to gay marriage per se. The court even recognized the difference between the issue of taking away something given and establishing a right not previously conferred, as in so many states.

              SCOTUS would have to be really, really active in fighting this social issue to involve itself in an issue that can be so narrowly defined. But then, you can't predict the perversity of this court.

            •  ah, i'd forgotten that. (0+ / 0-)

              This opinion goes out of its way to make Prop 8 look like Romer, which I'd been taken as being aimed at Kennedy but could be aimed at Roberts as well.

        •  It would be a very bizarre ruling, but I (4+ / 0-)

          contemplated that possibility as well, that a high court ruling could split the baby and attempt to limit their ruling to solely Proposition 8.

          (note: I have NOT read the opinion yet but all reporting thus far is consistent with an equal protection holding - if this opinion is NOT based on EP, this comment is meaningless).

          Anyhow, in doing so, it would potentially have a not-insignificant affect on the underlying process of 14th Amendment equal protection review.

          There are far better constitutional law attorneys on this website than I, but I believe that such a ruling would essentially have to create a perverse "evolving standards" prong to EP review - e.g., Prop. 8 was passed solely for animus (a prohibited reason when undertaking a "rational basis" EP review) but that the original, decades-to-hundreds-of-years-old gay marriage bans were NOT at the time of their passage based on animus.

          I could envision what such an opinion would look like, but it would leave a very strangely-shaped dent in the Court's fairly well-established and settled EP doctrines and would lead to some very strange unrelated decisions down the road, in the same way that Bush v. Gore is occasionally applied; every time Bush v. Gore is applied, to my memory, a strange result is reached - not even necessarily wrong, just strange, but, again I'm not a constitutional law specialist, any post-bar Con Law experience that I've had is as a hobby at best.

          In general, SCOTUS tries not to unnecessarily kick over hornets' nests, but occasionally politics do trump legal doctrine... Still, I think that only Thomas and Roberts are the sure votes to uphold Prop. 8. Probably Alito too.  It is not difficult at all to imagine a Kennedy opinion overturning Prop. 8, or even Scalia a concurrence doing the same (it'd be strange, but not extraordinarily strange).

          "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

          by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:30:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It would be the same hair-splitting move (0+ / 0-)

            that the Court pulled in Romer. States (and the federal government) weren't mandated to include protection against job discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it would be unconstitutional to say one group was ineligible for such protection if a legislature would otherwise vote to extend it. It's not a complete analogy, but there are two other factors.

            1.) The specific relief ordered by Judge Walker was limited to California, and the only parties befor his Honor were California plaintiffs and intervenor-defendants.

            2.) In the hypotheitcal analogous Idaho case, the Idaho bigots could argue they should be allowed to present factual evidence at trial that a ban on same sex marriage has a rational basis and shouldn't be bound by the ineptitude of the Calfornia ones. The Perry decision would thus be persuasive precedent and could form a basis for accelerated judgment, but not preclusive given a different set of plaintiffs. There's neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel, so even the 9th circuit, given a different factual record, could come out differently (but they won't). Walker's opinion took the form of conclusions of law predicated on certain findings of fact. That's part of the brilliance of his decision -- it is very clearly an argument that marriage equality should be a pure question of law, but I think he gets the benefit of abuse of discretion. I can't pull up the decision on this computer, though, to see how Reinhardt characterized the findings.

            But yes, these are questions of federal jurisdiction that are very tricky, and the x factor is the fact that sometimes the Supreme Court just does whatever the hell it wants.

            The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

            by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:43:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bush v Gore=Infinate improbability drive, but WTF (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dave in Northridge, caul, terrypinder

            you don't really mean to say that there was no animus that kept the poor from being counted as persons due to lack of property ownership, made slaves into property, disenfranchised women from voting or allowed discrimination based on religion?

            I'm no constitutional scholar but it would be some truely smarmy revisionist history to suggest that these afronts to dignity were just good old-fashioned misunderstandings.

            I agree with you that the SCOTUS implications are fascinating. I'm straight myself but what a breath of fresh air just to be contemplating them!

            Nothing would make me prouder than being able to marry my Daughter and her Lesbian partner.
            -Mayor Jake

            "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

            by jakewaters on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:49:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              davelf2, jakewaters
              you don't really mean to say that there was no animus that kept the poor from being counted as persons due to lack of property ownership, made slaves into property, disenfranchised women from voting or allowed discrimination based on religion?
              In the strange world of SCOTUS jurisprudence, none of those things have ever been subjected to rational basis review. EP under the 14th Amendment is, constitutionally, a fairly new thing. All of the things that you described are explicitly prohibited by the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments and were never subjected to the relatively new rational basis review. The final thing, religious-based discrimination, is held to be prohibited by the First Amendment, which is at times its own separate area of con law more heavily influenced by the First Amendment (though of course the 14th plays a role). You could go on Amazon and buy dozens of books on the First Amendment's various effects on the intersection of government and religion.

              "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

              by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:02:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ..if I wanted to become a constitutional scholar (0+ / 0-)

                but not in this lifetime. I leave it to those such as yourself, far wiser in matters legal than I, to work the right arguments in. I just urge you folks to apply the little gray cells creatively, boldly take good arguments where no argument has gone before ...

                "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

                by jakewaters on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:52:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •   "Well, it is a pretty bizarre show" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            caul

            as Lennny Bruce once said. "... and on this side I can kick a soccer ball 190 miles..."

            "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

            by jakewaters on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:54:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  read the decision. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chitown Kev

            it's not based on an equal protection holding.

            it's based on Romer: California gave gays marriage and then withdrew only the name. that's clearly motivated by animus, as it has no effect other than to impugn the dignity of gay people ... and that's prohibited by Romer.

            •  Romer is a classic equal protection holding. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chitown Kev

              More here. Based on rationality review but EP nonetheless.

              "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

              by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:32:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, i'm familiar with Romer. (0+ / 0-)

                That said, I was using shorthand.

                "it's not based on an equal protection holding" should be read as "it doesn't rule that the equal protection clause requires that states recognize gay marriage because to not do so would deny gay people equal protection of the laws."

                it just doesn't.

                it rules that the equal protection clause prohibits states from extending and then retracting gay marriage in ways analagous to what happened in California.

                •  Yes, I agree that that's the holding of Perry. (0+ / 0-)

                  You jumped midway into a discussion - I don't believe (but could be wrong) that the holding in Perry will last very long because of the fact that it requires undesirable and inefficient changes in equal protection law. It upends EP analysis by adding a "contemporaneousness" prong to rationality review, and I would be unsurprised if SCOTUS were, for good or ill, to resolve the underlying issue as a result of the additional prong that Perry, when taken to its logical conclusion, requires (at least of the 9th Circuit, today).

                  "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

                  by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:42:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  io guess what i'm not seeing (0+ / 0-)

                    is what Perry requires that Romer didn't.

                    •  The way I'm looking at it is that (0+ / 0-)

                      Romer found that the enactment of an animus-motivated law violated EP. Its uniqueness is solely that it's one of only a few of a cases that has found in favor of the gay/lesbian community, and it firmly anchored gay/lesbian EP review in rational basis land.

                      Perry strives to be so extraordinarily narrow that it is based on the re-enactment of an animus-motivated law, intentionally leaving open the possibility that the initial ban on equal marriage wasn't motivated by animus, but the re-enactment was motivated by animus. (Beginning on page 33 of the document as published on Scribd by the LA Times) The ruling appears to, if upheld without modification, imply that a law must be tested for animus at the time of its enactment, not at the time of its application. If upheld without modification, a bad actor could defend a discriminatory law based on the fact that at the time of its enactment it was rationally grounded. (For an extreme example, see the various eugenics laws around the country - of course, they have been gotten rid of through due process challenges, but they were at the time based on allegedly good science; of course, we know now that the whole thing was based on an animus-motivated house of cards).

                      As a result, a strong argument exists that Perry, if upheld in its current state by SCOTUS, changes equal protection law in a small but meaningful - and negative - fashion. So I don't think that it will be upheld as written, I think that SCOTUS will take the case and either expand or narrow the ruling to remove this newly-articulated time-based prong.

                      "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

                      by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:14:39 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Skimmed the first 20 pages (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rb608, caul, terrypinder, bythesea

          and it IS disappointingly narrow. Rests heavily on the idea that withholding only the "marriage" designation AFTER you have granted full legal rights, is clearly discriminatory.

          So without pre-existing domestic partnership recognition, THEN what? Grrrrr.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:31:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not disappointing at all... (11+ / 0-)

            The 9th Circuit's decision is carefully crafted to either win Justice Kennedy's vote if the case is heard by the SCOTUS, or to encourage the SCOTUS to deny certiorari and simply allow the 9th Circuit's decision to stand.

            Judge Reinhardt knows Justice Kennedy very well -- they were colleagues on the 9th Circuit for many years before Justice Kennedy was appointed to the SCOTUS. If Reinhardt is concerned that Kennedy is not yet ready to sign onto a broad-based constitutional validation of equal marriage rights, then I'd say the personal knowledge that Reinhardt has deserves more weight than any speculation about Kennedy that you, or I, or any "pundits" might offer.

            Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

            by MJB on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:44:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Glad to hear it, I suppose (0+ / 0-)

              The chess players and the intricacy of deep strategies are not well enough known to me.

              But reading the decision as a lay person, I thought explicitly narrowing the decision to pre-suppose California's pre-existing DP rights, seemed like watering down.

              "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

              by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:49:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  one rule I learned is that (13+ / 0-)

              you win your appeal at your trial, and if it's narrow it's because Judge Walker wrote a reversal-proof decision, heavily on findings of fact. If he wanted to, he could have granted summary judgment, but it wouldn't be long-term. This is like Lizst and Wagner experimenting with atonality, and after the narrow decision in the Supreme Court, there will be a full decision a few years later, the Schoenberg.

              There's precedent in desegreation. Before Brown, there was Sweatt, holding that an all-black law school in Texas simply wasn't "equal" and that there was no reason to segregate adults. That, too, was disappointly narrow, but the NAACP knew that by the time Brown was on the docket, it was easier for Chief Justice Warren to build a unanimous decision by relying on those incremental steps. Roe v. Wade depended on Eisenstadt v. Baird, upholding the right of unmarried people to contraception, which relied on Griswold, which by its facts was just limited to married couples.

              The only moral political case is just legalize it in the legislature yesterday, but common law doesn't work like that. Because Courts are basically anti-democratic by design, they need much more grounding in precedent.

              The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

              by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:55:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Right on! (11+ / 0-)

    Another step in the right direction!

    Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace. - Dalai Lama

    by kimoconnor on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:02:12 AM PST

  •  America is a better place because of this. n/t (21+ / 0-)

    "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

    From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

    by ontheleftcoast on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:02:26 AM PST

  •  First Handel resigns, now this... (37+ / 0-)

    what a fucking awesome day.

    Of course it will continue up the chain of appeals courts, but it's a great win ...

  •  Whoo hoo, indeed. (11+ / 0-)

    Or, as I prefer, LOUD CHEERS AND GREAT REJOICING!!!

    Strength and dignity are her clothing, she rejoices at the days to come; She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue.

    by loggersbrat on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:03:23 AM PST

  •  Man, GOOOOD MORNING! (17+ / 0-)

    First Handel and now this. Tebow must have put Jesus on waivers for the off-season!

    KOCH INDUSTRIES: We're living your American dream so you don't have to!

    by DirtyLibrul on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:03:44 AM PST

    •  Tebow who™? n/t (8+ / 0-)

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:14:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think Jesus would be very pleased (9+ / 0-)

      He advocated equality, dignity and respect for all - and never said anything about gays or lesbians one way or another.

      My guess is he WOULD have some sharp things to say about a MOC who divorced his wife while she was ill from cancer....

      Not that I'm a great authority or anything like that.

      •  What's an MOC? (0+ / 0-)

        Urban dictionary has it as "make-out chick" which does not make sense in this context.

