Appeals court rejects one challenge to gay marriage ban, refers another to state Supreme Court

A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected Imperial County's challenge to a judge's ruling that California voters' ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

DOCUMENTS: Read the court's opinion and other filings

However, the ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sought guidance from the California Supreme Court as to whether Proposition 8 supporters have the right to appeal the Aug. 4 ruling that the voter initiative illegally deprives gay couples of their constitutional right to equal protection.

Proposition 8 supporters have petitioned the court for the right to appeal in the place of state officials who declined to challenge U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's landmark ruling five months ago.

Imperial County's Board of Supervisors and deputy clerk had filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the Proposition 8 proponents as well, arguing that county officials had a vested interest in the issue of whether the law passed by a 52% majority of voters in 2008 should be enforced. The appeals court said marriage laws are a state, not a county, matter.

RELATED:

Gay marriage opponents' right to defend ban may be decided by California Supreme Court

-- Carol J. Williams

Comments

[Thomas Alex]

This title is misleading!

[Greg Maragos]

The 9th's decisions are frequently reversed. They have made their intentions to declare Prop. 8 unconstitutional very clear. The only thing that is slowing them down, and the justices have even said as much out loud as they attempt to muddle their way through this morass, is how they can craft a decision that is worded in such a way that it will not be overturned by the U.S. Supreme court. Whenever justices so openly talk about a decision that is engineered to achieve a specific result, clearly, we have crossed completely over from interpreting the law to simply re-writing it in a fashion that suits the court's personal notions of what is nice and fair, rather than what is constitutional.

[Marco Budgyk]

The attorney representing Imperial County in front of the Ninth Circuit last month had to have given one of the worst appellate presentations ever. So it's only appropriate that they be the first ones eliminated from the case.

[jr]

Why doesn't any California citizen that voted in the Proposition 8 election have standing to appeal court decisions on proposition 8? Their right to change the California Constitution by proposition is how all voters are impacted.

[Leslie]

This might continue for years to the point that any US Supreme Court decision will not upset anyone.

No one in America will understand what question was asked or settled.

[CalinCA]

I find it interesting how words and names change meaning over the years. Used to be that gay had no reference to homosexuals.

There is another much earlier change that took place, and this is to educate people that say Christ never said anything about homosexuals. Oh yes He did. The New Testament was originally written in Ancient Greek. In Ancient Greek the term Eunuch had a duel meaning. It meant not only castrated males, but also homosexuals. Now…go back and read the New Testament and everywhere it references Eunuch, substitute the word with homosexual, and see what Christ was really saying. Otherwise, what you read doesn’t make sense.

I feel sorry for the people that have been lead astray.

[DanO]

Punt!

[Warren]

“Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997)”
No damages. No legal standing.

Looks like gay marriage will be reinstated

[Ara]

Say rather the judges know that, no matter how they rule, the matter is going to come in front of the Supreme Court, so they are trying to make sure all their i's are dotted and t's are crossed when that happens--basically, trying to look good in front of their bosses.

[JG]

CalinCA you are a retard. The new testament was written after the old testament and the passages that you right wingers draw from are taken out of context from a book translated by illiterate monks who took most of the stories from ancient pagan tales. Bible experts state that no references in the bible refer to homosexuals in the meanings you morons have misinterpreted them to be. Go back and educate yourself.

Jr. You have no right to represent the State of California because you have been represented through the act of voting and through your state representative. Prop 8 will be seen to violate minority rights in which case your "vote" is null and void.

[Mark H]

I wish people would stop using their personal religion to try and enshrine discrimination.

Please see the wikipedia entry for anti-miscegenation laws (outlawing interracial marriage), here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Specifically, this line:

"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".[12]

I wonder how many Americans would vote to re-instate these laws today, given the chance?

[Zach]

CalinCA, I feel sorry for people still bringing religious terms to a discussion of GOVERNMENT law. Get with the program, you may as well bring a basketball to a volleyball game. This confusion is tiresome.

[stephen59]

CalinCA is an illiterate. She has no idea what she is talking about. Zero. None at all. In the process, she seeks to misinform LA Times readers.

The word 'eunuch' was known in koine, the language of post-Alexandrine Greece. Our modern word eunuch is from the Greek eune ("bed") and ekhein ("to keep"); ie, effectively "bed keeper". It refers to the function, usually performed at court and in noble homes, of protecting the harem or its later equivalents.

The word 'homosexual' does not exist in koine. It has no "duel meaning", as CalinCA illiterately mis-spelled. The very concept in language did not arise until the 19th C, in Germany.

The ancient Greeks had an elaborate declension for the categories of homosexual behavior and relationships. The word 'eunuch' was never employed thereby. CalinCA has falsified the record in order to verify her homophobia, and her weird religious beliefs. Jesus never talked about homosexuals, period.

These bigots never stop trying...

[Dog is my Co-pilot]

CalinCA: Why would anyone care what primitive thought prevailed 2000 years ago? Epilepsy was demon possession and women were sold as property.

Why does the bible even play into this. Keep your god and everyone else's out of my government!

