Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 February 2012 18:03 Written by Thomas M. Basgil Jr. Tuesday, 07 February 2012 16:49
Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California?s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. A victory for civil rights advocates, the 2-1 vote upheld a lower court?s ruling that Proposition 8 violates the rights of LGBT Americans. The much-anticipated ruling sets the stage for a possible showdown on same-sex marriage in the United States Supreme Court. Prop. 8 was a 2008 ballot initiative in California that put a constitutional ban on marriages between two people of the same sex. The measure overturned a Calif. Supreme Court decision that had ruled in favor of marriage equality.
Supporters of Proposition 8 will likely appeal the ruling before a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges before attempting to go before the United States Supreme Court. Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said, ?Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.? Both sides seem to agree that the Supreme Court is divided on the issue and a ruling could go either way. The video recordings of the case will remain sealed.
The ruling is limited to California. Because the case will most likely be appealed, no new same-sex marriages can be approved by the state until after the decision. Same-sex marriages can resume in California on February 28th if Prop. 8 supporters decide not appeal, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs. Couples joined when marriage equality was legal in California are still considered married by the state.
Speaking for the court, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, ?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.?
? ?Marriage? is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults,? Reinhardt said. ?A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ?registered domestic partnership? does not.?
The organization Americans for Equal Rights sponsored the plaintiffs in the case. Chad Griffin, AFER?s president, explained the importance of the ruling for the acceptance of LGBT youth in the United States. Prop. 8 ?took away [LGBT youth?s] hope for the aspiration of marriage,? he said. The ruling brought ?back hope for those young people, both here in California and around the country.?
In his dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith said, ?Ultimately, I am not convinced that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.? While he agreed that some of the arguments that Prop. 8 supporters brought up were not valid, he wrote that there is a rational basis for the government to oppose same-sex marriage because of ?a rational procreation theory? and ?an optimal parenting theory.?
The historic ruling bodes well for NJ?s marriage equality bill. Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality said, ?Today?s victory also renders Governor Christie?s call for a statewide referendum on marriage equality far less credible.?
David Boies, one of the two lead lawyers along with Ted Olson, said, ?There are days in our nation?s history when we make genuine progress towards our constitutional goal of forming a more perfect union.? Although from different ends of the political spectrum, Boies and Olson believe that today?s ruling is a important step towards full equality for LGBT Americans.
call of duty elite dragonfly courtney stodden drake take care herman cain accuser herman cain accuser election day
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.