Defenders of marriage in California will appeal Tuesday’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that upheld a district judge’s decision against the state’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The ProtectMarriage.com legal defense team, including Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, expressed no surprise that the lawsuit over the amendment, which protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, would progress beyond the three-judge 9th Circuit panel as has been long predicted by parties on both sides.
... “No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.”
“We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage--tried in San Francisco--turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court,” Raum added. “Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.”
25 Comments
Marriage between a woman and man is still protected. Why do you continuoulsy lie. Marriage between 1 woman and 1 man will still exist alongside marriage equality! It does not need to be protected as it is not in danger of being eliminated.
How did the overturning of Prop H8 injure anyone's marriage? I have yet to see NOM provide any proof showing a single marriage harmed by marriage equality. This is because you can't. What is a major threat to marriage in this country is DIVORCE. Why aren't you decrying the ease by which married couples can split up? This harms the children. This attacks the institution of marriage. This should be what you're fighting for. Instead you fight for something that you cannot prove to be true--marriage equality has hurt anyone. It hasn't. It doesn't. It won't.
It is weird how the anti-gays act like different-sex marriage is going to be outlawed when same-sex marriage is legalized. Not at all, rest assured! Straight people will still be allowed to marry, so long as they behave!
Keep fighting! And just know that when God gets tired of this mess, it won't be pretty. 8 Million people voted against homosexual marriage and that is being thrown away. So tell me again why people should vote?
Our children's understanding of the word and of the meaning of marriage will be undermined. And the culture will then proceed to confuse them and manipulate them for economic benefits etc, under the easy attention getting and money making mesmerizing subject of sex weather it be heteroSEXual or homoSEXual – ah the new markets to be had! Don't decide to early what you like young one, try all the different possibilities first; there's no harm in it.
This is not helpful to our children or our society. And it is most harmful to the developing psyche of our children not to have a specific word for such a unique union as the man and woman life and family creating one as marriage (even if the marriage be just a symbol of that potential of life, as is a childless man woman marriage or an adoptive man woman marriage.) Single parents and divorced parents don't change that the child is being taught the truth that it takes a man and a woman to make a human life. And that possibility of doing your own reproduction my child is also part of the basic reason why you will want to get married. SS couple need to find another word to their union if they want to be just to our society and to our children. For their couple is not the same as the hetero couple on some of the most important points in the definition of marriage. To say that they are the same thing is a lye.
To comments 1 and 2 etc
Our children's understanding of the word and of the meaning of marriage will be undermined. And the culture will then proceed to confuse them and manipulate them for economic benefits etc, under the easy attention getting and money making mesmerizing subject of sex weather it be heteroSEXual or homoSEXual – ah the new markets to be had! Don't decide to early what you like young one, try all the different possibilities first; there's no harm in it.
This is not helpful to our children or our society. And it is most harmful to the developing psyche of our children not to have a specific word for such a unique union as the man and woman life and family creating one as marriage (even if the marriage be just a symbol of that potential of life, as is a childless man woman marriage or an adoptive man woman marriage.) Single parents and divorced parents don't change that the child is being taught the truth that it takes a man and a woman to make a human life. And that possibility of doing your own reproduction my child is also part of the basic reason why you will want to get married. SS couple need to find another word to their union if they want to be just to our society and to our children. For their couple is not the same as the hetero couple on some of the most important points in the definition of marriage. To say that they are the same thing is a lye.
The court did not really re-define marriage today.What happened is this: 1. today, the court said that the California State Supreme Court determined that in the meaning of the existing state constitution, same sex marriage was in fact constitutional. 2. Today, the court went on to say that the California State Supreme COurt had also found that marriage was a basic, fundamental right of the people of California. 3. Today, the Court then said that almost always, a referendum on a subject must be respected EXCEPT in the instance in which it is removing a fundamental right.
Proposition 8 removed the right of same sex couples to marriage, which the California Supreme COurt had already said existed. Today's court says that this kind of retroactive removal of an existing right without making an adequate demonstration of the government interest in doing so was against the US constitution Due Process Clause.
It sounds like Proposition 8 may have been legal had it occurred prior to the State Supreme Court finding that the wording of the existing state constitution allowed it. Since Prop 8 occurred after the right was announced by the court in 2008, it is illegal.
This decision is so California focused that it has no precedence value outside of that state.
I think that we should save the many millions of dollars that it will take on this issue, and focus on the corporal works of mercy instead. THere are too many existing families and marriages breaking up because of poverty and job loss. Let's help those folks.
Heres hoping the supreme court upholds traditional marriage.
The California Supreme court mistakenly interpreted the California state constitution so as to convey a right to redefine marriage which necessitated the people of California to step in and clarify what the state constitution meant.
After all; it is the peoples constitution to do with as they please and not the courts.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many gays post comments on this website. Marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman the way the Church is to God. It is all spelled out in the Bible. Just because there are divorces does not make marriage any less of a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. There is nothing wrong with the institution of marriage the way God created it to be. There is something wrong with people and with culture. Gays think they are going to do a better job than heterosexuals. Just because one can sin very well does not make it a truth. A gay union will never be equal to a heterosexual union just by the nature of their acts. A baby can be born out of the physical lovemaking union of a man and woman. No child can nor ever will be born out of a physical 'lovemaking' union between two men or two women. So there is no such thing as 'marriage equality' as gays would have the world believe. This volatile controversy over same sex marriage will continue to be a war of words. The only way this will be settled is by God not by man.
