Gay Marriage Opponents File Appeal in Prop. 8 Case
As Lyle Denniston notes at SCOTUSblog, the backers of California's Proposition 8, which had amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage, have opted not to appeal their recent loss before a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, but will instead ask an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit to first reconsider their case:
Arguing that the issue is of "exceptional importance" and that a Ninth Circuit Court panel got it wrong, sponsors of California's 2008 ban on same-sex marriage in the state—"Proposition 8?—asked the appeals court to reconsider the case en banc, a move that would wipe out the panel ruling and slow the progress of the case toward the Supreme Court. In a 52-page rehearing petition, the ballot measure's backers contended that the panel's decision on February 7 directly contradicts four prior Supreme Court rulings.
The petition also sought to have the fuller court wipe out the District Court judge's 2010 ruling that nullified Proposition 8, asserting that his failure to disclose that he is a gay man involved in a long-term partnership disqualified him from trying the case—an argument that the Ninth Circuit panel had rejected.
For additional coverage of the Prop. 8 case, go here. For a look at what the Supreme Court's recent rulings on gay rights may mean for the future of gay marriage, see here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That makes a lot of sense dude. Wow.
http://www.Privacy-Wares.tk
I found a great dating bisexual site DATEBI*C'O'M. It is a serious& safe dating site for the bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships. I have to say DATEBI*COM the best site I have ever joined so far. They verify all members. Unlike other sites,NO scammers or fake profiles here, and you can meet many rich or mature women as well, including celebs, famous stars.BEST OF LUCK!
Auto-spammers auto-spamming auto-spammers. Too cool. Behold The Singularity!
This is quite a meet cute. I hope Devon Merrill and dd keep us posted on the progress of their romance.
...which had amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage...
I don't know if I've brought this up before, but I think continuing to phrase these equality problems like this pretty much guarantees bureaucratic solutions.
Actually, that phrasing, as applied to California, is correct. The State Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to marriage, so the People amended the state constitution.
The fact that they have sought en banc review does not preclude them from later asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, depending on what the en banc court does.
There's also no guarantee the full bench of the Ninth Circuit will agree to reconsider the case en banc.
Those who support the one man / one woman concept of marriage only sully their cherished concept by asking the state to codify their views.
Can you spell emotional and spiritual immaturity?
Hard to imagine that the real motivation is cherishing straight marriage as much as it is bigotry against gays....
Hard to imagine that the real motivation is cherishing SSM as much as it is bigotry against breeders....
What about those who seek to use the state to codify their view that marriage should include same sex couples, simply to spite those who disagree?
Are they no less worthy of contempt?
Of course they are. Utter contempt is what I have for them as well.
I don't think straight people ever "asked" the state to codify. Civil marriage is as old as the hills.
Gay marriage supporters are also asking the state to codify their views. Why don't you critique them too?
Yes, and to repeat myself, it isn't as if OSMers (for lack of a better term) ever made a move to become part of a special group: it happened organically.
It would be rich to see the fundies trotting out evolutionary arguments to support OSM.
a gay man involved in a long-term partnership disqualified him from trying the case
I think this is one of the more interesting claims that they have made. For example:
If, as they argue, banning gay marriage is necessary to preserve the sanctity or whatever of plain ol' marriage, wouldn't the married justices have an equal (and opposite) conflict of interest?
If, as they argue, banning gay marriage is necessary to preserve the sanctity or whatever of plain ol' marriage, wouldn't the married justices have an equal (and opposite) conflict of interest?
The "interest" is in preserving marriage as a Godly institution. Naturally, this task is best undertaken by those leading a Godly life. Surely you're not suggesting that the matter be left in the hands of the sodomites, are you?
Again, cite me one verse from the Gospels where Jesus condemns homosexuality or homosexual activity.
If jesus really thought Bob could not get together with Ted or that Carol could not get together with Alice, he would have so said.
Matthew 5:18
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Does the judaic law condemn homosexuality? Then Jesus did too.
When I was growing up, Jesus was about love, kindness, turning the other cheek and charity toward others. When I hear these crazy Christians attacking gay people, I wonder if it's the same guy.
It is. Just because each side tries to shoehorn Jesus into its "side" doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't both a moral scold AND a hippie douche.
"hippie douche"
Raycyst!
Your words imply that jesus was caucasian. Would you have called jesus a hippie douche if used jerry-curl?
I believe it's technically "Reycist" since he was the king of TEH JOOZ.
