The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s argument wasn’t a defense of gay marriage, per se, but it did find the gay marriage ban passed by California voters was unconstitutional. Law Professor William Jacobson explains the Court’s decision was based on the prior right to same-sex marriage in the state, and its opinion that there wasn’t a compelling state interest in outlawing it:
The Court essentially used a bootstrap argument — that since there was a prior right to same-sex marriage (based on a California Supreme Court decision which gave rise to Prop. 8 ) — the taking away of that right without justification violated the 14th Amendment. Judge N.R. Smith filed a 39-page dissent from this finding.
The Court also held that (i) the supporters of Prop. 8 did have standing to defend the law, deferring to the Certified Opinion of the California Supreme Court, and (ii) trial court Judge Walker did not have to recuse himself based on his own longterm same-sex relationship. These two findings were unanimous.
In other words, the ruling only applies in California, and has little impact on the rest of the country – though it’s likely an appeal could have national implications. Opponents of gay marriage can decide whether to appeal the ruling at an en banc hearing (a panel of 9th Circuit judges) or try to take it up with the Supreme Court. The Proposition 8-supporting National Organization of Marriage vowed to appeal the decision today, and the group’s president said he was eager to take the gay marriage fight to the Supreme Court:
“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”
Incidentally, the ruling doesn’t mean gay marriages will start up again in California right away. The verdict won’t take effect for at least 14 days, and could be delayed further by the appeal, according to the Wall Street Journal.
So in essence, there is no such thing as an amendment process? n nFor anyone who thinks that hetero only marriage denies gay people basic rights, it doesn't. Law is inherently a discriminatory construct. Just on the issue of marriage, any state's law can determine a number of things that favor certain people's PREFERENCES (branding homosexuals as a minority because of non-typical preferences is ridiculous). Ultimately, polygamous people and homosexual people have the same right to enter into an opposite gender marriage.
This could become a very interesting precedent if SCOTUS gets it. n nEssentially, the state can not take away any right that you already have. For whatever reason. nNor can it deny anyone else the same rights that are currently being enjoyed by some. n nThis would be an absolute hard line on any future gun control laws, any environmental laws, any laws of any kind that tell people they can't do something they are currently doing. n nHmmm.. Obamacare's mandate comes to mind here…. n nI think that the left is going to really really regret this decision….
It's a no-brainer that if a bloke can marry a bloke, who's to say that marriage should be limited to two people only..something that's already coming up. And what next, after that? Well, let's see. There is the unfairness of ageism, of course. As in, why should children be prevented from joining loving and equal relationships with an adult, or adults…singular or plural, of the same or opposite sex? There must be Constitutional, humanitarian and international principles at stake and plenty of tradition to boot. A major hurdle to overcome, though; selfish and controlling parents who won't let their 8 year-old go out on a date with the friendly gentleman who's been calling insistently. So empowerment will have to happen with changes in the age of majority. Absurd? Maybe for now, just like the idea of a man formally and legally "marrying" another man not too long ago.