Didn't you learn anything from the religious rule of the Taliban. A great example of what happens when "christian" based law takes over is in Uganda where gays are persecuted, raped and executed.

[John De Salvio]

To CalinCa:
Hate to disappoint you, but of the dozens of translations of eunuch from the Koine Greek, none referred to same-sex relationships.
Which New testament book was signed by Jesus?
Did Matthew ask Jesus for his signature?

By the way, do you know the origin of the word "sin"?
It's an Aramaic archery term meaning "missing the mark."
Ergo, your post was a sin.

[Dave Wyman]

Greg wrote: "we have crossed completely over from interpreting the law to simply re-writing it in a fashion that suits the court's personal notions"

Yes!

An earlier precedent for doing the very thing Greg describes was set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on the Bush vs. Gore dispute in the 2000 election, stipulating that their ruling on the law – that vote counting in Florida had to cease before Gore picked up enough votes to win the election –could only be applied once, to that very case.

In that case, the majority on the Supreme Court wanted Bush to win. They didn't want other potential conservative election victories to suffer the same fate if the circumstances were reversed, so the ruling was very narrow.

The 9th court is merely following the leader, or in other words, ye shall reap what ye sow.

[Moose on the Loose]

It's not that we didn't expect this. Now it will be another five years before the State of California's Supreme Court does anything whatsoever. This matter should receive escalation in the courts. And all those Bible-thumping bigots can rot in their own hell.

[stephen59]

CalinCA is such a dunce that she is unaware that, according to herself, Christ actually RECOMMENDED homosexuality.

Remember: CalinCA believes that eunuch = homosexuality.

Keep that in mind while reading this: "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV)

The New Testament recommends castration; ergo, according to CalinCA, Jesus favored homosexuality.

These bigots are the clowns of California: uninformed, ineducable, and good for the occasional laugh. Beyond, they are just incredibly bad citizens.

[UCSBcpa]

"Equal rights under the law, for every man, women and child".... let me know if you see an asterisk in there...

1. I work for a very large company...I am pretty sure if we said that we are no longer going to hire gays, or straight, or red or green, we would be sued by the end of the day. - Simple as that. I know many of you want to say this is about Church NOT state, but sadly, you are ignoring many items that the STATE provides to you due directly from marriage. - Meaning, the state can not simply determine who and who can't get "married" but must make it available to all. Simple. So this is the "Law" of the land, lets look at what our Constitution says...

2. Equal rights under the Constitution: Every man, women and child...

Case closed.

Move on.

Not even a Conservative Supreme court could give free speech rights to COMPANIES yet take away equal rights to gay and lesbian. - No chance, no way.

[misanthropicus]

Rigged this case was by Walker, Arnold and Brown, and now we are in a "fait accompli" type of situation -

Yesterday's crass pardon of Nunez junior showed that Arnold has no consideration whatsoever for the California laws and the voters' saying - anything he's doing is for acquiring popularity in various groups that make for the Democrat constituency, i.e. homosexuals and Mexicans -

And this has been perfectly illustrated by his tricking the electorate who voted the 8, by not not showing up in the Court (like his AG, Moonbeam Jerry) and as such showing Walker the road for his ruling - which cannot be challenged by anyone, because only Sacramento has a standing in this matter -

As far as LA Times "However, the ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sought guidance from the California Supreme Court as to whether Proposition 8 supporters have the right to appeal the Aug. 4 ruling [...]"

Garbage - of course the colection of clowns collegues of Ronald George, another judicial miscreant, will say that prop 8 supporters HAVE NO RIGHT to appeal - after all, wasn't this Arnold's and Brown calculation when they refused in the first place to appear in Walker's court to defend the law?

Fraudulent courts, corrupt judges, abject governors and DA=-s, crass MSM - this is decadence, and this is California -

[misanthropicus]

RE jr: [...] Why doesn't any California citizen that voted in the Proposition 8 election have standing to appeal court decisions on proposition 8? Their right to change the California Constitution by proposition is how all voters are impacted. [...]

Because Arnold and Brown by not showing in Walker's court to support prop 8 (their obligation as governor and AG) allowed Walker design his decision as to be endorsed by the appeals - no one has standing anymore to challenge his ruling -

This was realy judicial collusion& malversation -

[Zach]

"This was realy judicial collusion& malversation - "

Or maybe our officials decided it wasn't worth wasting time and tax dollars on arguing semantics. Heaven forbid a Republican put fiscal responsibility (to say nothing of civil liberties) ahead of right-wing special interests!

[Tim]

The case was already decided. An appeal is just that, "an appeal of the verdict." A verdict is only appealed if the losing side believes the verdict was in error. The Governer and Attorney General had no obligation to appeal since they didn't believe the verdict was in error. The losing side is always free to let the initial decision stand and, like it or not, they were on the losing side and decided to allow the decision to stand.

[Zeolit]

Time to clean house from the top down. We need People representing the People, not indiscriminate politicians and legal officials making our choices for us. Let the people's voice be heard please.

[jef]

Let me think about this. No one says a gay person cannot get married in California. The law DOES apply equally to ALL. A heterosexual is ALSO prohibited from marrying another person of the SAME sex. Where is the inequality?