The common perception is that Jesus was this hippie love child oozing with compassion and tolerance, but then Paul came along and introduced fiery judgementalism into Christianity.
Of course, if you read the New Testament, it's actually the opposite. Jesus talks about hell and judgement nearly constantly -- "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; better to lose a hand than to lose body and soul in Gehenna, where the worm does not die". While Paul in his letters seems to have some faint hope for universal salvation.
Concur - Jesus was a delusional fundie nutjob. And I say that with all sincerity.
Jesus was quite moderate compared to the Sicarii of Judea.
It's hard not to be a biblical literalist when you're the Word incarnate.
It's hard not to be a biblical literalist when you're the Word incarnate.
I loled.
Then why do most Christians eat pork and run around uncircumcised?
Cause bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.
Cause bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.
So a rat might taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll never know cuz I won't eat the filthy motherfucker.
Because the judaic law doesnt apply to gentiles. This was a hot debate in the early church.
Those two specific items, circumcision and dietary restrictions were at the heart of the debate.
This is covered in detail in the Acts of the Apostles.
Jews that convert to Christianity are still expected to follow the Law.
Acts 15:1-35 covers the circumcision debate.
The letter to the gentiles ended with this:
"It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
So it's OK for gentiles to be gay?
In any case, I don't think the old testament has much to say about homosexuality. Just that buttfucking between men is bad. And even that isn't really explicitly stated. It might mean that anal rape of a man is forbidden (raping women is OK, apparently).
My RSV translation says "pass away" not "disappear". IIRC the understanding is that heaven and earth passed away upon the resurrection.
Neither Paul nor Peter have this interpretation, as they still thought the Law applied to Jews. And they were on the side opposed to requiring Gentiles to convert to judaism before they could become Christians.
The other side also thought the Law still existed, as they wanted conversion to judaism as a prereq.
Which of course is silly...so you're telling people that because their parents are Jews they have several hundred more laws they have to follow under pain of hell?
under pain of hell
I think Paul makes it very clear that salvation does not involve rotely following laws, so I think the "pain of hell" comment is off-base.
But, yes, if your parents are jews you get a bunch more rules to follow. On the other hand, you are one of God's chosen people, which I cant claim as a Gentile.
Again, cite me one verse from the Gospels where Jesus condemns homosexuality or homosexual activity.
I have no dog in this fight, but what denomination/interpretive tradition thinks only the Gospels count?
The church of libertymike.
The Gospels are like the Superbowl of the Bible.
Or the majors in golf and tennis.
Well, other than a bit in Acts and a bit in Revelation, Jesus doesnt speak in any of the other books.
LOL. Considering that sola fide is based on a letter of Paul, this is too rich coming from a Protestant.
At least the Catholics can point to something Jesus said as the basis for papal authority.
???
I was very literally answering the question which was "cite me one verse from the Gospels where Jesus...".
Not sure how you jumped from there to sola fide.
I believe the argument is that Vinson stands to benefit in a very direct way from his own ruling and thus should have been disqualified from deciding the case. That's not true for married justices.
If you buy the argument of gay marriage opponents gay marriage threatens heterosexual unions, so by your logic no hetero judge that is married should rule on it.
I don't buy that, and that's an argument that would have to be made by the pro-gay marriage people.
From what I understand the 9th Circuit said that once someone is given a right then you can't take away that right even by changing the state constitution?
So does this apply to other laws, for example
Since gun rights were much stronger 100 years ago that means that the State can't now reduce gun rights?
Or since property rights were much stronger 100 years ago that means the State can't now reduce property rights?
Or is this one of those things like abortion, you have the right to control your body and kill a fetus, but you don't have the right to smoke pot with that same body
I'm for gay marriage (in that the state shouldn't be recognizing any marriage, so if they want to call themselves married go for it), but this case was stupid. You can be against the result if you want, but the process was correct.
"The process?"
The founding generation, the franers and the ratifiers were not fans of democracy for a reason - it sucks.
All I asked was shouldn't the same legal reasoning apply to other rights? If you can't take away rights that exist even if they had just been granted then does this not apply to property, gun and many other rights which have been taken away over the years?
I like your thinking on this DJF. I'd love to see this case cited in a challenge to CA gun control laws.
DJF, yes, I agree with your reasoning, i.e., that the basis of the 9th circuit's decision could be applied to all rights.
Heck, the right to own slaves, for example.
