Disappointment: Appeals Court Stalls California Marriage
The NYT:
The story is just out as I write this, and there are not many details.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court panel ruled on Monday that same-sex couples could not marry in California while the court considers the constitutionality of the state's ban on gay marriage.
But the panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set a relatively aggressive schedule for considering the case, with briefings in the fall and a hearing the week of December 6. California Gay Marriage on Hold as Case Is Appealed
The story is just out as I write this, and there are not many details.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled earlier this month that the ban was unconstitutional.
He also said last week that gay marriages could resume while higher courts considered the matter. But the brief ruling by the three-judge appellate panel reverses that, granting a stay on allowing gay marriage during the appeal.
The panel gave no reason for its decision.
posted by JimK at 8:31 PM
35 Comments:
Gay Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its result.
By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. The opinion is arbitrary and capricious.
Structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker.
Also Walker's opinion pretends that the evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist. It neither acknowledges nor attempts to distinguish the writings of scholars presented at trial in support of Proposition 8, including that of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, history professor Robina Quale and social scientist Kingsley Davis. It ignores the writings of legal giant William Blackstone and philosophers John Locke and Bertrand Russell. It even refused to address the fact that Congress, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof), Walker's opinion denied the relevance of that biological fact. That difference has been the main reason civilization recognized the uniqueness of marriage as between a man and woman, and why courts have repeatedly relied on that common-sense truth.
Despite evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary, the judge also declared that opposite sexes were never part of the "historical core of the institution of marriage"; "evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different than opposite-sex couples"; traditional marriage is an "artifact"; and, also without reference to the monumental evidence to the contrary, that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."
These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record. No appellate court will allow the ruling to stand.
Having ignored everything courts typically rely on in making sound judgments, Walker concluded that Proposition 8 was enacted "without reason" and demonstrates "a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples [and are] . . . not as good as opposite-sex couples." Nothing in Proposition 8 supports such conclusions, particularly since California law grants same-sex couples all the benefits and protections that apply in traditional marriage.
People can differ on whether, as a matter of policy, states should allow same-sex marriage. The robust debate on that topic should not be short-circuited by judicial fiat.
Yet, according to the federal district court, Americans such as President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the majority of members of Congress and the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 are all bigots who have "no rational reason" to oppose gay marriage.
I know you guys have been big promoters of our only Prez to have received a portion of his education in a Muslim school, so I can't help but remark on this latest idiocy.
The whole mosque at Ground Zero issue is a local matter and there was absolutley no reason for Obama to wade in and a world of reason for him to let the matter take its course. It seemed to be going where he wanted it to anyway. Instead, like the Cambridge police story that was the beginning of his downfall, he has to put in his two cents. If you think a penny is pretty, think how beautiful two must be to him.
Then, instead of cutting his losses on this no-win story, he offends the few who would have been impressed by his stance by backtracking.
And this imbecile has his finger on the nuclear button.
You think the American people might prefer that he give a little thought to the unemployment problem?
Y'think?
Religious freedom is an issue for all Americans.
Robert, churches that outgrow their facilities are often fought by neighborhood associations when they try to relocate.
Nine times out of ten, the associations win.
We regulate where it is best to locate churches without it being regarded as unconstitutional. That's because no one says churches can't exist. But that doesn't mean they have carte blanche to do whatever they want without regard to the desires of the community at large. Why can't we say the same about mosques?
Would freedom of religion really be breached if some zoning commission said it would be better to locate the mosque in mid-town?
And, btw, when will Mr Barry "concerned about freedom of religion" Obama comment on the fact that Bibles, churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia? Indeed, our very infidel presence there was bin Laden's rationale for his attack on America.
Maybe the Saudi king will say something about it when they celebrate Passover in Mecca this year.
The appropriate boards in NYC approved the location of the community center and mosque. The RWEs oppose it explicitly because it is Muslim. There are 10 churches, 3 synagogues and a variety of adult businesses in that neighborhood. You're being either deliberately naive or deliberately disengenuous.