        "Marriage of Convenience", perhaps?

        ;-)
         

        -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

        by sunbro on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:32:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe the reference (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sunbro

          is to Member of Congress -- not to mention that same Member of Congress getting blow jobs from staff members (no pun intended) while railing against Presidential infidelity. (Something about motes and logs comes to mind here...)

          Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

          by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:45:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  My one strongly held (3+ / 0-)

        belief about Jesus was that he was gay.

        “I do not want art for a few any more than I want education for a few, or freedom for a few. “ William Morris.

        by HugoDog on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:53:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  According to the Gnostic Gospels, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill

          IIRC, Jesus was married -- my personal view is that he was asexual, and it matters not either way. As my Anglican Kossack brother commonmass would say, such things are adiaphora, non-essentials, having nothing to do with the core truths of the Gospel: love God, love your neighbor.

          In that culture, men and women were strictly separated unless related, so a man hanging out with a bunch of men wasn't uncommon; women were at home taking care of the domestic side while the men were in synagogue studying or out working.

          Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

          by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:50:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Unspoken points in seminary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill

          Jesus was probably married, to Mary Magdalene. Were he not married at the time he was arrested, his bachelorhood would certainly have been a chief charge against him before Pilate.

          The reason we don't see anything about Jesus' sex life is, IMHO, the result of multiple factors. First, it's irrelevant to his ministry. Second, it's irrelevant to those creating the document we know today as The Bible. Third, or an adjunct to the second, those who created The Bible were very particular about what went in and what got left out. Think "editing". The six-winged seraph as just one example, used two wings to cover his/her "feet". Didn't cover the feet, that was a euphemism for another part of the body.

        •  My weakly held belief (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HugoDog

          or actually my suspicion, is that he was that rarest of individuals: a person who combined remarkable charisma and an innate moral sense with hallucinations, probably resulting from a disorder we would classify these days as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Probably easier to speculate about his sexuality than diagnose him from the distance of two thousand years, which is why it's a weakly held belief.

          Regardless, the hellenistic world of Jesus' time had plenty of models for normal same-sex relationships (and some models for very abusive sexual relationships too). If one needed a first century rationale for the legitimacy of same-sex relationships, it shouldn't be too hard to find one. Personally, I think we don't really need to depend upon Roman or Hellenistic Greek social models - it's enough to say, two consenting adults who love each other ought to be able to marry.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:29:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually If Jesus Were Listening (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia, swampyankee, rb608, revsue

      I hope he would be smiling broadly.

      "Recuerda siempre esto:. Luchan con el dinero y nos resistimos con el tiempo, y que van a quedarse sin dinero antes de que acabe el tiempo" -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:21:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ha! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, HugoDog, Mr MadAsHell

      Jesus said: "Listen, I've helped you with the touchdowns thing. You're out of favors dude."

  •  outflippinstanding! (7+ / 0-)

    I could feel it coming.

    Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics

    by Fogiv on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:03:58 AM PST

  •  YES! (7+ / 0-)

    So happy!!

    "A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future." - Leonard Bernstein

    by outragedinSF on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:04:00 AM PST

    •  Lol (9+ / 0-)

      I'm not going to do this snoopy dance until the headline is about the Supreme Court. But I do enjoy those snoopy dances.

      Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

      by SoCalLiberal on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:07:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinions (17+ / 0-)

        in both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. The fact that Judge Walker held a trial, and it was as lopsided as the 1992 USA basketball dream team's game against Angola, means as a purely legalistic matter, it will be hard to overrule it. The tricky thing, though, is there's not a guarantee that a Supreme Court decision will go as far as Judge Walker and affirmatively recognize a Constitutional right to marriage or marriage equality. It could just be upheld on the basis that Prop 8 was fatally flawed, a la Amendment 2 in Colorado that was the basis for the decision in Romer.

        The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

        by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:14:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever the ruling it will likely be narrow (5+ / 0-)

          I can't imagine this turning into a Loving v Virginia moment for us given the current makeup of the court.

          However the ruling, however narrowly tailored, will carry weight in any areas where there is currently no marriage equality, and even more where such laws and/or constitutional amendments were passed by ballot measure.

        •  The circuit decision is narrow (6+ / 0-)

          It hinges on the fact that for a period, even a brief one, California did recognize same-sex marriages. And even before that, same-sex couples were in substantial measure afforded the same state rights as married couples.

          The Circuit judges are saying that once same-sex couples have achieved the status of equality in marriage, that right cannot then be taken away without a legitimate state reason.

          There is no broader argument that same-sex couples must be allowe to marry under the Federal constitution. But there is a Roemer-like recognition that once rights have been granted, there is a higher bar for removing them -- a bar which Prop 8 did not clear.

          This is my life. All the pain, all the joy it brings. All through the years, the blood, sweat, and tears, my hopes and my fears -- all that has led me to now. This is my life, and I wouldn't change a thing.

          by harrije on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:32:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Since I brought up the 92 dream team, (7+ / 0-)

          here are some appropriate Charles Barkley quotations:

          "First of all, every player has played with gay guys. It bothers me when I hear these reporters and jocks get on TV and say: 'Oh, no guy can come out in a team sport. These guys would go crazy.' First of all, quit telling me what I think. I'd rather have a gay guy who can play than a straight guy who can't play. Any professional athlete who gets on TV or radio and says he never played with a gay guy is a stone-freakin' idiot. I would even say the same thing in college. Every college player, every pro player in any sport has probably played with a gay person. First of all, society discriminates against gay people. They always try to make it like jocks discriminate against gay people. I've been a big proponent of gay marriage for a long time, because as a black person, I can't be in for any form of discrimination at all."
          And
          "The only think I know about Angola is Angola's in trouble."

          The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

          by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:39:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This, exactly (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Denise Oliver Velez, Loge
            I've been a big proponent of gay marriage for a long time, because as a black person, I can't be in for any form of discrimination at all."
            It would do us well to remember how bed-rock central this is to American identity. Can you imagine anything about American culture, particularly about the long, long road toward treating people equally and with dignity, that doesn't have its roots in the "original sin"? Cory Booker was eloquent on this very point a couple weeks ago when he got after Chris Christie for wanting to put the rights of same-sex couples to marry up for a public vote.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:35:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  this opinion is modeled on Romer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loge

          and tries to make Prop 8 seem as similar to Romer as it can pull off.

          It's aimed straight at Justice Kennedy's heart.

        •  the CA9 already did that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loge

          this opinion does NOT recognize a constitutional right to marriage or marriage equality. It expressly declines to even answer the question.

          It instead says that California can't grant marriage and then withdraw the name.

  •  You beat me!! :) (7+ / 0-)

    CHEERS & TEARS!!!

    "If I can't change the world, I'll change the world within my reach" - Catie Curtis & Mark Erelli

    by Heather in SFBay on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:04:07 AM PST

  •  This was expected (9+ / 0-)

    A bigger indication of things to come is if they decision is NOT stayed, or if this is applied to the entire 9th District.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:04:09 AM PST

    •  it's CA only (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, lgmcp, Loge

      it's limited to the situation at hand where CA legalized same-sex marriage, and then a referendum stripped those rights.

      •  Yes, but if upheld, it's great news for Iowa also! (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bumblebums, HugoDog, T100R, Loge, Khun David

        Because it addresses the issue of the referendum, perhaps we can breathe a little easier hear about the initiative to get same-sex marriage on the ballot here.

        •  It would be a different Circuit, (0+ / 0-)

          and a different set of litigants. The pro hate side in Iowa could plausibly argue that they should get to present their own factual record about why it's not discriminatory to pass a ban on same sex marriage. It's a trade-off in some respects. By having a full trial on the merits, Judge Walker made it hard for his opinion to get overturned, but it's also not a broad pronouncement of law that would be precedent for mandating marriage equality nationwide, or even preserving it in states where it already exists. This decision is a necessary, preliminary step to that.

          The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

          by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:42:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  it could be used to toss a future initiative in WA (0+ / 0-)

        if the state govt does as expected and passes marriage equality.

        •  not likely. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, ebohlman

          this gets down in the procedural weeds, but:

          in a situation with a referendum on a law passed by the legislature, technically the law doesn't go into effect until after the referendum vote.

          so there's no "you gave rights and then took them away" process if the legislature passes a law which is subject to a referendum within the specified (very short) period after the referendum passes.

          which means WA's potential referendum is a totally different ballgame.

          •  The effective date of the WA law to be is June 7 (0+ / 0-)

            The signatures for any initiative must be filed by June 6, which is exactly 90 days after the end of the legislative session on March 8.

            The law will take place unless enough signatures are filed. There is no specified period within the law itself for a referendum. If nothing else happens it becomes law. If signatures are turned in by opponents of equality, the law will be held in abeyance but I'm not sure if that's the same legally speaking as the rights not having been granted by the bill's pasage. It looks to me that the 9th district ruling could be relevant, just complicated by the different circumstances. Most notably, that the People passing an initiative exercise legislative authority. In the WA case the legislative authority is in conflict with itself, rather than in conflict with a judicial body ruling on what is constitutionally permissible.

            •  speaking a bit from authority here (0+ / 0-)

              as i've just passed the CA bar :)

              (a) the decision handed down today would probably prohibit the legislature from repealing gay marriage after they had passed it.

              (b) however, since the implementation of a piece of legislation is suspended upon filing of the referendum, it seems to me to not be the same thing: the law never went into effect. it was suspended until the people affirmed or denied.

              (c) it's generally been the case in previous lawsuits regarding referenda that the effective date has been held to be the date after the referendum - the law, being suspended, has no effect until the referendum passes.

              so if the signatures are turned in, there's no granting of rights to later be rescinded.

          •  Correct that it wouldn't apply to (0+ / 0-)

            a "people's veto" of this year's marriage law. But if the law survives the veto and marriage equality goes into effect, it would bar any attempts to rescind it (WA would become indistinguishable from CA in that a) they had marriage equality and tried to take it away and b) rescinding equality would fall back to an "all but the name" DP/CU law; under those circumstances, the Ninth's ruling that rescinding the name of marriage can serve no purpose other than to stigmatize/delegitimize members of same-sex couples would be fully applicable).

            Banksters are harmful for the same reason neutrinos are harmless: neither are inclined to share what they've got (wealth and energy, respectively)

            by ebohlman on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 05:45:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Based on the contents it's likely to apply only to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia, supercereal, terrypinder

      California. The ruling is based on the fact that California currently gives gay couples all the rights and benefits of marriage; therefore withholding the term itself serve no legitimate purpose.

      A second feature of the ruling however is that denies the ability of ballot measure proponents to strip civil rights from any group.

  •  Fucking A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (6+ / 0-)
  •  Yippeeeeee (7+ / 0-)

    (sound of popcorn popping - er, wait, those are wingnut heads exploding)

  •  A very nice "eff off" to the Mormons... (30+ / 0-)

    ... who conspired to bring this to a vote in CA and create this chaos.

    Dear Mormons - please stay in Utah and just look after your own - kthxbai...

    For a better America, vote the GOP out of office whenever and wherever possible and as soon (and as often) as possible!

    by dagnome on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:04:24 AM PST

    •  Will Willard weigh in on this? (10+ / 0-)

      Maybe the Mormon Church will raise this issue and give Mitt another opportunity to munch on his foot.

      •  The question I have (13+ / 0-)

        is how much money did Willard kick in to pass Prop 8 and whether there is anyone in the press with the balls to ask him this question.

        •  All of Romney's money straight down the toilet (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brook, Senor Unoball, LSophia, rb608

          Oh sorry Romney, but that's what happens when you spend your money trying to enforce fascism. Sorry, you lose.

          But if you do want to throw away another $4 or $8 million dollars, go right ahead.