This seems a rather dubious leg for the Ninth Circuit to stand on, so methinks the Supreme Court may have to get involved in this just to do damage control, assuming the Ninth Circuit doesn't modify the decision on reconsideration.
Owning slaves cannot be a right. You do not have any right to harm anyone who has not harmed you.
It was deemed a right in this country at one time. Under the Ninth Circuit's theory, that "right" could never be taken away.
Er, this is silly. Gun rights were not "stronger 100 years" ago, there was just no political will to infringe.
There's a difference between that and a right being officially recognized and then taken away.
MNG, I wonder how strong that distinction is.
Conceptually, of course, a ban on buying more than one gun at a time (for example) takes away your pre-existing de facto right to buy more than one gun at a time.
But, if the court wanted to limit itself to rights that were recognized de jure, what about any amendment to a gun control law that made it stricter? What if the ban on buying more than one gun at a time was an amendment to a previous law that allowed you to buy up to five guns at a time?
"your pre-existing de facto right to buy more than one gun at a time"
But it's not a recognized right.
Look, we have no law mandating you look at the moon tonight. That doesn't mean you have some legally recognized right to not look at the moon that if taken away would make it fall into this rule.
But if a court or legislature had mandated "no one shall be forced to look at any heavenly body" and then that law was taken away, then it would.
Which basically means that judges can change the constitution by "reinterpreting" any time they want, but the people can never change it via amendment processes in a way the judges don't like.
I don't think that is what it means. It means that a law or amendment adopted by the people, when it conflicts with another amendment directly, might mean the former gets struck...
Or more precisely in this case that when a state adopts a law or amendment that conflicts with an amendment the union has adopted the former might have to go.
it's not the right to bear arm.
anyway, it's absurd that under the court's interpretation, the People, the ultimate authority, cannot correct the mistakes of its employees, i.e., the courts.
It is my impression that the courts don't recognize natural rights.
Since there was never a codified right to purchase more than one gun at a time, then it never existed. Therefore a law prohibiting it is not taking away a pre-existing right, since that right was never explicitly codified in legislation.
I never thought I would say this to a sarcasmic post, but +1
By the way, I completely and totally disagree with that train of reasoning.
It is completely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
Here is the Sec 1 of the 1849 Constitution.
"""Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.""'
Notice it says that all men have the inalienable right of 'defending life" and 'possessing" property.
So any state law since then which limits these rights are null and void since it would be a reduction in rights granted.
Nice encapsulation of the Modern Regulatory State.
What about property rights, 100 years ago you could do what you wanted with your own land. You could clear cut it, you could build whatever you wanted on it, you could strip mine it. These were recognized property rights so under the 9th Circuit reasoning these rights cannot be taken away.
100 years ago you could do anything that was not explicitly prohibited by law.
Now you may only do what is allowed.
That's why more and more people are listening to Peter Schiff and others who advise us to seriously consider changing our zip codes.
I don't think that will work, because rights being interpreted away by the courts means they never existed in the first place. (I was thinking more 4th amendment rights than gun rights, but either way)
If the liberals had somehow managed to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd amendment, then you'd be comparing apples to apples, but it's not.
(of course, one wonders if this reasoning invalidates the 13th amendment which took away the "right" to own slaves)
I don't think that this argument could ever apply to the federal constitution. The argument rests on the 14th, which makes the federal constitutional rights apply to sates. You can't make a 14th amendment argument like this about a federal amendment since the federal constitution is supreme. The argument can only be made because there is a level of law that is above the state constitution.
But there has never been a recognized federal right to gay marriage, so there are no federal rights that the 14th demands the state protect.
Kennedy's argument in the old case (which was absolutely bonkers and has no constitutional basis in the 14th amendment or anything) was a general principle that civil rights, once gained, can never be ratcheted back.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
I finally realized what the SSM opponents meant when they said "redefining" marriage. If the state legislature always operated under the assumption that the definition of marriage was "one man, one woman", then the People or the Legislature of that state should change the definition of a legal term, not State Supreme Court Justices.
That's the inherent problem with the Equal Protection argument. It assumes that marriage means "any two people", rather than "a man and a woman." It makes no sense otherwise.
The real question is, who has the authority to decide what the legal definition of marriage is? Who has the authority to translate a shift in social/cultural understanding into a change in legal and Constitutional rights?
If you grant courts the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution on this basis, how is that not a "living Constitution"?
