E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Photos by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Same-sex couple Frank Capley-Alfano. left, and Joe Capley-Alfano celebrate outside of City Hall on Feb. 7, 2012 in San Francisco, Calif.. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the voter-approved Proposition 8 measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
Breana Hansen, left, and Monica Chacon kiss as they celebrate outside of San Francisco City Hall on Tuesday.
NBC News and news services report the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law, NBC News reported.
"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," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion. "The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'."
Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside a previous judge’s ruling on constitutional grounds and because that judge later revealed he was gay. It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.
Read the full decision (pdf file)
A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals has ruled that California's Proposition 8 violates the rights of gays and lesbians, and is therefore unconstitutional. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Leave a Comment:
My question: Does PETA support Planned Parenthood?
P.P. killed 300,000 human babies last year alone...don't see anyone as upset over this truth as I do over 1 dead whale shark.
Don't see PETA protesting over the slaughter of 300,000 helpless babies sucked out of the womb of the "one" person who is supposed to be trusted with protecting the baby: Mommy!!!!
Everyone who supports abortion has already been born!
Now, let's add in the abortion of "Gay" marriage...what more must this nation do to deserve the coming wrath of God? I think nothing!
I have absolutely NO issue with gay marriage. I think that love is a beautiful thing to be celebrated no matter what ones orientation, & it certainly isn't the GOVERNMENTS business to decide!!! Wi that said, I also have to say that I am a Moderate that leans to the Right more than Left on most issues. It just galls me to no end that I actually have to agree with the 9th Circus Court of Appeals. (Yes I said Circus!!!! This group of extreme liberals is responsible for some of the absolute WORSE legal decisions in history!!!!) I guess it just goes to show that occasionally good ideas can come from addled brains....
I understand what your saying but here's a point your missing i think. There's no legal basis for gay marriage. There's nothing in the constitution about it. So if the people of California want to pass a law banning it they can.
Now i get where your coming from im not saying either way if i think gay marriage is ok, but i care about following the rules. We have to stop these judges from doing what they think is RIGHT over doing what is LEGAL. That's why we can amend the constitution, that's why states can pass these laws, because issues come up new things arise. But to just DECIDE that were going to interpret the constitution differently because we feel like it's right will lead us into problems.
The 9th circuit court has had the most overturns because that's what the judges in it believe. I believe if you want gay marriage you get an amendment to the constitution added or you follow the 10th amendment and get the people of the state to pass it (directly or thru state legislation.)
By that logic, you would have to have an amendment to allow for straight marriage which is ALSO not mentioned directly in the Constitution.
But you don't need an amendment for that, do you? Why not? NOT because it's "traditional," NOT because your religion says so. Because the CONSTITUTION was written by people intelligent enough to cover issues like straight and gay marriage without having to list every picayune thing people are not only free to do but have a right to do. So READ the Constitution, in particular these clauses of the 9th and 14th Amendments:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
14th Amendment: Due process clause, equal protection clause.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Is that clear now? You DO NOT NEED an amendment establishing or protecting same-sex marriage any more than you need an amendment establishing or protecting opposite-sex marriage--and for the EXACT SAME REASONS. The SAME parts of the Constitution that protect your right to an opposite-sex marriage apply to the protection of others' right to same-sex marriages.
You can't toss one without the other.
You prove my point because liberals like you are so foolish you actually imagine that the constitution was written as you say "by people intelligent enough to cover issues like straight and gay marriage" well do you for a second think that any of this was to allow homosexuals to marry? Do you really think anyone who wrote any of this for a SECOND thought their ancestors would decide that its a RIGHT for gay people to marry? You quote the 9th amendment and you actually think that gay marriage was CONSIDERED A RIGHT BY THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT? This is my POINT! You cant just decide to reinterpret things however you want because that will ultimately lead to @!$%#ing up the whole thing!
Oh and for reference SINCE ITS NOT MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY IT IS LEFT TO THE PEOPLE OR THE STATES TO DECIDE thats the 10th amendment. IS THAT CLEAR? Or are you not one of those people who are intelligent enough to understand this? You cant just DECIDE that equal protection now includes GAYS by that logic what if we decide dolphins are smart enough to be considered people? Oh crap well that throws a wrench in the whole thing (and FYI there are people in several left wing groups who ACTUALLY WANT THAT)
Frankly the states already DO DECIDE how they are going to run straight marriage. How they deal with divorce and the rules for getting married are DECIDED state by state.
Absolutely wonderful !!! Every human being on this earth should be free to love and marry any other single human being, regardless of sex.
I wish many happy days to the marriages that have happened and the ones that will come from this.
Thank you 9th Circuit Court!