        •  Every Mormon "tithes" 10%... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Senor Unoball, LSophia, rb608

          ... so, by inference, if it was the Mormon Church overall (IIRC, it was) who helped finance the Prop 8 campaign in CA, then ALL mormons are guilty, by association.

          and no, Willard wopn't touch this with a 10 foot pole, until he goes "off prompter" and starts speaking from his (demented) mind again... THEEN we might hear something insightful besides "I love to fire people" and "I'm running for office, for pete's sake"

          How screwed up is America that a moron like Romney can get anywhere CLOSE to receiving the nomination as GOP Presidential candidate?

          For a better America, vote the GOP out of office whenever and wherever possible and as soon (and as often) as possible!

          by dagnome on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:15:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He'll speak against it, and soon. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HugoDog, fsbohnet

            The wingnuts will demand it, and what passes for the center of their party will like it too. He has really nothing to lose by slamming the decision.

            And if it's in SCOTUS all through the 2012 campaign, the presidential contenders will be hard put to leave it alone.

            "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

            by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:38:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well he gives millions to the Mormons (0+ / 0-)

          and Mormons gave lots to pass Prop 8... so its all the same to me. I do think Mitt could give a shit about gay folks or poor folks or... anyone. He is running for President as a rich man's hobby. No job, but lots of money, why not?

          Pass new laws to end media monopolization now.

          by john from vermont on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:10:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well it was all Christian subtypes, (6+ / 0-)

      but yeah the Mormons were a driving force. They had the other Jesus-freaks in full gear and locked in maximum religious hatred/intolerance mode.

    •  I know Mormons who support marriage equality (6+ / 0-)

      and there were a lot of other groups who supported the decisions. It's a contested question whether the rise in African American turnout because of Obama being on the ballot tipped the balance in favor of Prop 8, for instance.

      Either way, I think it'd be better to distinguish between the official Mormon church and individual Mormons, on this and all other questions.

      The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

      by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:16:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a good rule in general (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge, LSophia, lgmcp, rb608, INMINYMA
        I think it'd be better to distinguish between the official Mormon church and individual Mormons, on this and all other questions.
        the same can be said for all faiths and denominations....all labels, really.

        keeps me from assuming that all christians will love thy neighbors, help the poor, or turn their cheek. :)

        When life gives you lemons, don't elect them to Congress.

        by papa monzano on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:22:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Willard (8+ / 0-)

        has stated emphatically that he is against marriage equality. He wants a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.

        So, yeah, I think he should answer the question of whether or not he personally donated money to pass Prop 8.

        There may be a few Mormons for marriage equality but let's not kid ourselves the Mormons dance to the tune of the church elders.

        There were many stories of the Mormon church leaders putting undo pressure on their flocks to donate to the Prop 8 cause.

        •  So is Newt, and especially Santorum (3+ / 0-)

          Obama is still dragging his feet, even. But let's not celebrate a victory for one traditionally discriminated-against minority by doubling down on another.

          In Romney's case, I'll wager $10,000 that it had to do more with getting thru a primary than actual religious conviction.

          The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

          by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:31:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd take that bet in a New York minute (0+ / 0-)
            In Romney's case, I'll wager $10,000 that it had to do more with getting thru a primary than actual religious conviction.
            Willard for a time was one of the highest ranking Mormon church officials in the state of MA.

            He is lockstep with the church elders. I actually believe the Mittens we are seeing in the primaries is the true Willard and the one that ran in MA for office was the fake Willard.

            •  assumes facts not in evidence (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              roycej, highacidity

              there's a real Willard?

              My understanding is the LDS use the word "Bishop" where the word "Deacon" might be appropriate. The title inflation goes all the way up to the "Prophet," or, in any other ecclesiastum, the Archishop.

              The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

              by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:46:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The hell it is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Denise Oliver Velez

        The only "contested issue" is when folks are going to once and for all let go of this LIE about Black people in California and Proposition 8. I am sick and tired of it. Today of all days, when we should be celebrating, I have to hear about this ugly LIE rearing its head yet again. The only "contest" in this question is between the truth and white folks' racism, that it would rather continue to cling to this LIE like a liferaft rather than admit that based on sheer number of votes (by orders of magnitude) Black Californians were the LEAST of gay people's problems when it came to Proposition 8.

        Now, I've diaried this. Others have too. There have been numerous articles written about what the truth is. Anyone who repeats the lie (however "subtly") that in any way expressly connects "Black people" and our votes (as opposed to the millions that have nothing to do with us) to Proposition 8 is doing so deliberately without regard for the harm and hate their scapegoating causes.

        Today is a joyous day. So, despite my promise that I would HR this lie that even allows someone to try and scapegoat Black people collectively for Proposition 8, I'm not going to HR this.

        I am, however, going to ask you to check yourself and stop repeating a LIE. Especially in the cute way that tries to pretend that it is a question of rational debate (much the same way that right wingers who reject the theory of climate change try to pretend that scientists actually differ on the question) you display here.

        If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

        by shanikka on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 03:57:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've seen arguments like yours, (0+ / 0-)

          and other contrary arguments. It comes down to how much you want to extrapolate from exit polls, and questions of absolute versus marginal impact. I think my record speaking up on racism issues, even as a white man, speaks for itself. I am temporarily without TU status because I very profanely stuck up for gun control, but aside from that, I'm not any kind if troll. But the fact of the matter is, too many otherwise progressive figures in the black community support homphobia and it has an impact. I don't see that as an inherently black thing, at all, and a I made a joke involving basketball to detail the prop 8 trial which led me to cite Charles Barkley for the proposition that all discrimination is equally wrong. Too bad Roland Martin, eg, didn't get that memo.

          I think gay and straight, black and white, there's more to do despite this decision. I don't see how that is debatable. The blame for prop 8 spreads wide, and a large number of both Mormons and of African Americans and of expat Tibetans voted wrong. Apology not given.

          The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

          by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 04:56:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Think (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Denise Oliver Velez

            You should examine why Black people and Mormons and (a group that has de minimis numbers in California) expat Tibetans are the ones you seem compelled to mention instead of the largest, most responsible group for Proposition 8:

            White male voters.

            Look in the mirror. The reasons you don't mention them unless called out by someone like me will be self-evident to you.

            If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

            by shanikka on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 06:01:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You didn't pay attention (0+ / 0-)

              to what I said absolute versus marginal impact. In 2000, was Nader the sole reason Gore lost? No. Was it a factor, yes. Nothing in what I said can be read to lay exclusive blame, but in a close vote, every vote counts, and for many African Americans, that vote was an aberration from progressivism, but not in all cases. Nor do I excuse white men or the LDS, but only those who voted a certain way. The whole thrust of my comment is against collective blame, but absolutely ALL communities have work to do.

              The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

              by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 06:45:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Denise Oliver Velez

                And when I see you put the several million white votes for Prop 8. at the front of your discussion, then cover those of Latinos and Asians (which far outweighed ours) and concede that Prop. 8 would have passed with NONE of us Black folk voting for it, and concede that given these irrefutable facts even mentioning Black folks in any list of "contested issues" as it relates to Prop. 8's passage is simply reaching at straws, we can talk.

                You can claim all you want that you blame "everybody" and that this is about "aberrations from progressivism" nd all that hooey. When I see "everybody" discussed in these discussions with Black folks not being separately called out, I'll believe that your claims are actually what is in your heart. All I know is that over this questions folks have truly shown their true racist colors in the last 3 years, with refusing to let this false LIE about the role Black Californians played in Prop. 8's passage die.

                If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

                by shanikka on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 07:18:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Make no mistake, (0+ / 0-)

                  I think getting Black voters to the polls in 2008 was a good thing, and that's why I picked that out -- how was 2008 different from other years? Young voters, too, but they on margin opposed prop 8. Depending on which numbers you believe, between 58% and 70% of black voters supported prop 8, for between 7 and 10% of it's total votes. Similar numbers of Latinos, but their increased turnout was more about population growth than Obama. Prop 8 passed by 4.5%. Mormon funding, and all homophobia played a role. But surely you must see that white male, statistically Republican voters who always vote conservative are in a slightly different position from all Democratic voters who only occasionally vote conservative, and evidently only on this issue. Man bites dog or dog bites man. the question is, should the default expectation for African Americans on prop 8 be the vote as a whole, in which case it's uncertain whether the scales were tipped, as estimates fluctuate between 7 and 10%, and that figure'd have to be divided by the final margin. So, it's literally unclear because the data set just isnt there. Or should the default be that blacks will vote over 90% for Obama. If as many black voters, and Latino voters, either one, voted against prop 8 as voted for Obama, it'd fail. If as many white voters voted for as voted for McCain, same difference. So, the question is why vote progressively on net on every issue but gay rights? Blaming the critic does nothing to address that issue. Obviously, I am in favor of more white people supporting gay marriage, but I'm starting against a default that is mostly pro republican.

                  The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                  by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 07:56:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you shanikka (0+ / 0-)

          I am getting very tired of this meme cropping up here.

          "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

          by Denise Oliver Velez on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 03:52:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Do you live with this (6+ / 0-)

    or do you go before the panel and SCt?

    Given the record in this case, I would think they might drop this and try a new proposition. It's possible and one of the problems with the referendum process in California. Should there be a limit on the number and/or timing of similar propositions being put up for a vote?

    Greed's self-regulation is collapse. So is delusion's.

    by Publius2008 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:05:17 AM PST

    •  I am 99% certain (14+ / 0-)

      that Prop 8 would not pass if it were voted on today.

      •  Is it not up to the atty. general... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LSophia

        ...of the state of CA to take this to the supreme court? I can't see Jerry Brown pushing this as an issue.

        Seems like he could say, "Well, f**k it. I didn't much like prop 8 to begin with and we're short of money, and HEY! look at the time. I've got a meeting in 10."

        "Recuerda siempre esto:. Luchan con el dinero y nos resistimos con el tiempo, y que van a quedarse sin dinero antes de que acabe el tiempo" -Utah Philips

        by TerryDarc on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:26:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. That's part of today's ruling. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TerryDarc, Loge, auron renouille

          CA Supreme Court has ruled that official initiative sponsors may defend an initiative if the state's officials decline to do so.

          The 9th Circ. has respected CA's judgment and allowed the official sponsors to attempt to defend their measure in federal courts.

          This is my life. All the pain, all the joy it brings. All through the years, the blood, sweat, and tears, my hopes and my fears -- all that has led me to now. This is my life, and I wouldn't change a thing.

          by harrije on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:41:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TerryDarc

          the court has given standing to the proponents of Prop 8.

          The SC could turn down a request based upon standing but they definitely have the ability to appeal.

          •  And We All Know (0+ / 0-)

            What a bunch of fine folks they are...not.

            "Recuerda siempre esto:. Luchan con el dinero y nos resistimos con el tiempo, y que van a quedarse sin dinero antes de que acabe el tiempo" -Utah Philips

            by TerryDarc on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:44:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It might be a excuse to exercise discretion (0+ / 0-)

            to refuse cert., the belief that the proponents of the legislation are simply too incompetent to present the case, no matter what the CA Supreme Court says about their standing.

            The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

            by Loge on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:49:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Standing to appeal this case (0+ / 0-)

          That issue was decided today as well; the Prop 8 proponents were the only parties who wanted to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court for an advisory opinion about standing, and that court said that where the governor and the attorney general will not appeal a trial court ruling striking down a ballot measure, the proponents have standing to appeal. Thus, they should retain that standing to pursue this to the Supreme Court, unless the Supremes decide otherwise.

          •  Which, as much as it sucks, is fair (0+ / 0-)

            Fair, but also expensive if the state won't foot the bill.

            Having glanced over the opinion, the Supreme Court would have to pull another CU ruling out of their ass to overturn the opinion of the 9th.

            Keep your religion out of my government.

            by catwho on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:43:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The AG has refused (0+ / 0-)

          to participate in any of the appeals -- that's why there was an argument as to whether the pro-Prop 8 folks had standing to appeal in the first place. (Oh, and Jerry Brown's now Governor; Kamala Harris is AG.)

          Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

          by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:02:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  no. (0+ / 0-)

          The ruling also holds that the official proponents are allowed to appeal (because the California Supreme Court said that, under California law, they are allowed to appeal).