To be honest, I think it's an artificial issue created by conservative provocateurs to create an issue they think will play against Democrats in the elections. It's like the Republican Party in Virginia playing the race card and the gay card: deliberate ramping-up of prejudice for political purposes.
Dirty pool: they should be ashamed.
It's like the anchor-baby issue: xenophobia as a political tactic. It smacks of fascism.
"The appropriate boards in NYC approved the location of the community center and mosque."
indeed
so why is Obama jumping into the situation?
"The RWEs oppose it explicitly because it is Muslim."
indeed
a group of Muslims fanatics killed 3000 people a couple of blocks away and there justification was Islamic laws forbidding the presence of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula
do you understand why building a "center" to promote Islam a couple of blocks from this site is a little provocative?
"There are 10 churches, 3 synagogues and a variety of adult businesses in that neighborhood."
Christians, Jews and pornographers didn't blow up the WTC nor did anyone justifying it in the name of Judeo-Christianity or smut.
"You're being either deliberately naive or deliberately disengenuous."
actually, just trying to help a slow teacher from Fairfax understand world history a little better
"To be honest, I think it's an artificial issue created by conservative provocateurs to create an issue they think will play against Democrats in the elections."
so, you'd agree then that Obama acted stupidly over the weekend?
"It's like the Republican Party in Virginia playing the race card and the gay card: deliberate ramping-up of prejudice for political purposes."
again, Obama raised the profile of the issue
"Dirty pool: they should be ashamed."
oh yeah, all sensitive people should be
"It's like the anchor-baby issue: xenophobia as a political tactic. It smacks of fascism."
talk about someone who should be ashamed
anyone who says they think America "smacks" of fascism is either not living here or lying or insane
no further comment...
btw, ever wonder why there are no Red Cross trucks in Medina?
republicans 12 points up in the generic congressional ballot.
and iran goes nuclear this weekend. chalk that up as one more victory for Obama's agenda.
and iran going nuclear this weekend is on the front page of fox, as it should be. couldn't find that story at all on cnn or msnbc.
unreal. anyone think that's important ?
of course they had to stay the opinion
Gay Judge Vaughn didn't explain why gays should be allowed to redefine marriage
everyone has a right to it but not to redefine it
Vaughn will have no effect
Wasn't eliminating the ban against interracial marriages a redefinition of marriage, "Anonymous"...or will you somehow twist that to indicate your wholehearted support of equal rights for those people who get your stamp of approval?
and...incidentally...the decision in that situation was handed down by "heterosexual" judges. I love your double-standard ethics!
anyone think that's important
Yes, the rightwing fear-mongers over at FOX News think it's important.
Note: it was the GOP neocons who wrongly decided Iraq was the country hiding a nuclear program, weapons of mass destruction, and needed its regime changed, not Iran. Oops, no weapons of mass destruction over there!
Back to FOX News. Who else can't wait to find out which GOP group after the Republican Governors Association will get the next million dollar Murdock contribution?
Anon said:
"Gay Judge Vaughn didn't explain why gays should be allowed to redefine marriage
everyone has a right to it but not to redefine it"
That is beautifully put, Anon -- succinct, memorable and true!
"Wasn't eliminating the ban against interracial marriages a redefinition of marriage,"
I'm glad you asked.
No, it wasn't.
Interracial marriage was once illegal. That was wrong but no one ever said it didn't meet the definition of marriage. Races have intermarried from the beginning. One of Moses' wives was black.
Homosexuals, however, want a new definition of what marriage is.
so, a single gay judge in California has decided that when homosexuals shack up, the government has to call that "marriage"
gee, why didn't we ask some random gay guy years ago and save ourselves a lot of trouble?
prepare the impeachment papers
"it was the GOP neocons who wrongly decided Iraq was the country hiding a nuclear program, weapons of mass destruction, and needed its regime changed,"
well, them and every major intelligence agency in the world and all the moderate Republicans and most Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden
the Iraq war was approved by large majorities of Congress
are you saying we should invade Iran now?
"Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in United States Congress in 1871, 1912–1913 and 1928, a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them."
The Supreme Court decision handed down in the Loving case changed the definition of marriage. No longer was marriage limited to same race couples, and instead marriage became available to everyone across racial lines.
