World -   

1
Molly McKay, left, reads the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stating that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in front of the James Browning United States Courthouse in San Francisco, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP / Bay Area News Group, The Tribune, Dan Honda) Robin Tyler, right, who with her partner Diane Olson, not shown, became the first same-sex couple to wed in Los Angeles County in 2008, embraces her attorney Gloria Allred after hearing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on the validity of gay marriage, in Los Angeles Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP / Reed Saxon) Stuart Gaffney, centre, holds up a sign while celebrating the decision in the United States District Court proceedings challenging Proposition 8 outside of the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010. (AP / Eric Risberg)

California ban on same-sex marriages ruled unconstitutional

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News Channel: Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional
CTV's Los Angeles Bureau Chief Tom Walters explains the split decision that resulted in the ruling that California's ban on same-sex marriage is indefensibly discriminatory.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (30) Facebook   

Molly McKay, left, reads the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stating that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in front of the James Browning United States Courthouse in San Francisco, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP / Bay Area News Group, The Tribune, Dan Honda) Robin Tyler, right, who with her partner Diane Olson, not shown, became the first same-sex couple to wed in Los Angeles County in 2008, embraces her attorney Gloria Allred after hearing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on the validity of gay marriage, in Los Angeles Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP / Reed Saxon) Stuart Gaffney, centre, holds up a sign while celebrating the decision in the United States District Court proceedings challenging Proposition 8 outside of the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco, Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010. (AP / Eric Risberg)

Photos

Molly McKay, left, reads the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stating that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in front of the James Browning United States Courthouse in San Francisco, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP / Bay Area News Group, The Tribune, Dan Honda)

View Larger Image

Date: Tue. Feb. 7 2012 5:36 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

The passage of the ban followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favourable ruling.

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

The court crafted a narrow decision that applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states.

"Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question," the court said. "We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case."

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his lower-court decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man. Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker's ruling on constitutional grounds and because of the judge's personal life. 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 the claims about Walker's personal life.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 per cent 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 California 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 married 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.

With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los Angeles, plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8.

Comments are now closed for this story

Jim
said

Newsflash to the homophobes the "majority" of people don't care if gay people get married. It's the loud minority for and against that get all the attention though.


TNanaimo
said

It's sad to see such comments in this day and age. I don't see any issue with anyone, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered wanting to get married. The whole purpose of a marriage is to pronounce your love for another, pledging to spend the rest of your life with them for better or worse, in sickness and in health. Who cares what parts they have, and if they are the same as yours or not. Everyone has a right to be happy, and to feel equal with everyone else. Is it right to say an inter-racial couple shouldn't get married because the color of their skin is different? Of course not. And neither should sex be an issue.


SAME SEX MARRIAGE ALL WAY! YES!
said

By Anne commenter above's logic... Marriage should be between woman and dog PERIOD!!!!Hmmm yes that logic is sounds.....


GUTSHOT!! in Thunder Bay
said

Nothing like activist judges who rule against the voting people they work for. I wish we could have had a vote here in Canada. Let those who practice debauchery come up with their own name for their relationships.


Get Real
said

Unconstitutional: The new word to be used in every cases. Next will be; it is unconstitutional not to be able to cheat on your spouse without consequences. Who can tell a human who he can or not sleep with, or like, or love. It is unconstitutional not to have the right to fall out of love. And it is unconstitutional to lose your house and kids just because you fall in love with someone else,,,, What a messy world,, soon people will have the right to marry their pets!!


crampdstyl
said

Keith - the voters had a say, but the courts overturned their wishes. They voted "no", as has about 30 other states. But now the courts have set a precedence and it will become law. Canada just eliminated all the costs involved with "shoving it down our throats".


John Lethbridge
said

No matter how you spin this, the 'Fathers' of the American Constitution are turning over in their graves.


Ken in Ottawa
said

I am ashamed of some of the comments made by my fellow Canadians. By allowing gay couples to marry....how does this take anything away from you?


RoC
said

A message to US politicians by allowing this to go thru you will upset a majority of the voters and make a mockery of your country. Don’t make the same mistake as Canada!