    •  can't be done. (0+ / 0-)

      Well, maybe.

      A new proposition which just strips the name wouldn't be effective for the same reason Prop 8 wasn't.

      A new proposition which also abolishes domestic partnerships could be, but wouldn't pass.

      If I were counsel for the proponents of Prop 8, i'd be telling them to think long and hard about appealing; the nature of this decision means the odds are against them if they appeal.

  •  Decision (21+ / 0-)

    "We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does." - Judge Stephen Reinhardt

    I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma- Wizard of Oz; If you have half a brain you won't need a diploma- Frank Levey www.MarylandPoliticalNews.Com

    by weathercoins on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:05:35 AM PST

  •  some days it's almost like it's going to be okay. (9+ / 0-)

    His silence says everything we need to know.

    by livjack on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:05:41 AM PST

  •  Let's see what the SCOTUS says first. (7+ / 0-)

    I know better than to get excited prematurely, especially in the world of sociopolitical issues.

  •  A festive day! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia

    “If you realized how powerful your thoughts are, you would never think a negative thought.” --Peace Pilgrim

    by jw1 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:06:07 AM PST

  •  hooray!!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brook, Senor Unoball, Vince CA, LSophia

    another incremental step in the push for equality.

  •  Can't wait to read the opinion later (7+ / 0-)

    Will be exciting to see how broadly or narrowly tailored it is, though I expect a stay pending appeal, since everyone knows that appeal is inevitable. I have never thought that the SCOTUS outcome would be pre-ordained, some of the libertarian justices could potentially join the liberal wing of the court in an interesting decision.

    "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

    by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:06:16 AM PST

    •  I started it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      harrije

      Disappointingly narrowed, in places, but of course positive in its net effect.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:40:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I'm reading too, even though I shouldn't. ;p (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, terrypinder

        They do appear to give SCOTUS a small opening to invalidate Prop 8 while leaving other marriage bans undisturbed, by attempting to describe the process of legalization followed by a "second" ban as somehow making the question presented a unique one, but I don't think they'll take it. It would just be too strange of a decision. Even at that, wouldn't it call other laws into question - didn't a similar thing happen in Hawai'i? (I don't recall the state-by-state scorecard right now.) The court even gives SCOTUS an opportunity to distinguish Hawai'i's experience by making particular note of the fact that Prop 8 left domestic partnerships undisturbed, implying that Prop 8 can be seen as uniquely based on prohibited animus because all it did was take away the "words" of marriage.

        But my gut feeling is that SCOTUS won't take that bait. Not a con law scholar and not going to dig out my con law book, so hopefully others can comment on that potential mouse trap. But I strongly suspect that they will, for good or ill, rule on the underlying EP merits and either define the right or reject it.

        "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

        by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:54:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  IANAL, but I just finished a quick reading. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, davelf2

        My impression is that the decision is crafted well, but very narrowly: It focuses on the argument that once a right is granted, it cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn from an unpopular group.

        In the case of California, the State Supreme Court had held that lesbians and gays had a constitutional right to marry that was identical to that of heterosexuals. Proposition 8 came along and withdrew that right for no compelling reason, and thus was unconstitutional.

        A narrowly drawn opinion is more likely to withstand appeal, but the downside is that since it deals specifically with California's circumstances, it does not create a larger precedent for the other states within the Ninth Circuit.

        I await opinions from our members with actual legal experience.

        •  Your reading coincides with mine (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, auron renouille, davelf2

          but others are pointing out more optimistic aspects, including that precedent works best when created incrementally.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:04:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It also heavily, heavily cites Romer, which is (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lgmcp, wu ming, Rolfyboy6, T100R, aphrael, davelf2

            of course heavily on point to this issue. In fact, if I wanted to take this narrow-ish ruling and expand it to national constitutional ramifications, I would probably complete that logical gap and say that Romer has been applied nationally and (to the best of my knowledge) to longstanding homophobic laws, not just new homophobic laws.

            Also, as is oft noted, Romer was authored by Kennedy. This decision was written for Kennedy, and essentially has in big letters on every page, "If you overturn me, you must not have meant everything you so painstakingly found in Romer."

            "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

            by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:14:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  One thing that might do though (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auron renouille, T100R

          is to prevent a Prop 8 like scenario in Washington State, once that state passes and signs marriage equality into law. Perhaps the haters up there will realize that their chances of a successful overturn would be slim to none based on this ruling, and thus won't even bother.

          And on the face of it, the ruling makes sense -- rights should not be left up to the vagaries of the political winds.

          Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

          by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:09:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  you're about right. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, davelf2

          the key here is that the decision has virtually nothing to do with gay marriage per se.

          the decision is: hey, california. you gave gay people these rights which you'd previously denied them and which everyone else had. and then you tried to take the rights, which you'd given them, away.

          you can't do that.

          not saying you had to give the rights in the first place. but you can't take them away once you did.

          unless you have a legitimate reason.

          but since all you did was take away THE NAME, it's very hard to find a legitimate reason -- basically all you wanted to do was have an excuse to treat gay people as if they were inferior, and you know it.

  •  I'm still married today. (29+ / 0-)

    Thank you 9th circuit for this decision. The proponents of Prop 8 will undoubtedly appeal, but for the moment my marriage in California is still intact.

    I'm still married today and hope other same sex couples can get a chance to do the same.

  •  Good. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, Senor Unoball, LSophia

    Great news!

    "What Elephant?" - Jimmy Durante, "Jumbo"

    by FresnoBill314 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:07:37 AM PST

  •  Those words may wind up engraved on (27+ / 0-)

    a monument someday.

    Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California
    I believe that counts as a smack-down. Now, on to the SCOTUS?

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'ya aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il ya toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:07:45 AM PST

    •  Judicial Activism? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia, rb608, HugoDog, blue aardvark

      You can set your watch by the length of time it will take the cons to start with that phrase again. What? It's already on Fox News?! Damn! Late again.

      "Recuerda siempre esto:. Luchan con el dinero y nos resistimos con el tiempo, y que van a quedarse sin dinero antes de que acabe el tiempo" -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:30:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bang! (0+ / 0-)

      There has never been any argument against same-sex marriage that was not specifically and completely based on a particular and narrow interpretation of religious belief. If religious freedom means anything at all, the state and the nation have to accept same sex marriages.

      This will happen, and it doesn't matter whether the bigots and haters hold their breath or throw a tantrum or litigate ad-nauseum.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:01:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Equality for all! (7+ / 0-)

    Great news for California and hopefully the rest of the nation. Bigot's heads explode everywhere today! I can't wait to hear Rick Santorum's thoughts on the news. haha...

    It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.- Mark Twain

    by Logical1 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:08:20 AM PST

  •  Best news I've heard in a long time. eom (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia

    "It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." President Barack Obama 3/24/09

    by sfcouple on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:08:51 AM PST

  •  Home of the free! n/t (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brook, TomP, Senor Unoball, LSophia, rb608

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:09:06 AM PST

  •  You can find the 9th Circuit's opinion here... (5+ / 0-)

    Thx to SCOTUSblog. Link is on this page:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/...

    The opinion is 133 pages long.

    Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

    by MJB on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:09:20 AM PST

    •  2-1 decision (10+ / 0-)

      Reinhardt (Carter appointee) writes the majority opinion. Hawkins (Clinton appointee) joins that opinion in full.

      Randy Smith (GW Bush appointee) writes an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part" that is substantively a dissent from the majority opinion. (Smith writes, "Ultimately, I am not convinced that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to a legitmate governmental interest. I must therefore respectfully dissent.")

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:16:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reinhardt aimed his opinion at Justice Kennedy (11+ / 0-)

      The heart of Judge Reinhardt's majority opinion (starting on page 34) frames this case in the context of unjustly singling out one class of people for unequal treatment and exclusion from the benefits of the law, the rationale used in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the SCOTUS in Romer v. Evans, and the Reinhardt opinion heavily relies on Romer.

      The goal of Reinhardt's opinion is clearly to persuade Justice Kennedy, who will likely be the deciding vote on the SCOTUS, that the Romer decision compels the SCOTUS to strike down Prop 8.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:28:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As this ruling applies only to CA (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        harrije, davelf2, bythesea

        I am thinking the SC will dodge this bullet and not accept the case.

        •  You know, that would normally be the case, but... (17+ / 0-)

          Basically, if I had this as a bar exam fact pattern, I would agree with you - the bar exam answer is that SCOTUS avoids deciding Constitutional issues unless all other possibilities are exhausted E.g., the bar exam SCOTUS ruling should traditionally ask, "Can I dismiss for lack of standing? For mootness? For lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction? Can I tailor this ruling based on state rather than federal grounds? Can I limit this ruling to unique facts?" In general, this is a good thing. You should never create Constitutional jurisprudence when you don't have to.

          But my gut feeling is that SCOTUS does not want to see three-judge panels across the United States ruling on this issue over and over again, each time narrowly tailoring the ruling to the Small Stuff. Much the same as SCOTUS sometimes elects to reach a Constitutional issue because to do otherwise will delay the inevitable, I believe that there will be pragmatic votes in favor of cert. (Remember, cert only requires four votes - even if Kennedy doesn't want to face his Romer issues, it only takes the four justices to the left of him to put this on the docket).

          This kind of reminds me of Brown v. Board, where, despite numerous cases comparable to Brown were floating around the courts, arguably the court took Brown case because its procedural posture and extensive lower court fact-finding gave the court all the necessary pieces of the puzzle to rule on the underlying controversy.

          SCOTUS is not going to see a marriage case presented to it again in such an exquisite fashion for awhile. The lower court has engaged in extensive factfinding, the Supreme Court of California has given the Court a free pass on resolving any issues of standing, the legal arguments are extensive and fully developed from both parties, and the present existence of valid marriages in California allows the Court to resolve numerous EP and DP issues, if it so chooses.

          If I were a SCOTUS clerk, I would argue that granting cert now, in this particular case, would be easier than being forced to grant cert in a case that perhaps made its way to SCOTUS based on a district court SJ dismissal (and it thus completely undeveloped). If you know that you have to do this sooner or later, judicial economy makes a compelling argument that it's best to do it on a case where no questions have to be sent back down to the District Court or, worse yet, the state courts; Judge Walker, the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court of California already did that legwork. And I believe that Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan would both agree with that, even though their votes and rationales on the merits are likely to be starkly different.

          So even though the bar exam answer is "decline to review," I'm willing to say with confidence that they will review on the merits.

          Of course, two or three years from now, people may link to this comment as proof of my shameless, unending stupidity. :)

          "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

          by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:39:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Optimism, maybe. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aunt Pat, FindingMyVoice

            Stupidity, not.

            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

            by lcbo on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:45:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  ah, but this is no longer a marriage case (0+ / 0-)

            and if I were a conservative on this issue i wouldn't vote to grant cert because I wouldn't be sure of Kennedy's position.

            •  It's still a marriage case, if only... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aunt Pat, FindingMyVoice

              ...because Romer declared unconstitutional many homophobic laws. Speaking solely about equal protection, marriage is what's left. (there are also legislative protections that need to be established, particularly in employment and housing, but that's not likely to be a SCOTUS issue).

              Also, no conservative is needed to grant cert. The four liberal justices acting alone can bring the case onto the docket. Still, I believe that Kennedy and potentially Scalia would grant cert regardless.

              "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

              by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:16:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I'll make it easier for them to find in 2-3 years (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FindingMyVoice

            Check Top Comments tonight.

            By the way, my prediction is that they'll roll the dice by asking for an en banc hearing at the Ninth Circuit and hope for a favorable draw -- and that if they don't get one and get shot down again, they won't seek cert.

            Democrats must
            Earn the trust
            Of the 99% --
            That's our intent!

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

            by Seneca Doane on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 03:17:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's insane. (0+ / 0-)

              an en banc panel is unlikely to overturn this.