The Substantive Due Process issue is a whole other bag of worms. I believe that Reinhardt did basically say that the People of the State deprived gays of a right they had without a rational basis, but I am hard-pressed to see how the US Supreme Court could turn that into a ruling that invalidates 29 state constitutional amendments, seeing as how gays never had those rights in the first place.
Of course, the fact that Kennedy wrote Lawrence makes this all so much more difficult, because he flits about coherency, sometimes touching it and sometimes way up in the air somewhere.
Kenedy did not, IIRC, predicate his opinion upon equal protection or substantive due process grounds.
Didn't he essentially assert that the right of two consenting adults to engage in sodomy in the privacy of their abode was within the realm of an individual's basic liberty?
"That's the inherent problem with the Equal Protection argument. It assumes that marriage means "any two people", rather than "a man and a woman."
Doesn't that assumption work in reverse? In other words, it's the pro-SSM side that assumes intra-gender is a fundamental, "definitional" aspect of marriage that can't be changed without it becoming something else. I'd say that's begging the question.
I'd say that's begging the question.
Seriously? You want to argue that the social/cultural definition of "marriage" always encompassed gay marriage, and wasn't "a man and a woman"?
And that leaves aside, of course, those state laws that actually read "a man and a woman".
He's at it again, I see. Common sense, history, conntative and denotative definitions, and legislative use of the term as one thing for 100 years apparently means nothing to Mr. "THAT'S RACIST"
Butthurt going on weeks now...
Leftist hack going on years now...
I'm not sure only leftist hacks see that as begging the question...
One side: Why can't there be different gender marriages?
Other side: Because different genders is what marriage is all about, that's what marriage means.
That's not begging the very question asked by the first guy?
Whoops, should read
One side: Why can't there be same gender marriages?
Other side: Because different genders is what marriage is all about, that's what marriage means.
That's not begging the very question asked by the first guy?
reply to this
I think you've still got it wrong
Did you really take the time to post "you're wrong" and that's all?
Wow.
Did you really take the time to bitch and moan about Tulpa's post?
Wow.
MNG, try a little historical perspective.
Until very recently, "marriage" did not encompass marriage between two men (or two women), in either the legal or the social cultural sense. Surely, you don't dispute this.
So, until very recently, there was no Equal Protection issue, because gay marriage was definitionally impossible, a non sequitur, an oxymoron.
The Equal Protection issue only arises if "marriage" means "any two people', yes? Which was not its meaning (until, arguably, pretty recently).
So, the question is, who decides what the meaning of marriage is? Who has the authority to change that meaning for legal and Constitutional purposes? Because "any two people" is definitely a change in the meaning of "marriage".
The simple answer is the state as it is the entity which is conferring the marriage licenses.
If supreme court justices, either federal or state, can redefine the traditional use of the word "marriage", they can redefine the traditional use of the word "human being" to outlaw abortion or permit euthanasia of the retarded.
These redefinitions should be left to the People and their elected Representatives.
Who can also redefine the traditional meaning and use of the word.
Leaving matters to the state, be it the judges or the people or their eleceted representatives, inevitably results in disaster.
I know, Mike, you're an anarchist. We get it already. Does blowing the same note through that horn ever get boring?
You will no doubt remain consistent in this attitude even as popular sentiment moves inexorably toward acceptance of gay marriage and legislatures follow suit. But once that starts happening, expect the religious folks who object to suddenly learn to love the courts.
Which other civil rights issues ought to be put up to popular vote?
Tony, let's test the principle set forth in your question:
Should the right of an association of individuals to make campaign contributions be put up to popular vote?
I don't believe the right to spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections to be a civil right, but an obvious and direct assault on democracy itself.
"These redefinitions should be left to the People and their elected Representatives."
The people have redefined marriage already. As soon as a gay couple decided to call themselves married, it was changed. The law just needs to catch up (or get out of the business altogether, which is what I woudl ultimately prefer).
So anything one couple (or individual) does redefines the law?
I think this is fundamentally unworkable, for reasons that should be obvious.
No, it doesn't redefine the law. It changes what actually happens in reality. I'm arguing that the law ought to recognize reality, which includes gay people getting married now, with or without a law. No, the law shouldn't change as soon as one person does something new, but we are well beyond that point with gay marriage now. But at this point, laws against gay marriage are just trying to ignore reality. If the law is to recognize marriage, it should do it because marriage is something people do, not for any religious or social engineering reason.