It just seems odd how a majority vote by the people of California can be overruled by a couple of judges. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer people are going to the poles to vote. We have the same thing in the state where I live, if the people vote no on an issue the politicians just keep putting it on the ballot with different wording until it gets approved. It's all about special interest groups no matter their number the courts will give them what they want and to hell with the majority.
Because part of the beauty of our legal system is that we can examine laws even AFTER they pass to determine whether they're constitutional. I'm the product of a bi-racial marriage (Korean mother, white father), and had my parents tried to get married in certain states their marriage would have been banned. These bans have since been overturned, even after they'd been voted on, and why? Because they were re-examined and deemed unconstitutional! It used to be legal to own slaves, deny people jobs or pay them less based on gender, and openly discriminate based on religious faith, and yes, all of these had been voted on. It doesn't mean they followed the constitution!!!
So Aunt of 8 specifically what part of the constitution gives gays the right to marry? I mean dont get me wrong if we as a country as a people want gay marriage to be legal we can simply just amend the constitution or have every state pass laws making it legal (ie see 10th amendment).
So what section exactly gives gays the right to marry. (and don't be like pursuit of happyness or general welfare clause on me think thru how it was written if you tried that on the founding fathers they'd have laughed at you we cant just DECIDE we want something so we'll interpret it differently)
I agree with CPH the ban is LEGAL and deciding we want gay marriage doesn't make it any less legal. Once again the 9th circuit has overstepped their legal bounds and began to legislate instead of interpret. (PS interpret means read it and do what it says and in cases of abiguity do something in this case there is no abiguitiy because theres NOTHING about gays in the constitution so in that case the 10th amendment is applied)
What is odd is that a citizen of the United States does not understand what the Constitution of the United States is, why our country was established and no clue about how it works and has worked for the past 230+ years.
I already responded to you mdmtnwmn above. I find it sad you feel the need to go and insult each of my sections. Because its not mentioned specifically its left up to the people or the states (10th amendment) nowhere in the constitution is it even REMOTELY considered that GAY = a protected group.
For years the right and the left have been using the interstate trade clause and the general welfare clause to justify massive increases in the power of the governement. This has to stop or eventually we'll get someone who wont use that power so nicely. I mean this is where we get stuff like, oh immenient domain actually lets the state take your land pay what THEY say its worth to you against your will and then sell it at profit to another group because that other group is going to develop the land and thus the government will get more taxes. (THIS HAPPENED) Do you actually feel for a second the people who WROTE the clause intented that to happen?
Skeeter, nobody really gives a s#$% about your narrow minded, neo-conservative, holier-than thou, bible thumpin', fire and brimstone spouting diatribe! Your opinion, and everyone else in your ultra-conservative, far right leaning little minority, is nothing more than the crap the people spouted out in the 1600s to brand people as witches in Salem, MA.
Climb back down off you stump, take your bible and your fearmongering rhetoric, and climb back under that rock you been hiding under for the last 300 years! Because this country was founded on the most important of human ideas - that an individual is free to choose certain things in their life in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Choose not to have a child, get an abortion, drink alcohol, smoke a cigarette, marry someone of the same or opposite sex, those are all OUR individual rights. In a democratic society like ours, even stupid people like yourself have these rights, so exercise that right to remain silent next time unless you have something more tangible to say.
Isnt that sweet, homo's kissing and hugging all over each other. I will say one good thing might come out of this.. Population control, you see two gays cant pro create so if God said no to queerdom than nature must have or these homo men would be punching babies out their rectum. You people make me sick with the support for this sickness
If you're against it, don't do it. It's as simple as that! As for marriage being for procreation, let me ask this; my husband and I don't plan to have kids, should we have to get divorced? Should people who are infertile or post-menopausal not be allowed to get married? Is the world under-populated? Then why the F*#& do you care?!?
The use of the word marriage for homosexual unions does nothing but lower the syntax of the English language to the LCD.
The Homosexuals need a new word to define their condition. I have proposed "ferriage, Homoarriage, Gayanchor, and other terms that discribe a union other than the term used by heterosexuals, marriage. ;)
If homosexuality is actually a sin in the eyes of God, then those who practice it and those that support it will have a rude awakening come judgement day.
If it is not a sin in the eyes of God, then those who hate homosexuality and all that comes with it will have to answer for their actions on judgement day.
So, everybody chill and let God sort it out.
Nicely said. I've always believed we are too arrogant in believing ourselves to be judge and jury on some issues. "Judge not, lest ye be judged". It certainly does not harm my rights for people of same sex to have the earthly and civil marital rights that I have. I don't have the right to harm their equal rights either.
I thought the libs and the MSNBC crowd were big on the democracy movement. The majority voted against gay marriage which sounds like Rachel Maddow's precious 50 + 1. Guess it only matters when you are in a small special group that is looking to appear mainstream. It is a complete joke. Nobody cares about your sexual preference and if you are looking for tax advantages or hospital visits i think a civil union would work wonderfully.