              •  If it's 13-14 conservatives on the panel (0+ / 0-)

                (not uncommon in the Ninth if the dice roll the wrong way), why not?

                Democrats must
                Earn the trust
                Of the 99% --
                That's our intent!

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

                by Seneca Doane on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:35:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  how do you get to 13 cons in an 11 member panel? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Sorry -- what I meant was this: (0+ / 0-)

                    Chief Judge Alex Kosinski would sit on an en banc panel, as he does on all of them. He's a libertarian conservative; I don't recall his views on gay rights issues or on the limits of rational basis review. There are 24 other Circuit Judges from whom an en banc panel might be chosen, plus Michael Daly Hawkins (despite being a Senior Judge) is eligible by dint of having served on the panel, so they'll pick 11 of 25.

                    Among those 25, by my count there are 11 liberals, 3 swing voters, and 11 conservatives. (Ikuta, the two Smiths, Murguia and Christen all came after I clerked, but I'm assigning them based on who appointed them -- which I realize is a bad practice given Tallman and Robinson.

                    Along with the sometimes unpredictable Kosinski, I'm also being charitable in labeling Graber, Gould, and Clifton as "centrist." Call them all "conservative" and you have 15 conservatives out of 26. Call none of them conservative on this issue and you still have 12. In my comment, I went with 13-14 (beyond the obvious wording error.) With those odds, why not take a shot?

                    Democrats must
                    Earn the trust
                    Of the 99% --
                    That's our intent!

                    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

                    by Seneca Doane on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 10:58:15 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I'm glad to have found this comment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama, FindingMyVoice

            courtesy of Seneca Doane who sent this in to Top Comments tonight. It will take me some time to fully understand it because I don't speak your language fluently. My reply is a bookmark to reference and a thank you for giving me something to really gnaw on.

            Score Card: Marriages won by me, 1. Marriages destroyed by me, 0.

            by Steven Payne on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:54:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Quibble (0+ / 0-)

            Your stupidity cannot be unending. First, your comment did terminate (albeit with an emoticon). Secondly, your name is not Sarah Palin.

            In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'ya aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il ya toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

            by blue aardvark on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:37:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Yess! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia

    http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com

    by jham710 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:09:27 AM PST

  •  Thank goodness. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia, TerryDarc, rb608

    "No, I'm being judged against the ideal. Joe Biden has a saying: 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative." --President Barack Obama, 12/11/11

    by smoothnmellow on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:09:32 AM PST

    •  Rec'd for your sig! (0+ / 0-)

      That is great and you are on the right side of history with your sentiment, too.

      "Recuerda siempre esto:. Luchan con el dinero y nos resistimos con el tiempo, y que van a quedarse sin dinero antes de que acabe el tiempo" -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:31:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My hope here (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brook, Senor Unoball, LSophia, rb608

    is that there will be an in bank rehearing of this by the 9th Circuit and perhaps a second special rehearing in bank that encompasses the entire 9th Ciruit (all 27 judges). The more time this thing takes, the better it is for us because the greater a hope we have of seeing the Supreme Court membership change.

    I guess since you're all in a celebratory mood right now....this music is appropriate.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:10:05 AM PST

    •  I don't see any of the right-wingers (0+ / 0-)

      or more aptly wrong-wingers leaving the court any time soon.

      Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is probably the next to leave the court. I don't want to even think what that fight will be like.

      •  Three other Justices (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea

        are in their mid-70s: Scalia (76 next month), Kennedy (76 in July), and Breyer (74 in August). From family experience, things can go wrong in a hurry when a person hits that age; not everyone is a John Paul Stevens still sharp and healthy into the 80s and beyond. We could see a major shift in the Court one way or another between now and the 2016 election, one that will perhaps last for the next quarter century.

        Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:18:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I sincerely hope you are right about that change (0+ / 0-)

      Getting rid of any of the gang of 4 would be one of the three best things to happen to America (IMHO).

      1. Public campaign financing
      2. Barack Obama's re-election
      3. Getting rid of the right wing cabal on the SCOTUS.

      "Recuerda siempre esto:. Luchan con el dinero y nos resistimos con el tiempo, y que van a quedarse sin dinero antes de que acabe el tiempo" -Utah Philips

      by TerryDarc on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:33:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, killing time for an extra six months (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalLiberal

      could push the SCOTUS hearing past the date of the Presidential election, and that would be both safer and less distracting.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:42:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary (4+ / 0-)

    And, KUDOS to the federal appeals court in California.

    - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

    by r2did2 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:10:22 AM PST

  •  Good for our side. (4+ / 0-)

    Let the haters hate just not with the Government behind them.

  •  YAY!!!!!!!!!! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia, mrsgoo, bythesea

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:11:28 AM PST

  •  With regards to the Supreme Court, is this (5+ / 0-)

    like Lawrence where if they rule in our favor it will automatically cover the whole country?

    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    by owilde69 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:11:34 AM PST

    •  If the Supreme Court rules (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      owilde69

      Their ruling covers the country, but if it ends with the 9th it only applies in the states covered by them if I understand correctly.

      There is no assurance the Supreme Court will take the case.

      Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace. - Dalai Lama

      by kimoconnor on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:31:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, if the SCOTUS does take the case, (0+ / 0-)

        the hate brigade is running a very large risk of making gay marriage legal in the whole country in one fell swoop?

        We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

        by owilde69 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:35:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's my understanding. (0+ / 0-)

          However, I'm not American and I'm not a lawyer so I may be wrong.

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

          by lcbo on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:47:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  no. (0+ / 0-)

          this decision was narrowly drawn to the specific case of California where:

          * the state granted gay people full marriage equality
          * the state then withdrew the name marriage without withdrawing the rights + priviliges of marriage.

          it does NOT say "the 14th amendment requires marriage equality"; it DOES say "the 14th amendment doesn't let you withdraw rights in this fashion."

          Furthermore, in general in the US, when the Supreme Court does not hear a case, the decisions of the circuit court are only binding on that circuit - eg, in this case, CA/WA/OR/ID/UT/MT/HI/Alaska.

      •  Actually the decision is very narrow (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        harrije, T100R, teachme2night, bythesea

        and only applies to CA.

      •  not so. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kimoconnor

        well, true, but not in the way you think.

        if the supreme court rules, the ruling covers the whole country.

        but the ruling is based on the argument, and what the court has actually ruled isn't necessarily what it looks like the court has ruled.

        As an example: the 9th circuit did NOT rule that equal protection grants gay people the right to get married. Nor did it rule that the constitution grants the right to marriage.

        What it ruled, basically, was: hey, states. you can't grant gay people the right to get married and then take away the name (without taking away any of the other incidents of marriage).

        That would be true across the country but basically wouldn't apply in most places.

    •  Yes, though I agree with those (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      who expect a kick-the-can-down-the-road decision tailored as narrowly as possible. From SCOTUS, I mean, though that also describes today's ruling to some degree.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:43:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  limited ruling to specific case in CA (9+ / 0-)

    Due to the initial marriages that happened prior to the passage of Prop 8. Jeff Toobin is suggesting on CNN that this limited ruling might keep the Supreme Court from taking the case at all.

    Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace. - Dalai Lama

    by kimoconnor on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:11:35 AM PST

  •  Fantastic! (n/t) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brook, Senor Unoball, LSophia

    To my anonymous subscription donor: THANK YOU!

    by BlueInARedState on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:13:05 AM PST

  •  okay, this is full of win... but are there any (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia

    legal eagles to explain what happens next?

    When can weddings start again?

    What are the odds for a good ruling from the SC?

    "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

    by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:13:26 AM PST

    •  That's what I want to know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hopeful Skeptic

      I'd like to be up in SF for the resumption of festivities at City Hall; missed the first round.

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:19:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  it depends. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hopeful Skeptic

      The ball is in the official proponent's court.

      They can choose three paths:

      * acquiesce

      * ask the 9th circuit to hear the case en banc

      * appeal

      If they choose to acquiesce, then presumably weddings can start again when the appeal deadline passes.

      If they ask the ninth circuit to hear the case en banc and it says yes, then there's another argument / opinion cycle at the ninth circuit.

      If they go straight to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court takes the case, then nothing happens until the Supreme Court rules.

      If they go straight to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declines to take the case, then the day after the Supreme Court declines to take the case.

      •  thank you. (0+ / 0-)

        Can you explain why weddings could not take place while waiting for the SC to hear the case? Since today's decision pretty clearly says it's unconstitutional to deny the right to marry.

        Thanks again!

        "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

        by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:18:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the court immediately stayed its decision. (0+ / 0-)

          and for good reason:

          if someone got married tomorrow and the supreme court later overturned this decision, the marriage tomorrow would legally speaking never have happened.

          it wouldn't be a forcible divorce; it would be a retroactive annulment.

          considering that CA is a community property state, this would be a nightmare.

          it's far, far better not to let the decision have an effect until the appeals are finished.

          •  but there already are hundreds of not thousands (0+ / 0-)

            of couples in those exact circumstances, aren't there?

            There were a few weeks or months... before PropH8 went into effect, I think... where same-sex marriage was legal. And haven't the courts made some clarifying decisions about those marriages?

            So, it sounds like the argument is that it's better to not have more people in that situation?

            "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

            by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:37:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hopeful Skeptic

              this gets down in procedural weeds.

              the couples married before proposition 8 were married at a time when the only applicable legal authority said that they were legal in California.

              the voters then changed the law.

              the California Supreme Court, in Strauss v. Horton, said the voters could change the law but were not allowed to retroactively nullify the marriages.

              the situation today is different.

              The ninth circuit has issued an opinion interpreting the law. If the supreme court issues a contrary decision on appeal, it is deciding the same case, meaning the ninth circuit's opinion in its entirety is nullified. meaning that any acts taken pursuant to it are, as well.

              The voters of California did not stand in relation to the California Supreme Court the way the US Supreme Court does to the 9th Circuit.

              •  okay, I think I can follow that... (0+ / 0-)

                thanks again for your help. I'm a near-PhD scientist... but legal jargon/"logic" still tends to baffle me. I appreciate you trying to clarify things for me.

                If you ever need information about the oceans, or bacteria, let me know! :-)

                "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

                by Hopeful Skeptic on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:44:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Ted Olson - Civil Rights Hero (9+ / 0-)

    It still sounds weird to say. Bush's lawyer, uber judicial conservative, lifelong loyal establishment Republican, who easily could have become a Supreme Court Justice just a few years ago.

    But now, together with his Bush v. Gore opponent David Boies, is the 9/11 widow who now champions marriage equality for all, and just may achieve that dream for millions of Americans.

    •  He's one of the rare breed (0+ / 0-)

      of sane Republicans -- conservative in terms of fiscal and probably foreign policy, but at least neutral in terms of social policies, at least I've never seen his name linked with any of the anti-gay or anti-choice crowds. And strictly on the surface, taking away rights from any group solely on political whim should be resisted by all -- what would stop a future electorate from, say, taking rights away from people solely on the basis of their religion, for example?

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:23:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thrilled!! (8+ / 0-)

    I took the kids to city hall to protest Prop 8. This evening we're going to celebration rally!! I know there are miles to go before we can all sleep as they say but today is a day to celebrate another moment of justice!

  •  Speechless. (18+ / 0-)

    Well, except for this @Clarknt67:

    Retweet to send your heartfelt condolences to National Organization for Marriage (@nomtweets) for being losers--yet again! #PROP8 #SSM #LGBT
  •  This is good, but may be overturned by US S. Ct. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia

    Better that Cal. votes out Prop 8.

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

    by TomP on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:15:14 AM PST

  •  This straight guy is happy! (9+ / 0-)

    Equality for everybody means equality for all of us.

  •  One more step forward. A few more to go. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, brook, LSophia

    Great News for Equality.

  •  The world of the haters is crumbling... (5+ / 0-)

    ...but that won't stop the most vile ones from immediately rebuilding.