Look at it this way. it was a 2-1 decision in the most liberal courts in the country. If not even the most liberal court in the country can unanimously decide for gay marriage, there is NO WAY that the Supreme Court is going to uphold it. You have the most overturned court in the country, not to mention Walker getting overturned for abuse of power. Insult and mock all you want, it is not going to help at all.
@JS
That makes too much sense. Stop making sense.
@John
I'm prayin.
keep your silly biblical laws to yerselves. leave a 4000 y.o. book of morals, written by a bunch of desert nomads, behind. you are using a medium ( the computer), they never even could have imagined, peace, Lenny
@John
Yes, and consider this as well: they ruled on narrow grounds, so as to be overruled on narrow grounds. That might tell us something about how they think this case is likely to fare before SCOTUS.
JR: "It never ceases to amaze me how so many gays post comments on this website."
We all know that SSMers are obsessed with NOM because it's so effective. The constant attention makes me feel proud of NOM, my organization, the preeminent voice for protecting the institution of marriage!
JS: Maybe gays are God's natural birth control.
I suppose those whom the Ninth Circus Court accuses of "animus" are those among us who have gay relatives, acquaintances, and colleagues whom we accept, perhaps even respect and admire but who now must be (ignorant, bigoted, hateful) "homophobes" simply because we oppose gay "marriage" and defend the sanctity of true marriage as the union of male and female!
You did a lousy job trying to sidestep the marriage issue...We don't give up on the morality of our culture...We fight, we win!
What I don't understand is how the 9th can uphold a lower court ruling by not addressing the lower court ruling.
It was Walker's ruling that was being appealed wasn't it?
Reading about this ruling, I can not help but notice its similarity to another ruling, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (D. Neb. 2005) It was the first court ruling to strike down a state marriage amendment on U.S. Constitutional grounds. Like this ruling, Citizens for Equal Protection did not decide whether “definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman” violated the Constitution. id. at 997 It relied heavily on Romer. e.g., id. at 1001-1002 It found that “that Section 29 is indistinguishable from the Colorado constitutional amendment at issue in Romer” It found that “that Section 29 was designed against the class it affects, making it status-based” id. at 1002 “Section 29 goes so far beyond defining marriage that the court can only conclude that the intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against this class” id. It held that “[p]laintiffs were denied access to the legislative process that is afforded to all citizens of the State of Nebraska.” id. at 1003
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit overturned this ruling on the basis that “[i]f the many state laws limiting the persons who may marry are rationally related to a legitimate government interest, so is the reinforcing effect of § 29.” 455 F.3d 859 at 868 (8th Cir. 2006)
One portion of the district court ruling that was not overruled was the opinion that “[i]n other words, preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a relationship involving a man and a woman, and an eventual recognition of expanded rights in the nature of those extended in other states to domestic partners or civil unions are not mutually exclusive.” 368 F.Supp.2d 1004 By contrast, the Ninth Circuit ruling implied that “preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a relationship involving a man and a woman” and “expanded rights in the nature of those extended in other states to domestic partners or civil unions” are mutually exclusive.
"Marriage between 1 woman and 1 man will still exist"
Not as a permissible legal definition. Legal marriage will only be between two people of unnamed gender, and any law that recognizes any gender difference between the marriage partners will be unconstitutional. This will work greatly to the disadvantage of women.
The dissent was narrowly written as well to allow the SCOTUS to uphold Prop 8 and avoid the bigger issues. But as one blogger put it
"Now we must await the word of Justice Kennedy, who is the single person in the United States who will determine whether the citizens of California are rational or irrational."
This, of course, is the tyrannical mindset of the current judicial system and reminds me of the lines in Julius Caesar
"Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
"now we must await the word of Justice Kennedy..."
Well, not quite.
Now we must await the choice of the losing party.
Do they want to just let this go (not likely),
Ask a 11 judge in-banc panel of the 9th circuit to re-try the appeal, or
Ask the USSC to hear the case.
If they ask the 9th circuit to hear the case, the 9th circuit can accept or decline.
If they ask the USSC, the USSC can:
Refuse to hear the case because of its limited scope and CA has already ruled (District, 9th circuit),
Hear the case strictly on the limited scope merits, or
Hear the case and judge on the broader, national issues.
It will be interesting, to be sure.
I can't help but wonder, given that many or most who oppose same gender marriage are religious, if many don't have bisexual tendencies, and therefore feel that sexual orientation or behavior is a choice? And also that given options they may have chosen to follow their same gender attractions instead. But since their religion forbids such relationships, they had no other choice.
When you hear the language that many of them use, it seems to lend creedence to this theory. But that's just a thought I had, and more evidence would be needed.
I can't help but wonder, given that many or most who oppose same gender marriage are religious, if many don't have bi tendencies, and therefore feel that one's orientation or behavior is a choice? And also that given options they may have chosen to follow their same gender attractions instead. But since their religion forbids such relationships, they had no other choice.
When you hear the language that many of them use, it seems to lend creedence to this theory. But that's just a thought I had, and more evidence would be needed.