9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Proposition 8 is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court agrees with a lower court which declared California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage as violating the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the voter-approved Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court deliberation of the controversial legislation.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt, reiterating the majority opinion of the court. "The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'."

"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 concludes.

Not that this means same-sex wedding bells are about to resume in the state. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have indicated that they plan to take the battle all the way to the top court in the nation. California voters passed Prop. 8 with a 52% majority, in November 2008, just 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 move prompted a massive campaign to reverse those decisions.

Prop. 8 has arguably been estimated to be one of the costliest legislative campaigns in the nation, and perhaps also one of the most contentious and controversial. In 2010, former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker issued the first ruling against Prop. 8. When it was revealed that Judge Walker was gay and involved in a long-term, same-sex partnership, backers of Prop. 8 decried his decision and called for setting his ruling aside. That was the first time that a judge’s sexual orientation had become grounds for overturning a court decision.

Ironically, Judge Walker was a Republican appointee. He had not indicated whether he and his partner wished to marry.

Walker’s successor, Judge James Ware, rejected the charge that Judge Walker was biased.

All in all, California same-sex couples had just a four-month window in 2008 in which to get married. It is estimated that 18,000 couples did so, and another Calif. Supreme Court ruling upheld those marriages. Signatures are already being gathered for a proposed November repeal of Prop. 8.

Source

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Comment and add to the story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.