BREAKING!!! Prop 8 in California ruled unconstitutional!!

Tuesday 7 Feb 2012 by Liz Miller | 2 Comments
Tagged as: ,

The Ninth District panel ruled that taking away the existing rights of a minority is not kosher. Read the whole story at Prop8TrialTracker.

The ruling applies only to California's special circumstances, but if it stands, it could put the kibosh on efforts in states like Iowa and New Hampshire to repeal marriage equality.

The proponents have a week to ask for an en banc review. If they don't get one, they have 90 days to ask for a Supreme Court review.

Thank you, Ninth Circuit! I really needed some good news today.

[crossposted at DoorbellQueen]

This entry was posted on 07/02/2012 (Tuesday) at 2:18 pm and is filed under Frontpage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Printed from: http://www.loudounprogress.org/?p=3646 .
© Loudoun Progress 2013.

2 Comments   »

  • Epluribusunum says:
    08.02.12 at 09:13

    One step closer to full equality.

    This ruling was quite narrow, but that actually makes it apply more broadly in the long run. This piece from the Wall Street Journal explains why:

    The trial judge in the Perry case held that same-sex marriage was itself protected by the U.S. Constitution. But the Ninth Circuit judges set aside this holding and decided the case on “narrow grounds.” They found that Proposition 8 was analogous to Amendment 2, a Colorado ballot measure that the Supreme Court struck down in Romer v. Evans (1996).

    Amendment 2 barred state and local government in the Centennial State from official actions “designed to protect the status of persons based on their ‘homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.’ ” In a 6-3 ruling, the high court held that the amendment violated equal protection by “imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group.” The author of that decision was Anthony Kennedy.

    What was upheld yesterday was not the right to marriage equality, but something much more profound and important in terms of the likely Supreme Court hearing: The principle that animus toward a group does not justify carving out a special exception to discriminate against them.

  • liz says:
    08.02.12 at 09:21

    Thank you for the clarification!


RSS feed for comments on this post , TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

CAPTCHA Image
*

  • Recent Comments

    • Barbara Munsey on Take That Statue Down!: um, elderberry, my handhsaking remarks referred to the author of this thread, John Flannery. The Kellys have their own issues, i.e....
    • Hillsboro on Take That Statue Down!: Just in time, Elder Berry shows up to Godwin this thread!
    • Elder Berry on Take That Statue Down!: You're right, EPU. My memory is the same as yours. The last go round of his foul mouth activity ended...
    • Pariahdog on Virginia GOP doubles down on detachment from reality: Thanks for the excellent post. Next, we need an accounting of the members of the local Republican delegation that bow...
    • Barbara Munsey on Take That Statue Down!: EPU, it wasn't quite QB VII quality in the Grigsby trial, but the judgement rendered was a very small fraction...
    • Hillsboro on Take That Statue Down!: Barbara, I think John Flannery may be trying to overcompensate for something. Anyhoo, I know my place. ...
    • Epluribusunum on Take That Statue Down!: John: My understanding is that Mr. Grigsby was eventually required to pay the amount of the judgment against him in...
    • Barbara Munsey on Take That Statue Down!: I find it interesting that he assumes you are a woman in order to demean you. So much for...