    We have to keep at it, keep hitting them over and over and over and over and over until they get the message: their backward-looking, baseless hatred isn't wanted, isn't needed, and will not be support by law.

    The "Right" thing is almost always the wrong thing.

    by Neapolitan on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:16:24 AM PST

    •  It's not crumbling (0+ / 0-)

      Take a look around. They are still spreading their hatred and fear, more than ever. Lot's of work ahead, and time is on our side.

      Republicans - they measure our national success by corporate profit margin, not the well being of the citizens.

      by egarratt on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:45:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  good decision by the court (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia, rb608

    Let's see if that spineless weasel Romney has anything to say about this.

    Come on Willard, give it your best shot.

    Re-elect Barack Obama and elect Elizabeth Warren

    by al23 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:16:35 AM PST

    •  Um, let's see what Obama has to say about it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, PALiberal1

      That would be more interesting.

      But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

      by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:38:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  While Obama may have personal (0+ / 0-)

        issues with the idea, he's been pretty strong about allowing individual states to establish marriage equality -- he didn't raise a stink about New York's marriage law, or even Washington DC. And he hasn't come out against efforts in Congress to overturn DOMA -- that's probably going to have to wait till we can get Congress back in saner hands.

        Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:30:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But what does he feel about taking it away? (0+ / 0-)

          That's the big issue here. If it's a perk, it can be given and taken away. If it's a right, it existed before it conferred and any efforts to take it away are invalid.

          But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

          by Rich in PA on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 07:33:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually I think they wimped out (0+ / 0-)

      and severely restricted the trial judges decision.

      I think it is smart politically as it will restore marriage equality to only CA and allows the SC to dodge this issue for now.

  •  The bottom of page 6 is interesting (12+ / 0-)

    ...and yes, that's as far as I've gotten. The ruling is on the narrow issue of whether it's constitutional to revoke the previously-existing right of same-sex couples to marry, and the court ruled that it's not. The obvious question, of course, is whether it's any more constitutional to deny them that right in the first place, even in the absence of a statute. While they decline to answer that question, on the principle that their job is to answer only the question that's been posed to them, they telegraph what their answer would be:

    Were we unable, however, to resolve the matter on the basis we do, we would not hesitate to proceed to the broader question--the constitutionality of denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:17:01 AM PST

    •  In the first 25 pages or so (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA

      it swings back and forth in a rather dizzying manner, between cautious, hedging, narrowing language and bold assertions of equal rights. I am confused.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:45:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess that's what I would do... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, auron renouille

        ...if I wanted to give legal credibility to my decision on the matter at hand, while signaling to the world what I'd do if confronted with a broader question to decide. If they didn't do the latter, opponents could point out the absurdity of a rights-based defense of marriage rights once they were taken away, but not if they were never granted/recognized at all.

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:58:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's because of the strangely-narrow nature. (0+ / 0-)

        Reading between the lines, although it appears to largely be based on the granting of a right and subsequent denial of said right, the Court does not attempt to hide its view that, given the opportunity to make a broader finding, it would have. I believe that they could have made a broader finding had they chosen, but as many others have pointed out, this ruling may as well be directly addressed to Justice Kennedy, and I'm not going to second-guess Judge Reinhardt's rhetorical decisions there. Apparently Judge Reinhardt and Justice Kennedy are professionally close, but I don't have much knowledge about that other than to repeat what has been said on DKos.

        If this results in a SCOTUS case mandating equal marriage, the first thing most Constitutional scholars may do would be do line up the two opinions next to each other and compare them, particularly if the SCOTUS ruling is drafted by Kennedy, as many seem to expect.

        "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

        by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:36:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not strange at all (0+ / 0-)

          this is basically what I expected after oral arguments: a narrow answer applied only to California which Justice Kennedy can't say no to.

          This will NOT lead to a SCOTUS case mandating equal marriage. At best it will lead to a SCOTUS case prohibiting revoking equal marriage.

          •  Strange because it creates a bastard stepchild (0+ / 0-)

            in EP law. In equal protection, can you think of a right that doesn't exist until the legislature or courts create it - but then, once that right is created, it cannot be taken away by any means? A group is either a suspect class or it is not (the GLBT community are not yet a suspect class); legislative action is either animus or it isn't. To rule the way you describe would add an additional prong to the EP test - not only is the action motivated solely by prohibited animus, but was the prohibited action motivated solely by prohibited animus at the time of the action? Right now, to my understanding, complainants do not have to explicitly prove animus at the time of enactment, only animus at the time of unequal enforcement or application.

            I know that there are due process rights that behave that way (for instance, public assistance such as cash assistance or food stamps are not traditionally considered a right, but withdrawing cash assistance or food stamps of course triggers due process rights). However, I simply cannot think of an EP right defined so narrowly. I don't doubt that the court could limit its ruling in such a fashion, but, in doing so, it would arguably turn rational basis review on its head.

            Not a con law scholar but, the longer I spend thinking about con law cases, the more I think that the enshrining of this ruling would create a fourth (fifth?) suspect class. Much as disability discrimination is sometimes described as being subject to "rationality review plus," where disability is on paper not a suspect class but the courts regularly craft their decisions as though it were, an undisturbed Perry would similarly subject GLBT-based discrimination to "rationality review minus," where the GLBT plaintiff would have to prove more than is traditionally required to prove that a statute flunks rationality review.

            "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

            by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:30:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that really isn't new (0+ / 0-)

              it's existed at the very least since Romer.

              As an analogy: imagine that California passed a employment non-discrimination act prohibiting discrimination against people on the basis of the color of their eyes, and imagine that there was a hated minority group who had orange eyes. now imagine that California revoked that act.

              That's structurally analagous to what the court is saying happened here.

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      That sentence may as well been in 72-point red font.

      "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

      by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:46:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  all that is saying is (0+ / 0-)

      "if we had to answer the question of same-sex marriage, we would ... but we don't, so we aren't gonna."

  •  THis is going to make Newt angry ! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, LSophia, sfbob, rb608

    If he were President he would eliminate the judiciary system.

    Apparenly I'm a sanctimonious purist!

    by mattinjersey on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:20:03 AM PST

    •  Hasn't he already said (0+ / 0-)

      he'd eliminate the Ninth Circuit? Not sure if that means he'd redistribute coverage amongst the other 8 Circuit Courts, or if those of us in the West would be just SOL when it comes to making appeals.

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:33:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  supreme court may not want to touch this (6+ / 0-)

    Not sure they want to make an absolute ruling on gay marriage. They may want to just leave it up to each state. I guess if they overturn this it only relates to Ca but they will still be setting a precedent for other states.
    I don't see how they can outlaw gay marriage based on the constitution, especially if your an originalist.

  •  Next stop: the U.S. Supreme Court... (4+ / 0-)

    God help us all...

    The "Right" thing is almost always the wrong thing.

    by Neapolitan on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:20:14 AM PST

  •  So relieved... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, fou, LSophia, lgmcp, Khun David

    ...now on to the SC for the final final. Oh and next up DOMA.

    Homophobic guys need to realize that whenever a man marries a man it means there's 2 more women they can strike out with. -- John Fugelsang

    by cooper888 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:20:32 AM PST

  •  I'm reading the opinion now (6+ / 0-)

    This is MUCH better news than I thought! Oh that crafty, crafty, Stephen Reinhardt!

    Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:22:01 AM PST

  •  Those Dang Activists Judges is what (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia

    the kooks are saying. They want this in front of their activist judges at the US Supreme Court.

  •  AFER press conference at 10:30 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, bythesea

    For more information, catch the AFER Press Conference re: the Ninth Circuits opinion striking down Prop 8 starting at 10:30.

    "I'm bragging . . . I'm always in love . . ." - Always In Love, Wilco

    by TichMarie on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:22:17 AM PST

  •  We Cannot Rest! The Supreme Court (9+ / 0-)

    has been able to replace two Liberals on the Court with two Liberals. But 2013 could be a different story if you don't vote for Obama. We have aging jurists who could give a Republican President the opportunity to put another Conservative on the Court and tip this to the haters.

    For Christina's America

    by DWKING on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:22:20 AM PST

  •  Any thoughts on whether Prop 8 proponents (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, lgmcp

    will ask for an 11-judge panel from the 9th District or just go for the Supreme Court?

    It doesn't look like Obama is going to lose, and that means the court will not be getting any more conservative in the near future. Add to that the 9th Circuit is not exactly known for it's conservative nature no matter how many judges you have on the panel.

    They have 2 moves left, they can take them both, or just take 1.

    My thought is that an 11-judge panel would be a waste of time, though I think ultimately the Supreme Court will rule against Prop 8, and the extra move can delay same-sex marriages that much longer.

    Any thoughts?

  •  So happy to hear today's ruling here in CA! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, hopi13

    But it's not over yet...

    It's also not clear whether the Supreme Court or the CA ballot box is ultimately the best way to resolve this.

  •  Whooo-hooo! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrsgoo, hopi13, swampyankee

    Great day for California and for the country.

    May I respectfully suggest to haters and opponents: Shut up - and find something more constructive to do with your time, like build homes for the homeless or feed the hungry.

  •  "Proposition 8 serves no purpose... (8+ / 0-)

    ...and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."

    And that's how you deliver a smackdown to hate.

    The "Right" thing is almost always the wrong thing.

    by Neapolitan on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:26:49 AM PST

  •  What does this mean for Washington state? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, kimoconnor, rb608, wu ming

    Given this ruling, if Washington state grants same sex marriage as we expect, then does that mean NOM won't be able to try and overturn it via referendum?

    •  At present, yes. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

      by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:37:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that's the case (0+ / 0-)

        A veto referendum would merely be that--a veto of a piece of legislation.

        Given that the law will not taken effect and that a successful attempt to overturn would not rule out future attempts at achieving marriage equality, I don't know that today's ruling would have any direct effect on what happens in Washington state. I do think it will cause folks to think twice before signing petitions, and will cause them to think three times before voting to veto. It will make NOM's job more difficult.

    •  That's the way I read it. (0+ / 0-)

      The court's argument is that once a right has been granted, it cannot be removed from an arbitrary minority simply because that minority is unpopular.

  •  Every step in the direction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia

    of equality for all is a good step. Just don't misplace your 'walking' shoes. Today, let's enjoy having moved foward toward the ultimate goal.

    We don't need a 'minimum' wage - we need a Living Wage!

    by brook on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:29:09 AM PST

  •  Two questions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia

    (a) how broad was the decison?

    (b) What was the level of scrutiny?

    •  Narrow, and intermediate (0+ / 0-)

      (a) The decision is narrowly tailored to affect only California (and, most likely, would also affect Washington). The decision was only based on the question of whether a right could be taken away from a group by referendum when the group had been granted that right previously. They specifically declined to consider the question of whether banning gay marriage before it's available in a state would be unconstitutional. Since California did grant marriage, then take it away, they ruled that to be an unconstitutional taking away of rights.

      (b) My interpretation (since they never fully express it) is that they used intermediate scrutiny in this case. The dissent argued for rational basis scrutiny.

      •  No. Rational basis. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob, ebohlman

        The court cleary says it. They looked at the proffered reasons and found none of them to be rational.

        One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

        by AUBoy2007 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:10:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strictly speaking, "rational basis with teeth" (0+ / 0-)

          i.e. same standard used in Romer and Lawrence. They were applying rational basis, but requiring the proponents to actually demonstrate a rational relationship between Prop 8 and a legitimate government interest rather than just assert that there could be one. That's basically what the difference between the majority and dissent was about.

          Banksters are harmful for the same reason neutrinos are harmless: neither are inclined to share what they've got (wealth and energy, respectively)

          by ebohlman on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 06:33:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The plan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, rb608
    “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.
    Well, that's what it was intended to do.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little… I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-nourished." -Franklin Roosevelt

    by shoeless on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:29:41 AM PST

  •  Hey Roberts and Scalia... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia

    Before you start "deliberating," be sure to familiarize yourselves with the term CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

    Honesty is not a policy, it's a character trait.

    by Says Who on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:30:27 AM PST

  •  Well, we all know ... (0+ / 0-)

    what the US Supreme Court is sadly going to do. This victory will be short lived.