More importantly following the 10th amendment this is LEGALLY the only thing to do. If they want gay marriage back they can have the state overturn it by doing another vote or by having an amendment to the constitution.
The 10th Amendment doesn't apply. The Constitution specifically gives the federal government the power and duty to ensure the inherent rights of citizens, whether or not they are specifically mentioned (Amendment 9). If you have a right to opposite-sex marriage regardless of any law the majority passes against it, then others have a right to same-sex marriage based on the same inherent right which must be protected equally thanks to the 14th Amendment.
Would you be in favor of outlawing same-sex marriage until an amendment to the Constitution specifically mentions same-sex marriage as an inherent right?
Thats my point mdmtnwmn if a state wants to ban STRAIGHT marriage they CAN! It will never happen because lol seriously? But legally the state can do that i never said straight marriage was a right as a legally created entitie, but marriage can be just called a religious institution and thats fine. If two gay people want to say OH were married under so and so religion thats great. But the state can decide whether or not you get to recieve a marriage license (AND DO!). Some states have rules you have to meet to recieve a marriage license.
Looks like more liberal Judges are taking the Constitution to task. We the people voted, and now these far left morons say it is unconstitutional. Complete idiots, remove them from the court.
So much hate in these comments already! Relax people.
We all actually are born with human rights, which covers being able to love whoever we want, and marry whoever we want. I'm happy the court recognized the constitutional significance of it, but even if courts don't agree with it, we're all born with such rights anyway...
I'm all for gay marriage in about 30 or 40 years there won't be anymore liberals !!!!!!!!!!!
Very good Bernie. I'm 66 years old. So, in 30 or 40 years I won't give a darn. Larry Velasco
Is this so-called judge a "FAGGOT"? Wouldn't doubt it. Stephen Reinhardt should be dumped. When people vote on something in this country now a days, it doesn't matter. If a group of idiots feel it's wrong or not Constitutional they just overturn it. Well, I just can't wait for the REVOLUTION in this country to start and all these liberal clowns are GONE. Make not doubt about who would win that battle. Concerned AMERICAN, L. Velasco. REMEMBER, Obama is a PUNK
The court considered the matter at issue with impartiality and rightly concluded there is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever to deny same-gender couples the right to call their relationship marriage. The only "reason" left standing was one of bigotry that held these couples' relationships as inferior and unworthy of that title. Like spoiled children, bigots who can't get their way anymore whine and bluster on and on, all the more loudly as they are losing and losing badly.
The "valid" reason is because the people decided that's the law they want to live under. The court DOES NOT DECIDE IF THE REASONS ARE VALID COURTS ARE TO READ THE LAWS AND DO WHAT THEY SAY. As such what part specifically in the constitution says gays can be married or have that right? Ill help you out it DOESNT! Therefor the 10th amendment says that its left up to the people or the states. Well the people have spoken deal with it. I hope this gets overturned because the 9th court has once again overstepped their bounds, because legally that's what should happen.
If you want gay marraige get the state to pass a law allowing it or have the constitution amended. We can't just decide to reinterpret the constution to cover what we want. If we start down that path then theres nothing stopping us from interpreting it any way we well please even crazy ways.
Kama, you have convinced me. Marriage is not in the Constitution and is not a right. All marriages should be immediately voided and the institution made illegal until such time as an amendment to the Constitution specifically mentions it as a right.
Marriage -- what a leftist crock, right? Who voted for marriage, anyway? Who put it in the Constitution? NO ONE. Some people think they can just make up laws and rights any time they want.
Ban marriage. Ban it immediately. No one has a right to it.
Exactly marriage isnt a right specifically mentioned by the constitution! Isnt that amazing? But EVERY SINGLE STATE HAS MARRIAGE LAWS! Guess what? They get to decide each state on its own! That's what the 10th amendments for! If a state wants to ban straight marriage they can, it wont EVER happen but they are welcome to try. You seem to miss the inherent point of state power. If its not mentioned specifically in the Federal constitution its left to the PEOPLE OR THE STATES its the 10th amendment. Marriage isnt defined as a right anywhere in the constitution DEAL WITH IT. So if a state wants gay marriage great more power to them if it wants to ban all marriage great go for it (like i said that wouldnt ever happen but they can try)
You keep posting and missing the inherent point mdmtnwmn we cant just decide to reinterpret things in the constitution because we think its right because of the way our culture has changed. If we start down that path we will end up having the constitution interpreted in crazy ways eventually. The constitution is a chain wrapped around the neck of the federal government that holds them back and restricts their power. These judges need to stop doing what they think is right and doing what the LAW says since theres nothing about marriage in the constitution its left up to the people or the states well the people spoke and they have decided THEY know better, WHICH IS WRONG.