It wasn't only the Loving decision, but every one of those binding Supreme Court precedents on marriage was decided by heterosexual judges.
the decision didn't change the definition, as is easily demonstrated by the fact that not all states have made it illegal
it was fine in most states, therefore, obviously, interracial didn't contradict the definition
The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
In the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692.
This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race."
Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.
In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham."
Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. Later, in 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law after abolitionists protested against it. However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such such as Illinois and California enacted such laws.
don't why you keep posting all these historical details which don't prove your point
government didn't invent marriage and doesn't define it
that certain jurisdictions decided to ban certain types of marriage is irrelevant
marriage between individuals of different races is marriage as long as they are of opposite gender
relationships between homosexuals don't meet the definition
The gay movement has been trying for years to equate homosexuality with race. Sorry but the comparison just doesn't work for most Americans.
They see right through it!
damned if it doesn't look like pro-family forces won another one
I'm not sure if it is accurate to label groups which oppose legal protections for lgbt families (including their children) as "pro-family" forces.
Seems to me that they are against certain families.
Anti-gay is a more accurate adjective.
they are against the dilution of the meaning of family by expanding it to include deviant relationships
that's pro-family and it's a view Americans have repeatedly expressed when allowed to vote on it
the action of the gay judge in California shows why it is unwise for homosexuals to serve in judicial positions
No, I'm definitely am not "saying we should invade Iran now." I'm pointing out how wrong the neocons turned out to be. The country in the Axis of Evil that had the nuclear program capable of becoming weapons of mass destruction was Iran, not Iraq.
Oh yeah, and Osama bin Laden is still breathing.
Anonymous names himself as not being me.
Is it not improper to insult people anonymously?
It is certainly cowardly.
It also removes any strength froms one's arguments.
I'm another Anon but ho ho -- as if "Robert" is not an anonymous name! ho ho -- I'll call myself "John" -- now everyone will know who I am! Whew!
"that's pro-family and it's a view Americans have repeatedly expressed when allowed to vote on it"
And in each successive vote and poll, the number of Americans who support marriage equality has grown until just recently a majority of 52% of Americans polled expressed such support.
In America freedom, equality, and justice for all were enshrined in our Constitution and continue to prevail. Those who prefer to live in a land that does not extoll freedom, equality, and justice for all are free to move out.
You must be new to Vigilance, Anon. We all know who Robert is. He's Robert Rigby, Jr., latin teacher in Fairfax County public schools.
He's man enough to sign his name to comments he posts but you sure like wearing that hood, don't you? You are not alone.
I am honored to have come to know Robert through his comments posted here. His comments stand out and are always reasoned and polite, and his bravery in standing up to people like you is inspiring.
Thank you, Robert, for your fine example of how an honorable man should behave.
"Anonymous names himself as not being me.
Is it not improper to insult people anonymously?"
why would that be an insult, robo?
"And in each successive vote and poll, the number of Americans who support marriage equality has grown until just recently a majority of 52% of Americans polled expressed such support."
no vote anywhere in America has supported the redefinition of marriage
polls are unreliable
"In America freedom, equality, and justice for all were enshrined in our Constitution and continue to prevail."
and homosexuals still enjoy all three even if we don't redefine marriage to allow them to pretend to be something they aren't
"Those who prefer to live in a land that does not extoll freedom, equality, and justice for all are free to move out."
if you don't like our laws, democratically determined, you are free to leave
try Iran
"I'm pointing out how wrong the neocons turned out to be. The country in the Axis of Evil that had the nuclear program capable of becoming weapons of mass destruction was Iran, not Iraq."
neocons weren't the sole parties that supported the Iraq invasion
it was supported across a broad spectrum, including most Democraps
"Oh yeah, and Osama bin Laden is still breathing"
well, when is Obama gonna catch Osama?
"well, when is Obama gonna catch Osama?"
Well before George W. Bush ever does, that's for sure!
that remains to be seen
so far, he's giving the international community the impression that opposing him has no consequences
they laugh at him
And they're still laughing at him even as he hides out on his ranch in Texas.
Osama and Obama
two kinds of crazy bookends
Post a Comment
<< Home