    •  We do NOT know any such thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      What I'd like to know is whether this means that there's a question as to whether in WA (being in the 9th circuit) fundies have a "right" to put a veto on the ballot?

      •  A veto is different from a constitutional amend- (0+ / 0-)

        ment.

        I don't think the current case will affect the ability for Washington voters to place a veto measure on the ballot.

        I DO think however that it might make getting signatures more difficult; it also might make an attempted veto less likely to succeed. And that will be a very good thing.

        If we ever, EVER win a marriage equality case at the ballot box (as obnoxious as such a thing is on principle) it will be a stunning rebuke to people who rail on about the "Will of the People" and "unelected judges."

    •  You are wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, sfbob

      I doubt the SC even accepts this case. They'll just let CA go back to having marriage equality.

    •  First, it's possible (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      that since this is technically a "state's rights" issue, SCOTUS doesn't even hear the case, especially if the entire Ninth doesn't take it.

      Second, it would likely hinge on Kennedy -- who has crafted pro-equality rulings in the past, in both Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. This case bears a large resemblance to Romer in fact, and if Kennedy went by his own precedent would more than likely rule against the proposition.

      So, no, we don't know what this Supreme Court would do, sadly or otherwise.

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:40:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hell yes! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, Khun David, bythesea

    Now it's on to the Supreme Court. We have to re-elect Obama. The make up of Supreme Court will be pivotal to the future of marriage equality and the country.

  •  Hearing on MSNBC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea

    that the decision only applies to CA - not even to the rest of the states in the 9th.

    I think this could mean that the Supreme Court may not take up the decision and it will stand.

  •  The Supreme Court (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimoconnor

    Will the Supreme Court, which ruled that corporations are people, rule that gays are not people?

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little… I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clothed, ill-nourished." -Franklin Roosevelt

    by shoeless on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:34:44 AM PST

  •  Somewhere Maggie Gallagher Weeps (0+ / 0-)

    I hope she drowns in her tears!! hahahahahahahaha -- Memo to the wingers -- YOU ARE LOSING THE CULTURAL WARS BECAUSE YOUR POSITIONS ARE BASED ON NAKED BIGOTRY

  •  This is probably one of those cases (0+ / 0-)

    Where Newt Gingrich would haul judges in front of Congress and impeach them for a decision he doesn't like, which is of course an outrageous position to take. Or accuse them of violating "American Exceptionalism", whatever that means.

    Just a reminder of what as at stake in the elections while this process continues.

  •  Very happy, but a couple of questions... (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure will be answered in the near future:

    1. Does this mean that Prop 8 is gone as of now or do we have to wait until the Supreme Court decides? Can people get married tomorrow?

    2. Is this just for Prop 8 or does this also apply to other states in the 9th Circuit that have passed similar amendments? If it's just for Prop 8, does this mean others can file suits in their own states using this ruling as precedence?

    3. Does this just mean that Prop 8 (the amendment) is unconstitutional, or that Gay Marriage is constitutional?

    •  Nothing changes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      J V Calin

      Just another step in the staircase. Others will answer in more details, but seems they said, once you give somebody the right to marry, you can't take that right away. Does not effect any other area other than CA.

      Republicans - they measure our national success by corporate profit margin, not the well being of the citizens.

      by egarratt on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:48:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  answers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, J V Calin

      (1) we have to wait until either the deadline to appeal passes or the Supreme Court decides.

      (2) this applies anywhere in the area of the ninth circuit that a state has granted gay marriage and then revoked only the name while leaving the other susbtantive rights. So it only applies in California.

      (3) This means Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It does not mean the Constitution requires gay marriage.

    •  To answer your questions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ebohlman, J V Calin

      1. No. The ruling is stayed and will certainly be appealed. There's no telling how far that appeal will go but in the mean time there will be no marriages.

      2. This is just for Prop 8 and furthermore, because of the way the ruling was crafted (relying both on what California's Supreme Court previously said when it struck down Prop 22, on the fact that CA's domestic partner law was expanded in 2003 to provide all the rights and responsiblities of marriage, and in addition on the way California's initiative system works), it might be difficult to make the current case apply elsewhere even though some of the reasoning behind it will undoubtedly wind up in legal briefs and in future decisions handed down by other courts.

      3. Only Prop 8 is unconstitutional; the ruling very specifically does not opine on marriage equality as a constitutional right, at least not outside of California.

      •  Point 2 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        J V Calin

        While the Ninth's findings of law are currently applicable only to CA (they'd also be applicable if another state in the circuit tries to pull a similar stunt in the future, but nothing resembling that is on the horizon), Walker's findings of fact are now recognized throughout the circuit and can be cited in future cases.

        To take a random example, one of Walker's findings of fact was that it is not a realistic option for a gay man or lesbian to marry a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, if that arose as an issue in another marriage case within the Ninth, the plaintiffs could simply cite Walker; they would not have to make a fresh case for it. Walker's findings of fact are now wheels that don't need to be re-invented. They're ready-made parts.

        Banksters are harmful for the same reason neutrinos are harmless: neither are inclined to share what they've got (wealth and energy, respectively)

        by ebohlman on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 07:16:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Civil Rights CANNOT Be Subject To Referenda! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, ivorybill

    Imagine what the effect would have been if the CivilVoting Rights Acts of the mid-60's had been voted on by "da peeps". No doubt both would have been voted down (as to why "no doubt both would have been voted down", see Presidential Election, 1968)

    Now, would somebody please explain to the people of New Jersey that marriage is a Civil Right and is beyond the whims of the electorate:

    The Kean University/NJ Speaks poll of 1,000 likely voters found 57 percent support a public referendum on whether to allow same-sex couples to get married, while 32 percent oppose it.
    Oh, wait a minute. Somebody already has:
    Newark Mayor Cory Booker Blasts Gov. Christie's Proposed Gay Marriage Referendum

      In an unprecedented public divergence with Gov. Chris Christie, Newark Mayor Cory Booker said today he is firmly against leaving the question of gay marriage up to a referendum.

      In an unprecedented public divergence with Gov. Chris Christie, Newark Mayor Cory Booker said today he is firmly against leaving the question of gay marriage up to a referendum.

      {snip}

      With the gay marriage debate advancing in Trenton today, Gov. Christie, who has long said he would veto a gay marriage bill, said "I need to be governed by the will of the people."

      But Booker countered that leaders are elected to make difficult decisions, not submit to a public referendum.

      "Equal protection under the law – for race, religion, gender or sexual orientation – should not be subject to the most popular sentiments of the day," Booker said. "Marriage equality is not a choice. It is a legal right. I hope our leaders in Trenton will affirm and defend it."

    Amen, Brother!

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

    by OnlyWords on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:39:21 AM PST

  •  :) (3+ / 0-)

    ‎"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort." (Romer v. Evans)" - Perry v. Brown

    Read my stuff at burn after writing and The Huffington Post @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by indiemcemopants on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:42:07 AM PST

  •  Awesome news. (0+ / 0-)

    That means weddings can go ahead in California again now, right?

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:42:26 AM PST

  •  Don't pop the champagne corks yet... (0+ / 0-)

    This is going to go to SCOTUS.

  •  i quite literally (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cooper888, teachme2night

    church lady holy ghost stomped in my cube.

    what's next?

    [insert pithy sigline here]

    by terrypinder on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:43:53 AM PST

  •  This is excellent news. (0+ / 0-)

    Let's see what happens next.

    Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

    by expatjourno on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:47:53 AM PST

  •  Just look at what came out today! (3+ / 0-)

    Photobucket

    Democrats must
    Earn the trust
    Of the 99% --
    That's our intent!

    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

    by Seneca Doane on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:50:12 AM PST

  •  The ruling appears to be a narrow one. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, bythesea

    "We need not, and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already extended to committed same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of 'marriage,' and Proposition 8's only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation..."

    They are stating that once you grant same-sex couples the right to marry, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

    Still a victory for the largest population of gay americans in California, but we still have more work to do to have gay marriage completely overruled, unless the SCOTUS takes the broader route. This will be one to watch for sure.

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

    by Adam Blomeke on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:50:32 AM PST

    •  so what this means for Washington state? (4+ / 0-)

      Washington state is expected to legalize gay marriage this week. With this court decision NOM will be unable to try to repeal this through referendum?

      •  I want to say that it does. (0+ / 0-)

        [insert pithy sigline here]

        by terrypinder on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:09:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They may figure it would be (0+ / 0-)

        a lost cause and simply switch their efforts to stemming the tide in other states, especially in light of their failure in overturning the "everything but marriage" bill that was already in effect in the state.

        Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:47:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe. (0+ / 0-)

        The majority today made an interesting caveat that, essentially, the continued existence of domestic partnerships laid bare the animus. NOM could argue with a straight face that by removing not only marriage but also any civil union/domestic partnership rights, the subsequent referendum was more than mere animus. What is the civil union/DP status in Washington right now?

        Of course, Prop 8 probably wouldn't have passed if it had also removed CA domestic partnership rights. It's not difficult to imagine 2% of voters being more squeamish about killing ALL partnership rights rather than just Marriage-with-a-capital-M rights. It was already a narrow margin. So proponents of a theoretical future referendum would have to be willing to go all the way and ban everything, not just equal marriage, because merely banning marriage implicates today's decision in Perry.

        Certainly paints NOM into an interesting corner. But my gut feeling is that SCOTUS will weigh in before subsequent legal proceedings can test the breadth of Perry. Once SCOTUS accepts cert, lower courts are likely to stay proceedings pending a decision.

        "What Washington needs is adult supervision" - Barack Obama

        by auron renouille on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:04:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it means that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam Blomeke

        This gets down in the procedural weeds, but:

        technically speaking, when the legislature passes a law and it is subject to a referendum, that law never goes into effect; it goes into effect when the referendum passes.

        what that means is that there's no granting-then-revoking (unlike in California where marriage equality came from a court decision which went into effect instantaneously).

        so WA's case is very, very different.

      •  I don't think so... (0+ / 0-)

        Presumably like referenda provisions in most states, the law does not go into effect until the people vote on it.

        That's different than what California did. Gay marriage was declared legal and then the people voted to rescind that right.

        My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

        by Adam Blomeke on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 05:02:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  can we now officially name this PUSH BACK season? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge

    seems the tide has turned in a dramatic way in America and everything right wing seems to be turning toxic now.... from anti union walker in WI to teapublican candidates for president to SGK stupidity to prop 8 officially being found UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    have we finally reached Americas 'ENOUGH ALREADY" right wing quota? Are we about to enter one of our rare MOVING FORWARD moments?

    "Orwell was an optimist"

    by KnotIookin on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:53:22 AM PST

  •  AFER Press Conference - Live Stream (0+ / 0-)

    Just starting...

    http://www.ustream.tv/...

    Homophobic guys need to realize that whenever a man marries a man it means there's 2 more women they can strike out with. -- John Fugelsang

    by cooper888 on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 10:53:37 AM PST

  •  Supreme Court will have to decide eventually (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    The SC will eventually have to rule on the cross-border issues. Do states have the right to recognize only some marriages from other states or not? Will same-sex adoptions be valid nation-wide? Must the federal government recognize valid same-sex marriages? Will this eventually kill DOMA? We can only hope.

    •  DOMA cases are the best means of getting rid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      of DOMA.

      Even after that's accomplished, I do not foresee anything as a nationwide blanket rejection of same-sex marriage bans. It isn't legally feasible.

      It will be enough to require that the federal government recognize marriages legally entered into and that states, even ones that don't allow marriage equality, also recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere for purposes of taxation, child custody and a host of other items.

  •  Question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cooper888

    If this decision isn't stayed, and gay marriages begin again, and then SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, would that invalidate those marriages? If so, a stay may be the best idea till we find out if SCOTUS will look at this. I'd hate to see California's LGBT community be granted this right and then stripped of it for the second time.

