Red Flag Warning expires at 11:00 PM on 5/25, issued at 3:15 PM Ridgecrest, CA

Appeals court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 2/07 10:01 am
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday California's voter-approved
ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

The court issued its long-awaited opinion 18 months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married.

The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case.

The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard arguments on the ban's constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether Proposition 8 sponsors had legal authority to challenge the trial court ruling after California's attorney general and governor decided not to appeal it.

The California court ruled in November that the state's vigorous citizens' initiative process grants official proponents of ballot measures the right to defend their measures in court if state officials refuse to do so.

Further complicating the case was a move in April by lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that put Proposition 8 on the ballot to have the trial court ruling struck down because the now-retired judge who issued it was in a long-term relationship with another man.

Judge's sexual orientation became part of case
Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker disclosed he was gay and had a partner of 10 years after he retired from the bench last year. Proposition 8 backers have argued that Walker's relationship posed a potential conflict-of-interest and that he should have revealed it before he declared the measure unconstitutional in August 2010.

It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision. Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected claims that Walker was unqualified to preside over the 13-day trial. The 9th Circuit held a hearing on that question in December.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the state Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.
Share
17 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of KGET TV 17 - In the Spirit of the Golden Empire

jmabbott888 - 2/17/2012 12:10 PM
0 Votes
Garret, this is Kalifornistan.... the land of voting our rights away, just look at the second amendment for proof.

Garret - 2/8/2012 9:06 AM
1 Vote
The courts are in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. They are doing what they are in place to do. The will of the people does not matter if that will is unconstitutional. Civil rights are for all people and therefor marriage is for all people to marry the people of their choose. The Bible is irrelivant here. No one can vote someone else's civil rights away. That is the issue.

jodeno - 2/8/2012 8:44 AM
0 Votes
I'd like for every single one of you to please explain to me how this is such a terrible thing? Why are you so angry, why do you care so much about people you don't even know getting married? I just don't get it, what's the big deal, why are people so hateful? Nobody seems to care about anything anymore, but when it comes to gay rights, suddenly everyone is so passionate.... why is that?

firechief41 - 2/8/2012 12:19 AM
0 Votes
I am a man and absolutely love women. However, I am single and will marry a man strictly for a tax write-off.

Paranah - 2/7/2012 5:09 PM
1 Vote
A republic of the people, by the people, for the people. What a joke! Two times the people of Calif voted overwhelmingly to uphold marriage between a man and woman and two times a court overturns the will of the people for a small minority of verbal loosers. Guess it's time for the working voters who's voice doesn't matter to quit paying income taxes to a government that doesn't listen to them.

ollie - 2/7/2012 4:44 PM
0 Votes
THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE HAVE SPOKEN. NO MORE COULDA,WOULDA,SHOULDA.CASE CLOSED.END OF STORY

ollie - 2/7/2012 4:42 PM
0 Votes
MAMAK IS CORRECT. HOW LONG MUST WE KEEP BEATING A DEAD HORSE? THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO ANOTHER PLANET

jlocke - 2/7/2012 3:46 PM
0 Votes
You can't vote away people's rights. No matter how many people vote, the people cannot vote away rights. It's a constitutional decision, not a denial of your voting. It would be the same decision if somehow people voted that a certain church couldn't exist. If the vote violates the constitution, it can't be upheld. It's that simple.

Idontknowdoyou - 2/7/2012 3:24 PM
2 Votes
Where are the voters constitutional rights of having our "voices" heard and not being overturned by THREE people? Since minors can't legally wed, or have sex until they are 18 (marriage without a parent/legal guardian's consent) aren't we violating their rights too? We need to change that too. This is just the beginning of more nasty things to come. I mean seriously who is the government to tell someone they can't marry their sister or pet or inanimate object? After all if you love someone/thing, that's all that matters, right? Lastly, I hope all these people who will start bashing the Bible (since the Bible defines marriage between and man and woman and says being gay is wrong) look at all our other laws. The majority of the laws this country follows are based on the word of God. - This whole thing makes me sick.

Bryan - 2/7/2012 1:50 PM
1 Vote
It's not over yet, there is still hope for morality.
81°
Clear
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.