A 3-judge “motions panel” today overruled district court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to invalidate the voter-approved Proposition 8. It will remain the law of California on marriage pending further Federal review.
Constitutional Law experts have long believed this case will not finally be decided until the 9-member U.S. Supreme Court gives its opinion. California resident Anthony Kennedy may have the deciding vote.
Proposition 8 won a 52% to 48% California victory in November 2008, with critical support coming from Black voters around the state.
More details are available at this link:
The only problem I have with this post as that it needs a correction. The 9th Circuit DID NOT overturn anything. It simply stayed the decision pending repeal so that is false.
The 3-Judge panel did indeed overule Judge Walker on the only significant issue, whether Proposition 8 would remain California law pending further court appeals.
The Associated Press story of 08/16 put the matter this way:
“The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge’s order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.”
Look at how many unintended consequences have popped up due to the left’s social programs. How much would the gay population care about marriage if it were not for death benefits, social security, and taxes? Without those things, certainly the government wouldn’t be involved and the decision would be left up to the church. Think about what I just said…marriage would be left up to the church. We live in a time when marriage is not left up to the church.
Even illegal immigration. How much would we have to deal with illegal immigrants if not for social services like welfare and the income tax?
This is why we are the party of “no” and fight so hard for limited government. If unintended consequences annoy you too…take a minute to thank a Democrat.
To clarify, our legal experts tell us that the three judge panel did not rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8, as Judge Walker had done. It did reject — and thus overturn — one aspect, Walker’s decision to allow same sex marriages to take place, while the appeal of the constitutionality question is pending. This in effect keeps legal marriages available to only straight couples, again pending the appeal.
It is important to distinguish between the constitutionality issue, where Walker has ruled against Prop 8, and the three judge panel’s stay of the decision to allow gay marriages to proceed at the present.
Further, as has been noted by Mr. Sills, the final determination of the constitutionality of Prop 8 will most likely be decided by the Supreme Court.
Well stated. I thank Learned Counsel for
this further exposition of the key issues.