  •  resuming gay marriage? (0+ / 0-)

    Does this mean CA gays can begin marrying again until SCOTUS rules?

  •  In addition to the other excerpts already posted (0+ / 0-)

    I like this one:

    It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman.
    The legal way of saying an argument is bullshit!
  •  But will it be stayed? (0+ / 0-)

    I just read the entire (or most of the) decision, and was surprised at how simple the majority's opinion was stated. The sole dissenter resorted to more legalese their co-justices.

    Regardless, if I read the ruling correctly, the defense has 7 days to request an appeal and a stay. Does the decision go into effective immediately (that is, can I start officiating same-sex marriages in CA), or do we have to wait and see if the decision is stayed before equal rights are restored to gay and lesbian Californians?

     Can we can Adam B in here? Californians want to know!

  •  bout time (0+ / 0-)

    can't wait til florida follows suit...in 20-30 years

    This is Florida — where the laws of our democracy are now openly, officially For Sale.

    by tygerwilde on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:22:27 AM PST

  •  Woke up late (0+ / 0-)

    to this wonderful news. This is just one more brick coming out of the wall of discrimination and fear, and one more step on the road to bringing marriage equality to all in this country, the way Loving v. Virginia paved the way for marriage equality for all interracial couples. (I do feel sorry for all those future law students who are going to have to learn how to spell Schwartzenegger though.)

    Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

    by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:31:34 AM PST

  •  This is really bad news (0+ / 0-)

    Let's face it: There is a biological basis for distinguishing between male-female couples and same-sex couples. It's not irrational. It's how the parts fit. For the time being, at least, virtually no children arrive by any process other than penis-inside-vagina intercourse.

    That being said, anyone who believes, as I do, that any rational basis for discrimination is worth about two cents compared to the priceless benefits accruing to a society that recognizes equal marriage rights ought to be very worried. Worried that the Supreme Court understands how big a step it would be to throw a rational basis for discrimination aside. Worried that the Supreme Court will set the struggle back decades.

    •  Biological basis? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Khun David, Cali Scribe

      If somebody wants to argue for distinguishing based on that, they would also need to argue that we must distinguish between straight couples as well, since some straight couples either can not or do not want to procreate. Meanwhile, plenty of gay couples do have children, so do we further distinguish between the gay couples who have children and the gay couples who do not have nor want children? It's a non-issue. Even if every gay couple were to choose not to have children, the number of gay couples is small enough and the population levels high enough that this would represent zero risk of the population number falling to an undesirable level.

      To your other point, the Supreme Court can observe trends as well as anyone else, and it's already clear who will end up winning. I'm sure someone like Alito or Thomas will proudly go down on the losing side, but Kennedy plus the more progressive 4 are already friendly to the cause, which gives us the needed vote margin. And although Roberts's vote would then not be necessary to win, I suspect that he does not want to go down into the history books on the losing side, to become one of the justices mocked and dismissed as "of his time, flawed, unable to think beyond"...if it all hinged on his vote, then maybe, but since there's already a majority the other way, I think he'll just join with them.

    •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Khun David

      This decision didn't take a position on whether gays are entitled to marry. It sidestepped the issue. Suppose the same panel faced a different case, where the defendants, unlike the inept Prop 8 defendants, came up with a rationale that could actually apply to the case, a reason why same-sex couples are in fact to be regarded by the state of California as different than opposite-sex couples. That is, suppose they came up with a reason other than Gays are yucky.

      Then the court would be forced to make a broader ruling. Nothing in this case forecloses such a ruling.

    •  So you would oppose (0+ / 0-)

      marriage between a couple where one member, or the other, or both, is/are infertile, you are saying.

      virtually no children arrive by any process other than penis-inside-vagina intercourse.

      It's about time I changed my signature.

      by Khun David on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 12:21:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The infertility distinction doesn't work (0+ / 0-)

        It's rational to draw bright lines.

        Nobody argues that it's unconstitutional do deny mature, socially aware 17 year olds the right to vote, which is a fundamental right. We simply draw the line at 18 because we don't really want to go through any more complicated evaluation.

        Likewise, we don't want to examine the fertility of couples.

        Sorry, but there is a rational basis to confer privileged status upon certain two-person associations. I don't like it, there's no need to deny any two adults the right to marry, we'd be a better society if we had marriage equality, but it's not irrational for a society to prefer couples who nominally (get it? nominally) possess, taken as a unit, the anatomical prerequisites for procreation.

        •  This sounds like the argument (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Khun David

          against interracial marriages 40+ years ago -- which was shot down by the Supreme Court.

          As for that "nominally possess" anatomical prerequisites for procreation, a soldier who gets his balls blown off by an IED would therefore be ineligible, but a lesbian couple would have no problem thanks to modern medicine.

          Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

          by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:05:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No it doesn't. (0+ / 0-)

            Antimiscegenation laws implicitly recognized exactly what I am talking about -- that one man and one woman can engage in a particular act and obtain a result that two men or two women simply cannot obtain.

            The antimiscegenation laws were intended to stop exactly that -- because certain governments simply didn't want that result to occur when the parties were not of the same race.

            Again, it is rational for a society to decide not to determine whether a guy's balls were both blown off, whether only one was blown off, whether enough of one ball is left to procreate, whether he can be surgically repaired, etc.

            Think about my other example. We can draw a bright line and decide that no 17 year old at all may vote, without having to evaluate the maturity, social awareness, etc. of every teenager. The bright line is a rule of convenience. You deal with rules of convenience every day. Do you find all rules of convenience irrational?

            •  You wrote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cali Scribe
              virtually no children arrive by any process other than penis-inside-vagina intercourse.
              Coitus is no longer a requirement for reproduction. Millions of children have been born via in vitro fertilization. Many children have been born to same-sex couples via in vitro fertilization.

              Even if reproduction via coitus may have been the reason justifying marriage to heterosexual couples exclusively, in vitro fertilization for straight and gay couples, as well as adoption rights to same-sex couples means that this no longer justifies denying the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples.

              It's about time I changed my signature.

              by Khun David on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 01:37:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So you would have society (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ebohlman

              tell that soldier, or a woman who had an early hysterectomy due to cancer, that society is better off if they go through life alone, in second class status to those who are able by benefit of biology to breed? What next, annulling those marriages that don't produce offspring within, say, 5 years, as they're obviously sham marriages?

              For someone on a progressive site, you've certainly got some very regressive attitudes. I'd better stop arguing this though because my spouse isn't home to tell me to watch my blood pressure. See, that's another part of marriage that doesn't depend on breeding capacity -- taking care of one another.

              Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes (modified)

              by Cali Scribe on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:50:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  A little bit of legal sanity in an otherwise ... (0+ / 0-)

    crazy uptight world.

    Everyone should have the right to live their lives, love those whom they wish, and be who they are without guilt or persecution from others: After all, it's the "human experience".....

    Yes?

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution, inevitable." - President John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963)

    by LamontCranston on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 11:43:11 AM PST

  •  It's a narrow ruling (0+ / 0-)

    Basically, the court ruled that California can't retroactively take away the right to marriage without a compelling state interest that clearly didn't exist in this case.

    The good news is that this increases the odds that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling. The bad news is that it will likely have no impact outside California.

    So it's overall very good news, but it doesn't sound like they're going to extend Loving v. Virginia.

    •  Perhaps in the short term. (0+ / 0-)

      But establishing precedent that their is not a compelling State interest in marriage inequality could be very important in the challenge of other laws and/or amendments.

      •  that precedent was not established. (0+ / 0-)

        The court applied the rational basis test and said that there is no rational basis for removing the name marriage (without removing the other incidents of marriage) after granting full marriage equality.

        That says nothing whatsoever about whether there is a compelling state interest in not granting the right in the first place, or whether there would be a compelling state interest in removing all of the incidents of marriage.

  •  Cogent analysis from Orin Kerr at Volokh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ebohlman

    He says that Reinhardt, the judge who wrote the opinion, deliberately made the decision narrow. If the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses it, saying that the narrow rationale is incorrect, Kerr says the case would go back to the Reinhardt panel. Then Reinhardt could tackle the broader issues that he so deliberately avoided in this decision.

    Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy

  •  Court Nominees Make No Difference (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone who believes that need only look at this case to know that's not true. Clinton and Carter appointees vote to overturn the law, Bush II appointee votes to uphold it, and further more has the most outrageous logic imaginable. In effect, what the Bush II appointee does is say that as long as someone said it or there is a rumor of it, that is sufficient for the state to intervene. Well, I guess faux news has something else to do. Think up rationalizations for all the unconstitutional stuff "Republicans" do and simply present them as "some would say" and then the courts will uphold their nonsense.

  •  Can anyone explain the dissent? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't understand what the dissent is saying. The guy says that procreation might be a rational basis for Prop 8, but still agrees with the final decision? I don't get it.

    •  He DOESN'T agree with the final decision (0+ / 0-)

      I confess I wasn't able to wade through the details but the glosses I've read seem to indicate that he simply regurgitates a couple of the proponents' talking points regarding procreation (and so on) and uses THEM as a basis to want to overturn the decision. Very hard to understand why he'd take the tack he does since those particular talking points have not fared well in other rulings.

  •  WOW (0+ / 0-)

    AWESOMENESS glore.

    I was checking the headlines & found pure awesomeness in this one

  •  I'm reminded of Brown v. Board of Education. (0+ / 0-)

    This is a big deal.

    "Mistress of the Topaz" is now available in paperback! Link here: http://www.double-dragon-ebooks.com/single.php?ISBN=1-55404-900-8

    by Kimball Cross on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 03:03:25 PM PST

GainesT1958, Bill in Portland Maine, murphy, Heather in SFBay, billlaurelMD, eeff, expatjourno, davelf2, CatM, 714day, CoolOnion, oceanview, Cedwyn, PresentMoment, menodoc, Eyesbright, john from vermont, Steven Payne, claudew, Josiah Bartlett, marina, caul, OpherGopher, triciawyse, eru, SaraBeth, sunbro, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, jct, Shirl In Idaho, Nance, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Medium Head Boy, edwardssl, BlueInARedState, Kimball Cross, kestrel9000, sleipner, fou, NearlyNormal, boatsie, justiceputnam, Cronesense, tgypsy, sfbob, Uwaine, davehouck, gchaucer2, hopi13, the1sage, roycej, TomP, gizmo59, mconvente, JeffW, BobBlueMass, wayoutinthestix, Senor Unoball, bythesea, Judgment at Nuremberg, mikeconwell, TomFromNJ, TokenLiberal, lilnev, glendaw271, mikeymike68, catsynth, Karl Rover, JBL55, prettygirlxoxoxo, pileta, Fogiv, hafnium, Rick Aucoin, juca, socalmonk, nofear, Don Enrique, susanWAstate, kravitz, followyourbliss, Denise Oliver Velez, stevenwag, vadasz, Larsstephens, gneissgirl, Railfan, kjoftherock, michelewln, dagnome, Eddie L, ericlewis0, TichMarie, slice, Pakalolo, PaDemTerry, Mr MadAsHell, cooper888, gbinwc, FarWestGirl, GardenGuy, jakewaters, Josiology, trumpeter, mrsgoo, Escamillo, thomask, DruidQueen, BarackStarObama, smoothnmellow, Yogurt721, sound of progress, Caddis Fly, Jantman, jham710, Chitown Kev, T100R, DEMonrat ankle biter, ParkRanger, Rejoinder, Monsieur Georges, SuWho, DirtyLibrul, jeopardydd, stormicats, RhodaA, MikeyB33, S F Hippie, swampyankee, JGibson, kait, Mr Robert, Olkate, pittie70, doroma, qannabbos, james321, Noddy, Vote4Obamain2012, splintersawry, brook, APV, maf1029, left rev, Logical1, KosKomposer, BroadBlogs, lanman04, entrelac, ReverseThePolarity, doraphasia

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site