The federal courts have the power to declare state constitutional provisions unconstitutional under the federal constitution. The 9th Circuit did just that. This is nothing unusual as such. No doubt it will be appealed.Well, now that the california judges have the power to rule not only what laws are unconstitutional, but what CONSTITUTIONAL amendments are unconstitutional, they have supreme authority to legislate moralityl… great… just great. VERY glad I don’t live in California anymore… I cannot imagine living in a state where there is no check to balance against the judicial authority.
Yes. This is Federal Court ruling on US constitutionality.The federal courts have the power to declare state constitutional provisions unconstitutional under the federal constitution. The 9th Circuit did just that. This is nothing unusual as such. No doubt it will be appealed.
I’m unaware that California state judges have any power to declare a properly adopted amendment unconstitutional under the state constitution. That is not what happened here, so relax a bit.
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney slammed a Tuesday appellate court ruling that would overturn California’s ban on gay marriage.
“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,” he said in a Tuesday statement.
“This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values.
thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/209227-romney-slams-judges-for-prop-8-ruling“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”
Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, joins the bishops of California in denouncing the February 7 decision of a federal court rejecting the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a voter-approvedinitiative in California that recognizes marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“Today’s court ruling is a grave injustice, ignoring the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “The Constitution of the United States most assuredly does not forbid the protection of the perennial meaning of marriage, one of the cornerstones of society. The people of California deserve better. Our nation deserves better. Marriage deserves better.”
The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the August 4, 2010 decision of a federal district judge who had ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
usccb.org/news/2012/12-022.cfm“Our society does not operate in an amoral or value-less vacuum,” said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. “To flourish, it must be infused with moral direction that is grounded in the truth. Of course, the true meaning of marriage, like the gift of human life, is ultimately not subject to a vote or court ruling. But in California, as in every other state where marriage has been put to a vote, the people justly upheld the truth of marriage. How tragic for California, for the nation, and especially for children, that this correctly-informed judgment has now been set aside.”
You forgot anti-American. And the 9th federal appeal court is a rubber stamp for the left and the decision was a given…completely predictable. This is just one of ther reasons that having a conservative POTUS is so important.How many times has this gone to a vote in California, now?
It’s the usual 9th Circuit Court that has a long record of anti-Christian and anti-religious activism.
It’s the Ninth Circus Court; California voters approved prop 8.It’s California. What do you expect?
The Constitution does not grant the people the power or right to enact unconstitutional restrictions on civil rights through ballot initiatives. The people of California have the right to amend their State’s Constitution but they do not have the right to create laws which conflict with the US Constitution.So indeed, a sufficient majority DOES define what constitutes “Civil Rights” (note the word “civil” there) and therefor where, when, why, and to whom they apply.
As Judge Walker aptly pointed out; the ability to procreate has never been a requirement of secular marriage in this country nor is there any evidence that same-sex couples are less qualified to raise children than their opposite-sex counterparts. In fact; there is ample evidence to the contrary.The Public Interest met in civil marriage is procreation and generational succession in a particular environment (mother and father) that best contributes on an institutional level to the upbringing of subsequent generations of civil society.
I ASSUME you also support two mom and two dads marrying since it would make sense that the more parents, then better.The Constitution does not grant the people the power or right to enact unconstitutional restrictions on civil rights through ballot initiatives. The people of California have the right to amend their State’s Constitution but they do not have the right to create laws which conflict with the US Constitution.
As Judge Walker aptly pointed out; the ability to procreate has never been a requirement of secular marriage in this country nor is there any evidence that same-sex couples are less qualified to raise children than their opposite-sex counterparts. In fact; there is ample evidence to the contrary.
The Constitution was not designed or intended to keep the United States imprisoned in 18th and 19th century political philosophies and social constructs. It has evolved over time and so to has the judicial interpretation of the people’s rights and the State’s obligations both directly stated and implied; just as it was intended to do.The 14th Amendment was passed on July 9th, 1868. Did those who proposed it and voted for it and ratified it understand that it authorized marriage between homosexual persons?
I’m guessing that no one figured that out at the time. If they had known that the amendment was authorizing marriage between same sex persons, would the Amendment have passed and been ratified?
But there it is—the right to homosexual marriage is right there in the Constitution undiscovered for 143 years, just like the right to abortion lay undiscovered and unknown to the authors of the 14th amendment for 105 years.
For a long time, it wasn’t there. Now it is! What a magical constitution!
Exactly, and as “gay marriage” is not a civil right under the U.S. constitution or any federal law they’ve spun this nonsens out of whole cloth.The Constitution does not grant the people the power or right to enact unconstitutional restrictions on civil rights through ballot initiatives.