George Thompson
said

Chill people. The sun will still come up tomorrow.


JD
said

Just as there were people who were outraged that women were allowed to vote, eventually they died off. The same will happen here.


James
said

@Anne: Conservatives always lose in the end, I'd have thought you'd be used to it by now.


Jarrett
said

Why should it be only between a man and a woman? Who can answer that and keep the answer free of religious views?


Laurie
said

It is not unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, however, the supreme court is ruled by liberals just as has been a problem in the past in Canada. If American's think that this is victory, think again....this is contributing to the destruction of the fabric of society and along with the economic woes will see the America's decline on the fast track. No apologies for speaking out.


D in L
said

It's amazing how many things you AREN'T allowed to do down in the increasingly inappropriately self-proclaimed "land of the free".


Well Said
said

Well said Keith! and Anne! I don't recall ever being given the opportunity to vote on legalizing same sex marriage here in Canada. Somehow I thought we were supposed to live in a democratic society. Same sex marriage give me a break. What will people want next? To be able to marry their pet?! Come on already.


tyler
said

@Anne I have been with my partner for 8 years and we now raise a son together. We can get married here so get over it and go hide in your church.... people have died for this kind of hate... Until you stand up and stop the bigotry people will still keep killing themselves or getting murdered... Stop the hate already. Period.


MinHemmingford
said

I am really sorry that Keith had gay marriage shoved down his throat, too bad he couldn't have just been allowed to marry a woman. Seriously, are we really going backwards in this country? This debate is over in Canada, we are a civilized society and respect all of our citizens.


Jon Davidson, Barrie, Ontario
said

The wrong decision, in my view. I agree with Anne on this issue and suspect that many other people do, as well. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .


JimMB
said

If you're opposed to same sex marriage, don't marry a same sex partner. What other people do is none of your business. See how easy that is.


ProudCanadian
said

what's the problem no one is asking you homophobic people to come to their weddings and their not asking you to try it. why can't people just let it go. straight isn't the only way of life.


frank
said

So much for majority rules and the mighty vote. Will they change an election result because they feel the rights of the other Party were violated by the majority of the people. Very bad decision that should be appealled. As a matter of fact what right does a court have in over ruling 20 million people. Anarchy is knocking on our door.


Derek
said

Marriage should be between two people that love each other, between two people that respect each other, between two people that will strive to make each other happy for the rest of their lives. Marriage is about love. Period.


Mark
said

That's right. Government by and for the people should be replaced with judical panels who make all laws, regardless of what citizens say or want.


Dvae
said

It's not about what the majority want - but equal rights for all - if the majority voted for slavery wouldn't make it right or legal


Tom in Calgary
said

How refreshing to hear that "equality" is getting some meaning back in the US. Democracy was never intended to allow the majority to supress the rights of the minority.


Anne
said

Marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Period.


clane
said

So, by this logic any Judge who is heterosexual and votes in favor of prop 8 should have their vote overturned because of their biased personal life


Vanc Guy
said

When the minority rule! Civil union is fine but marriage it aint!


keith
said

At least voters in California had a say in the matter, not like Canada where things are shoved down our throats with no representation of what the majority of Canadians want.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's World Stories

This combo made with undated photos made available by the Miami-Dade Police Dept. shows Rudy Eugene, 31, left, who police shot and killed as he ate the face of Ronald Poppo, 65, right, during a horrific attack in the shadow of the Miami Herald's headquarters

Face-chewing victim has months of treatment ahead

More

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor waits for the start of his sentencing judgement in the courtroom of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Leidschendam, near The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday May 30, 2012.  (AP / Toussaint Kluiters)

Charles Taylor gets 50 years for 'brutal' crimes

More   5 Comments 5    2 Video(s) 2

Most Talked about Stories

While Branson's comments (and activities) are arrogant in a million different ways, Clark's response was admirable. She kept her sense of humour with her joke about Branson's brand-name and his bad pick-up line, showing why humour is often the best response to arrogance.

D Austin (Fredericton)

B.C. premier rebuffs Branson's naked kitesurfing invite