Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules [View all]highplainsdem
(60,988 posts)18. Great news! LA Times link:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
-snip-
In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walkers ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship. Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly gay, said after his ruling that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and partner wished to marry.
ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday's decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.
-snip-
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My first post when this all began was that it would be called unconstitutional.
Gregorian
Feb 2012
#13
Here's hoping the opponents spend hundreds of millions more in a losing SC appeal.
Ikonoklast
Feb 2012
#32
Well there goes the neighborhood. So much for that much desired monoculture of uptight ethics.
Gregorian
Feb 2012
#37
Great point. And we dont want it to go higher with this SCOTUS. Once they rule it is very hard to
rhett o rick
Feb 2012
#75
The consequences of losing is too great for the risk in my opinion when the possibility
rhett o rick
Feb 2012
#100
I understand completely. I meant that with the risk, I hope it doesnt go at this time. nm
rhett o rick
Feb 2012
#105
Kennedy was the deciding vote in Romer v. Evans, and wrote the opinion, I believe.
morningfog
Feb 2012
#110
