Appeals court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?_r=1

My view is that this law was not only unconstitutional but also totally hateful. So: good riddance.

this made me smile when I read the news earlier!

\m/   <--- fist in air.  ;)

Wow!

Yeah! I wanted to post but you beat me to it kr! Good stuff, and I am not even American! I'm just rooting for this anyway!

Hoo-ray !!! It won't stop the haters, but now they haven't a leg to stand on.

Crazy thought: discrimination is still unconstitutional. We WILL prevail on this. \o/

I completely disagree.

The process was followed according to the process allowed by the State's constitution. Both sides had their chance to get their viewpoints / bend the public will. The "traditionalist" won.... albeit not by much.

What's happening now is the Gay / Lesbian community , not accepting the outcome of the vote , are ignoring what the state constitution says and going to the National constitution. Specifically , the 14th Amendment.

".... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life , liberty , or property without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now.... what is "marriage"?? What the definition? This changes according to country & the primary religion therein.

I've said (somewhere on this board) that according to any Government , it's main concern is that it's citizens obey the laws it makes. In this , it is completely "neutral".... and mostly is influenced by the viewpoints of those currently in charge.

The United States is primarily a Judeo-Christian country , and current laws about marriage are "minimal" in restrictions. Mostly 1-man & 1-woman , genealogy (if any) is several generations apart , residency requirements must be met , and a few others. ***No restrictions on specific religions are made , except for multiple wives / husbands.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution , as far as I can determine , does not apply here. Unless you consider marriage a  privilege  (which I do not , it's a legal binding contract to protect the Rights & Interests of both spouses and the "potential" children therein)  or an Equal Protection issue (which I hold to be more of applying the laws fairly & evenly to everyone)..... then you might have a point.

No.... I strongly disagree with how the courts are interpreting both the California state constitution and the US constitution , and how each apply to this case.

Marriage is a social contract between parties, and the State (read: 'Church') has really no business getting in the middle of it. I think it's pretty fuckin' sad that our forefathers took all the risks inherent in starting this country, in order to break from the Church; only to end up beholden to it, after all. Two people who choose to marry can't, because they don't each have Church/State-approved physical anatomy to do so ? Does that make one of the parties chromosomally unfit to marry ? I think that it's a trip that the same party that squawks about privacy and it's Constitutional right to fill their houses with as many bibles, guns, and rounds of ammo as they can hold; is the same one that would deny Constitutional rights to loving couples because their 'bits' don't fit together in the religiously-approved way. Lame !!

LOVE WINS

What interests me most is the possibility that California's constitution might actually contain parts that are not "constitutional" after all. That will be a significant part of the case Olsen and Boies take to the Supreme court, I would imagine.

Yay, a rare bit of good news!

I have a few thoughts on this issue:

I don't know when marriage became tied into the family and preserving traditional mores, but that certainly wasn't the case throughout most of history.  People didn't choose their spouses up until very recently, i. e. the 20th century.  Marriage was mainly to cement family and property ties.

Marriage means different things to different people, strictly in a legal sense.  Many people do NOT marry for the reasons that I grew up with as a cradle Catholic.

My Libra sees all sides of this issue, which is why I don't have a clear opinion on it.

Glenn,

1.  I actually think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but that's a pretty far out-there opinion.  (It would involve a complete restructure of the tax code, for starters . . . yeah.  Not gonna happen.)

2.  As it is now, marriage affords definite benefits to those who choose to enter into it.  And since some of those benefits come from the government, I do see it as a privilege that is currently being denied to a significant portion (10% is statistically significant) of our state's population.  There is a precendent here, and much of our law is based on precedent.

2a. I also see it as an equal protection thing, because along with some benefits, marriage affords protection to spouses, and to families.  The law doesn't care if your children are adopted or sprung from your genetic material, but it does care if the person you claim as your partner is contractually bonded to you or not.

3.  Slightly tangential, but only slightly:  Most of the people that I know who are involved in the Prop 8 repeal fight are not, in fact, gay or lesbian or any other part of the GLBTxxx.  That's a whole other argument, but I believe if it were a few whiny homosexuals who weren't willing to accept the rule of law, the fight would have long since been over.

The scary thing is that a community voted on something (regardless of whether I personally agree with it) and then 2 people were able to block the will of the people. That's not America as I understand it.

If you look the other way when you favor the decision of the 2 people who blocked the will of the masses, what will you do when you are with the masses and 2 people are able to overturn your vote?

For the record, I don't care who marries who. I do care, very dearly, when power is taken from the people and given to the few.

This shouldn't even be in the constitution to begin with.  It's unconstitutional that they even made it unconstitutional.  

Good to see there are a few leaders who have an actual ability to lead.  With their brain, that is.  Happy day.  :)

Elsa - I think it would have gotten on the ballot again and been overturned, and honestly?  I'd prefer it that way as well.

Edit to add this:  I think I probably see this more harshly than most folks.  I look at it like this:  if a state tried to pass a law promoting racial discrimination, it would be overturned.  If a state tried to pass a law promoting gender discrimination, it would be overturned.  California screwed the pooch on Prop 8, frankly, and my interpretation is that it's unconstitutional mainly because it promotes discrimination based on something which is a natural trait of a person - not based on choices that person makes.