What's next. Marry a dog or a goat. Evalution say's that there are 2 of every species. I, know there are a few asexual creatures, but those are freeky thing's in Nature, only God know's why. But he never intended men on men, or women on women. It's just to creepy and discusting. This is a mental disorder, caused by who know's what. But it certainly is not what God intended.
What disorder renders you incapable of correct spelling, grammar and word usage? Not to mention ignorance -- the American Psychiatric Association accepted overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder or pathological in any way decades ago. Keep up with the times.
Bigotry and ignorance, on the other hand, are pathological and very dangerous disorders that should be eradicated at once.
Sigh..... Religon. Mankinds greatest concept in an attempt to define morality & our greatest failure at doing so
i think you need a philosophy AND a religion lesson, then maybe you'll see how idiotic your statement is.
but go ahead and walk around as if you've said something profound... lmao.
I don't care what side of this issue you're on but i find it sad that once again the 9th circuit court has made a radical decision based on.... nothing... There is NOTHING in the constitution that says gay people have the right to be married. If you asked the people who WROTE it they would have laughed at the idea. There is NO LEGAL STANDING for homosexuals to be married.
I don't care which side of the issue your on or for what reason. I care about following the rule of law, and the law says NOTHING on this. There is NOTHING in the constitution that says ANYTHING about this it's not covered and there is no precedent.
I hope the supreme court does the right thing and says the state may decide since the constitution doesn't say anything about it. As such the banning of gay marriage is LEGAL because it was legally decided by the states people. If you want gay marriage get your state to pass a law saying it's legal or GO GET AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Stop these judges from deciding what they think is right. THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB THEIR JOB IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND THERES NOTHING ABOUT GAYS IN THE CONSITUTION!
Oh and the vaunted 9th circuit court has more overturns than any other court district in the USA, because that's what happens when you allow super left leaning judges to legislate from the bench.
I don't care what side of this issue you're on but i find it sad that once again courts across the country have made a radical decision based on.... nothing... There is NOTHING in the constitution that says straight people have the right to be married. If you asked the people who WROTE it they would have laughed at the idea. There is NO LEGAL STANDING for heterosexuals to be married.
I don't care which side of the issue your on or for what reason. I care about following the rule of law, and the law says NOTHING on this. There is NOTHING in the constitution that says ANYTHING about this it's not covered and there is no precedent.
I hope the supreme court does the right thing and says the state may decide since the constitution doesn't say anything about it. As such the banning of straight marriage is LEGAL because it was legally decided by the states people. If you want straight marriage get your state to pass a law saying it's legal or GO GET AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Stop these judges from deciding what they think is right. THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB THEIR JOB IS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND THERES NOTHING ABOUT STRAIGHTS IN THE CONSITUTION!
Oh and overturns should follow because that's what happens when you allow super right leaning judges to legislate from the bench.
This is whats wrong with liberals YOU KNOW the founding fathers didnt even CONSIDER GAY marriage to be a right. But you still rewrote that part.
mdmtnwmn there IS legal standing for heterosexuals to be married EVERY STATE HAS MARRIAGE LAWS. Thus your entire reversal of my arguement is flawed.
There's lot of law on STRAIGHT marriage their on the books in EVERY STATE!
I dont care if gay people want to be "marrried" but i do care when a court overturns the will of the people based on no legal basis.
the term "gay marriage" can only exist if the word "marriage" in its legality means a union between two 'people'.
WHICH IT DOES NOT. Thankfully.
Therefore try something else, "gay union". I don't think the majority of people would mind if gay couples entered into a union and were afforded the same treatment as a man and a woman in a marriage are when it comes to taxes, wills, healthcare coverge etc...
What most will not accept is for a group of homosexuals and liberals trying to change the very definition of the word marriage. Seriously, no one cares what you do in your bedroom.
Ironic though, marriage finds its etymology deeply rooted in religion... and the very people that want this sacred term and all that it entails... hate religion. lol. Liberals are purposely blind to their own hypocrisy, they have to be, or else their house of (no)logic will crumble.
How about you guys just make up a new word and we'll say it's synonymous with marriage...
*yawn*
So under the guise of gay rights, this country is slowly taking one of my sacred religious rites/sacraments and making it something God didn't make it to be. So, is the US, or any other country that does the same, bigger than God? God sanctified marriage to be between a man and a woman. Sure people can unify with each other and the law can give the same rights to anyone that unifies, just name it something else. Find a word of vote on one for homosexual unions. It's like calling a stripper party a bar mitzvah or a tailgate communion. It's an outrage to true saved Bible believers. This country was founded by Bible believers and contrary to many beliefs, it's prosperity is due to the faith and prayers of Bible believers.