All Mr. Walker pointed out before he left office was that he was a self-serving gay man with contempt for the law when it suited his own agenda.As Judge Walker aptly pointed out;
You’re right! That’s why it had a built- in amendment process. Too bad you can’t seem to muster the votes necessary to enact your warped Progressive Agenda according to that process, and instead feel justified in committing gross usurpation by any means necessary. Such outmoded concepts as limitations on central government really chafe modern notions like Nationalized Socialism and the enforced Atheism that comes with it. Living in a free country is such a drag when you want the government to beat your neighbors into line for you.The Constitution was not designed or intended to keep the United States imprisoned in 18th and 19th century political philosophies and social constructs.
Oh yes, it can be changed over time. That’s what amendments are for. But one can’t simply decide that after a certain period of time, the constitution or some part of it simply means somethiing different than what it meant when written!The Constitution was not designed or intended to keep the United States imprisoned in 18th and 19th century political philosophies and social constructs. It has evolved over time and so to has the judicial interpretation of the people’s rights and the State’s obligations both directly stated and implied; just as it was intended to do.
The Supreme Court defined marriage as a civil right in Loving v. Virginia. Any restrictions on that right can only be enacted by the Legislative branch of government and is subject to Constitutional review by the Judiciary. It is not for the people to decide who can or cannot exercise their civil rights.Exactly, and as “gay marriage” is not a civil right under the U.S. constitution or any federal law they’ve spun this nonsens out of whole cloth.
That is a backwards understanding of the Equal Protection Clause and the practice of strict scrutiny. No class is required to demonstrate a public interest in order to exercise their civil rights. On the contrary, the State is required to provide a compelling and demonstrable State and/or public interest in the restriction of civil rights.Their appeal to Equal Protection actually just highlights that they have no case. Equal protection requires Public Interest be served in the allocation of privilege by the State. Fake “marriage” between same-sex couples doesn’t serve one. They don’t provide society any unique benefit that any generic partnership does not.
Pure slander. Judge Walker’s private relations played no role in this case and his decision falls precisely in line with many other rulings on this issue throughout the nation.All Mr. Walker pointed out before he left office was that he was a self-serving gay man with contempt for the law when it suited his own agenda.
Amendments are entirely unnecessary when rights are implied by existing text and reinforced by judicial precedent.You’re right! That’s why it had a built- in amendment process.
There are considerable societal changes since Loving. When Loving was decided, marriage was between men & women for the purpose of raising a family and homosexual activity was still punishable under the law. Trying to claim that Loving defines same-sex marriage as a civil right is ludicrous. Today, marriage is more of a privilege than a right. Marriage is no longer a necessity for living together & having children as it was in previous generations.The Supreme Court defined marriage as a civil right in Loving v. Virginia. Any restrictions on that right can only be enacted by the Legislative branch of government and is subject to Constitutional review by the Judiciary. It is not for the people to decide who can or cannot exercise their civil rights.
There has been a TON of money thrown at poverty. ever heard of Johnson’s war on poverty?You think today was tough, watch the rest of the 2012 election cycle. In addition to the probable Obama victory, several states will pass pro marriage equality laws. Only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal nationwide.
Church are doing a horrible job explaining to the secular world what is wrong with it. In jurisdictions where it’s legal, there’s no evidence that the fears opponents have are coming true (marrying pets, poligamy, etc.)
Personally I think we’re fighting the wrong battles here and should focus our political efforts on poverty where 99% of Americans would agree with us and follow our lead.
There has been a TON of money thrown at poverty. ever heard of Johnson’s war on poverty?You think today was tough, watch the rest of the 2012 election cycle. In addition to the probable Obama victory, several states will pass pro marriage equality laws. Only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal nationwide.
Church are doing a horrible job explaining to the secular world what is wrong with it. In jurisdictions where it’s legal, there’s no evidence that the fears opponents have are coming true (marrying pets, poligamy, etc.)
Personally I think we’re fighting the wrong battles here and should focus our political efforts on poverty where 99% of Americans would agree with us and follow our lead.
Most americans agree with us on marriage. Even in a liberal state like California. So funny you should ask us to focus on what our democratic constituents want when we already are. As for fears coming true, prop 8 won by showing how gay marriage laws are backed in places. Like Lexington MA where a fateher was forbidden from going to his sons school when he asked to be notified when gay stories wouldmbe read in class. Later he son was beaten and left to suffer until after school withoutmmedicalmcare. He ended up in the hospital. The chidlren who beat him for being straight not punished. This school showed Americans what the gay agenda is. To forcefully make our children accept and want to be gay or tombeat them and god forgive, to let them die in a classroom forbidding a phone call to mom or dad or to call an ambulance.You think today was tough, watch the rest of the 2012 election cycle. In addition to the probable Obama victory, several states will pass pro marriage equality laws. Only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal nationwide.
Church are doing a horrible job explaining to the secular world what is wrong with it. In jurisdictions where it’s legal, there’s no evidence that the fears opponents have are coming true (marrying pets, poligamy, etc.)
Personally I think we’re fighting the wrong battles here and should focus our political efforts on poverty where 99% of Americans would agree with us and follow our lead.