I think that the actual situation should determine what the definition of marriage is. The fact is that gay people do get married today. There are churches that do it, governments that do it and lots of gay couples call themselves married even if there is no official sanction for it. So it is irrelevant what anyone thinks about what marriage should be. The fact is that it now includes gay people. If you don't like it, tough shit. It already happened. If the state is to recognize marriage, they should do it because it is something people do and it is useful to have a ready made legal structure for it, not as some sort of social engineering project.
The fact that many people believe in faith healers does not mean the state has to recognize faith healing as medical care and cover it in Medicaid, etc.
Doesn't that assumption work in reverse?
Not unless you subscribe to the fallacy of switching the burden of proof.
This is one of the reasons I oppose the state being involved in marriage at all. I grant the state NO power to provide a definition of marriage. Historically, in western culture, marriage is a religious issue and should be defined by the various churches.
Some of which, will be more than happy to marry gays. Some wont. Some will marry man to wife and wife and wife and wife. Some wont.
Item #500 on my list of beefs with libertarians. Just how much of the institutions of society do you want to hand completely over to churches?
With churches taking over marriage and healthcare, what's to stop your minimally governed society from turning into a de facto theocracy?
Tony, you've got some layered false premises from which you opine.
With churches taking over marriage and healthcare...
Were you born stupid or has it just progressed over time from simple ignorance?
I can't speak for robc, but I don't think many libertarians woudl say that only churches should decide things about marriage. Nor that churches should be the only charities providing healthcare. So what is your point?
My point is that getting government out of providing access to healthcare necessarily means churches will become more burdened with it. Same with marriage, I don't want religious outfits being principal actors in public services and institutions. With marriage the sentiment is totally absurd anyway: the whole point is equal contract rights, and churches don't enforce contracts.
Let's deny driving licenses to gay people next.
Not the same thing at all.
Where does it say in the Constitution that gays should be allowed to drive?
Ninth amendment.
Cant you fucking read?
Oh, you silly libertarians and your natural rights.
My last comment was why I should be a Supreme Court Justice. I think that might be a dissent I would right. 6 words and to the point.
s/right/write/
You've got my vote. Unfortunately, I'm not a senator.
Don't paint with a broad brush.
The 9th doesn't enforce any rights, it just clarifies that the enumerated powers doctrine is still in force. ie, the first 8 amendments don't mean that Congress can do anything they don't forbid.
the first 8 amendments don't mean that Congress can do anything they don't forbid.
Unfortunately that is exactly how many judges read it.
Why not? Gay people clearly undermine civilization through their very existence. Allowing them to drive, i.e. "go places," will increase their ability to go to work, pass within 250 yards of schools or churches, and subvert the relationships of decent heterosexual folk by going to their weddings and breathing the same air. (Plus, they could potentially crash into them too.)
In fact, if gay people are contrary to our survival as a human species, why are they allowed to exist at all? Even the Bible calls for the death penalty against gays.
I don't think that would be unconstitutional but it would be extraordinarily stupid.
Of course, Lawrence would seem to indicate that any law which requires a govt determination of whether someone is gay is unconstitutional breach of the alleged right to privacy.
Gay marriage is different because it's a case of people telling the govt they're gay and demanding something for it.
You mean demanding equal treatment under the law? What selfish bitches!
I don't want to be a goon here, but in talking to a gay friend of mine he stated that what they want is to be seen as the same...legally, their civil marriages are the same as normal "marriage"...so...can't we just stop having marriage and just civil unions and if you get "married" it is more of a religious thing? Rights is all we are talking about.
Rights is all we are talking about.
I used to believe that until I discovered that many in the SSM movement will accept no compromise that does not include the word "marriage".
They want to stick their thumb in the eye of religious people and others who believe a marriage is between a husband and a wife, not a spouse and a spouse.
It's more about "fuck you" than about rights.
So in turn your position is to say "fuck you" to equality proponents, because you think they are being assholes.
I wonder, do you have a position on the matter as a civil rights issue, without regard to your emotional involvement?
Just because some people are assholes doesn't mean that the rights argument is not valid. I think civil unions for everyone would be a great solution (assuming that the federal government also follows suit).
Just because some people are assholes doesn't mean that the rights argument is not valid.
When someone claims the argument is about rights, but will accept no compromise that does not include the word "marriage", then the argument is dishonest.
I think civil unions for everyone would be a great solution
I agree.
NOM and other anti-gay groups are also opposed to ANY legal recognition of gays, including civil unions, and want the status quo enshrined in constitutions where possible.
Basically, they want gay people to disappear.