A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California’s ban on same-gender marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on Toeiva marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.
The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.
“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.
The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.
FIRST POST 12:30PM EST: Toeiva-rights activists are planning a day of either celebration or protest after an appeals court on Tuesday issues a ruling on whether Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban of same-gender marriage, violates the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling is expected by 10 a.m. and events are planned from West Hollywood to San Francisco. Officials plan to gather at West Hollywood City Hall on Tuesday morning to await the decision, which will be posted online. At 10:30 a.m., Mayor John Duran will hold a press conference.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs, noted lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, will hold a press conference in downtown L.A. They have been leading the legal fight arguing that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.
Various rallies are planned later in the day.
“We are very hopeful that the 9th Circuit will rule in favor of fairness and equality, once and for all putting an end to Prop. 8’s exclusion of loving, committed couples from marriage,” John Lewis, legal director of Marriage Equality USA, said in a statement.
During oral arguments more than a year ago, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to be leaning toward ruling against Proposition 8 but expressed concern about procedural matters.
The judges on the Proposition 8 panel are Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Carter; Michael Daly Hawkins, an appointee of President Clinton; and N. Randy Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
24 Responses
i never understood why the yeshiva world cares whether gays can marry or not in the usa. certainly there are many us laws that violate jewish law including marriage laws that violate jewish law. for example, a man is not allowed to divorce a woman and marry her sister. this is allowed by us laws. there are millions of examples. why do we want this particular law concerning gar marriage to comply with jewish law? why should this issue be guided by jewish law? someone please explain this to me.
NO!
I heard they just ruled it un-constitutional!!!!
Once again the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the people of California don’t know what they want and they struck down the vote of the people – that marriage is between Man & Woman.
Why bother with elections in California if the court makes the decision anyway.
“Given the opportunity, the 9th Circus would strike down the Constitution as unconstitutional.” — Michelle Malkin
Because, mark levin, it’s not up to the majority to decide to remove the rights of the minority. If the state held a referendum and a clear majority decided that marriage is only between Christians, I’m sure you’d welcome the court’s interference.
So now it goes to the Supreme Court.
The implication if the Ninth Circuit is upheld is that anyone denying gay rights will be in the same legal position as someone discriminating on the basis of skin color. The next step will be to exclude people like us from government jobs, cut off tax emempt status to synagouges, allow employers to discriminate against orthodox Jews. This is the Democrats’ agenda no matter what those frum politicians who “sell out” claim.
The “founding fathrs” of the U.S> dubbed the Supreme Court “the most dangerous branch” of government, because the only thing that restricts their power is their own sense of self-restraint.
With hard-left ideologues now in charge of so many of our courts, you can forget about democracy.
We should now get used to judicial dictatorship, al-la the Supreme Court of the State of israel, who have been operating this way routinely, since the days of aaron Barak.
State law used to only regulate at what age and how a man and a woman could get married. It NEVER redefined what marriage is – between a man and a woman.
Jewish law regulates WHICH man can marry WHICH woman. It NEVER redefined what marriage is – between a man and a woman.
To #1 “i never understood why the yeshiva world cares whether gays can marry or not in the usa. certainly there are many us laws that violate jewish law including marriage laws that violate”
If the legislature authorized same sex marriage it wouldn’t affect us. But courts (and in large part due to influence from secular lawyers of Jewish descent) have decided that discrimination against homosexuals is analagous to discrimination on the basis of skin color (race). For any matter, ask what would happen if the individual or institution was openly racist – and then substitute anti-gay. Could a public institution that discriminated against blacks receive government funding (or even tax ememption) – No – so expect this precedent if upheld to mean that organizations that are opposed to homosexuality (Orthodox Jews, and a great many Christian groups) to suffer the same sort of sanctions given to groups that are openly anti-black.
Unless reversed either by the Supreme Court of a constitutional amendment, this opinion guarantees the marginalization of a large portion of American society. It means that members of traditional religious groups can be asked at interviews if they are anti-gay, and then excluded. It means the government can cancel the tax exempt status of any religious group that doesn’t approve of homosexuality (that’s a well established precedent related to an anti-black university losing tax exempt status). In other words, the Ninth circuit basically decided on a line of cases that will effectively wipe out not only the gains we have achieved through statute since the mid-20th century, but even many rights dating back to the First amendment and the anti-test act clause of the original constitution.
So this decision is really big news.
to no. 10 akuperma:
Well said.
There is a final push now, by the atheists and secularists in this country, to marginalize ALL religious people. It is an open revolt against G-D, and anyone loyal to Him.
President Obama has just announced that ALL religious groups must provide abortion and contraception, if they are to participate in his new centalized “Obamacare” scheme.
Mayor Bloomberg has just announce that NO religious group will be allowed to RENT space in a public school for plays, etc. Toeva groups, however, are welcome.
New Jersey Democrats are pushing for Toeva marriage, once again.
