{"id":7045,"date":"2012-02-08T00:02:14","date_gmt":"2012-02-08T08:02:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=7045"},"modified":"2012-02-08T00:02:14","modified_gmt":"2012-02-08T08:02:14","slug":"court-rejects-gop-bigotry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/08\/court-rejects-gop-bigotry\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Rejects GOP Bigotry"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court decision that California\u2019s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it denies gay and lesbian couples equal rights under the law.  I could not be more pleased for the LGBT community that Republicans could not get away with their hateful stance in attempting to insert big, oppressive, Republican government into their bedrooms.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"8Prop8\"A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution<\/strong>, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The three-judge panel issued its ruling Tuesday morning in San Francisco, upholding a decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who had been the chief judge of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California but has since retired. Like Judge Walker, the panel found that Proposition 8 \u2013 passed by California voters in November 2008 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent — violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought he suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex. <\/p>\n

The court ruled 2 to 1 that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution<\/strong> by discriminating against a group of people, gay men and lesbians. <\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough 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 people differently,\u201d Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. \u201cThere was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.\u201d <\/p>\n

\u201cAll that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex-couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation \u2018marriage,\u201d the judge wrote, adding: \u201cProposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California."\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <NY Times<\/a>><\/p>\n

This will certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and what the fascist five do may well depend on whether the decision was narrow, applying to only to states that grant the right of lesbians and gays to marry and then take it away, or broad, applying to all states.  There is no consensus on which it is. <\/font><\/p>\n

Ed Schultz discusses the decision with Lt. Dan Choi and Melissa Harris-Perry.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/embed><\/object><\/font><\/p>\n

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news<\/a>, world news<\/a>, and news about the economy<\/a><\/p>\n

Congratulations to the LGBT community!<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court decision that California\u2019s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it denies gay and lesbian couples equal rights under the law.  I could not be more pleased for the LGBT community that Republicans could not get away with their hateful stance […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7045","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}