And so it goes…
interesting analysis, akuperma but i believe that you are incorrect.
most states, including new york, have laws that say that you cannot discriminate against gays. this has not stopped jewish and catholic groups from practicing in these states with no limitations. this is because despite what the scary people on talk radio may have told you otherwise, you pretty much can discriminate in the private sector. as you know, in brown v board of ed the supreme court ruled that public schools must mix black and white students. at the time, conservatives tried to scare religious people into thinking that yeshivps will also be forced to take non-jews as a result. it never happened. in fact, shuls and yeshivas operate in manners that government agencies can never be allowed to do. for example, we separate men and women, do not allow non-jews to participate and discriminate against others that we do not want – like non-frum, etc. this has never caused problems for yeshivos or shuls which are allowed to operate freely. despite what the conservatives said in the 60s, the yeshivos and shuls were still able to keep their values and still get tax exempt status.
moreover, despite what the talk radio guys say loudly and repeatedly, organizations that are openly anti-black are also not sanctioned. title 2 of the civil rights act of 1964 extends as far as hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce but specifically excluded private clubs under which organizations such as the KKK have openly operated despite having a discriminatory charter.
in sum, the ruling simply states that a governmental benefit called marriage should be open to all without discrimination. it is limited in scope to benefits bestowed upon individuals from the government. i assure you that shuls and yeshivas will continue to operate exactly the same as they did in the past.
let me be clear, i am not making an argument for or against gay marriage i am simply trying to understand why the yeshiva velt would have a say in the matter. for us, marriage was never defined by what the government did and will continue to not be defined by the government. for us, marriage was always defined by the torah and will continue to be.
#9 Jane DOe18 – you are in error – at the point when America switched from marriage by religious group governed by the law of the group to having civil marriage governed by statute (in the late 18th century) they adopted the common law definition of “one man, one woman, excluding all others, permanently” — they were more concerned with banning divorce and polygamy than with gay marriage since at the time male homosexuality was a capital offense. The rule of law was established but started to get nibbled at when divorce was legalized in the 19th and 20th centuries.
#12 is more correct than #10. It is virtually inconceivable, whatever anyone thinks of the merits of the issue, to seriously believe that this poses a threat to religious liberty. In fact, not once since any state has gone down this path, has any religious institution been forced to compromise its beliefs or activities. DOUBLY in fact, SCOTUS just upheld the ministerial exemption in discrimination cases. So any worries seem pretty illegitimate at this point, and just a shroud for other concerns which for whatever reason one does not want to pronounce.
Akuperma, your claim that a university lost tax exempt status as a result of racist attitudes is a faulty analogy. There is no constitutional protection for universities, whereas there is for religious institutions. There is much more that can be said about why there is no threat to religious institutions, but I don’t have the time or the desire to type them out right now.
A important note is that TOVEA marriages are still NOT allowed here in CA. The ruling only allowed for “them” to move to the next court of the appeal process which can take a year or more. IYH Moshiach will be here soon, and the whole world that is “upside down” right now will be set correctly. We need to continue do as many mitzvots as possible and daven with k’vana. It is sad that morality and ethical values keep falling year, after year, among people who are not G-d fearing individuals.
To: #1 “i never understood why the yeshiva world cares whether gays can marry or not in the usa.”
Jews should care, because it is not only Jewish issue, but also a non-Jewish issue as well. Study Torahs’ laws for Noahides before you ask rhetorical question.
#14 et al.
Once something is held to be Federal constitutional law, it preempts all state law. No state has a state constitutional provision protecting gays (and certainly not one equating homosexuality with skin color). Of course there is also no such provision in the Federal constitution, and when the 14th amendment was adopted being a male homosexual could land you in prison – however at this point the “law of the land” in the 9th circuit is that there is such a law, and that will apply nationally if the Supreme Court upholds the decision.
The Circuit Court held both that Gays are a protected class, and that marriage is covered (that was already addressed when the Supreme Court banned the laws in the southern states prohibiting interracial marriage). The Supreme Court held already that religious institutions that violate the 14th amendment can be stripped of their First Amendment protections (the case involve a group that claimed a religious basis for their anti-black racism). Even without Obama’s recent legal “jihad” against religion (most lately trying to close down the Catholic hospitals), it should be obvious that there is a problem for us once “homophobia” is defined as a social ill equivalent to racism and anti-semitism.
Quote from a California legal expert:
With Reinhardt and Hawkins on the panel, the question was not whether this would happen, but how. And the answer is: they chose to forego a sweeping ruling in favor of a narrower one, the reasoning of which is more likely to appeal to Anthony Kennedy.
No principles to be found here. Just naked power, restrained only by an awareness of a greater power in D.C.
moisheinglous, even if it were true that non-jews are prohibited by the torah to be gay, which i accept, i still do not understand why anyone would want the us laws to be controlled by the torah. for example, one of the things the shiva mitzvoys say is that a goy cannot be blasphemous or say bad things about hashem. while it would be great if all goyim were like that none of us think that it should be a crime to say that you hate god chas veshalom. we all recognize that the laws are made under a different standard. it would be great if we can encourage goyim to live by the standards set by the torah but to expect the laws of the usa to be controlled by the torah is not anything anyone in the yeshiva world expects. except when it comes to gay marriage. mai hai?
besalel,
We are talking about the recognition of specific unions between persons as “marriage”. The issue is not about prohibiting the practice of sodomy — that issue has already been decided (incorrectly) by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). To say that blasphemy is also wrong is a poor analogy. Of course the First Amendment permits free speech, but neither does it require that blasphemous speech be recognized as correct, does it? This is a matter of recognizing gay marriage. No gays are being hanged.
Milhouse,
There is always the possibility that Stephen Breyer will side with the conservative quartet. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but he can be strange sometimes.
@18 Milhouse:
Nothing new here. Lower courts frequently anticipate how decisions will be reviewed, and by whom, before deciding. It’s less “naked power” than an internal check-and-balance within the Judicial branch.
To #13
As long as same-gender marriage has not been legalized within a state, that state has not redefined marriage.
#17:
I suggest you go back and read the opinions. Never once were homosexuals declared a suspect classification. Rational basis scrutiny (the lowest possible tier) was used throughout. Your analysis is incorrect; there is no threat to religious liberty from this decision. You are seeing boogeymen where none exist.