Tuesday, February 7, 2012 the 9th cirtcuit court of appeals ruled California’s ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional.
In the 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Proposition 8 took rights away from a vulnerable minority without benefiting parents, children or the marital institution.
Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt declared, that Proposition 8 “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples… The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”
This ruling applies to California only. Instead of declaring “gay marriage” a federal right, the judges took a different approach, ruling that the effect of amending the state constitution to ban same-sex “marriage” after same-sex couples had already enjoyed that right is unequal treatment and in violation of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.
The three judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals gave supporters of proposition 8, time to appeal the ruling before California could resume same-sex “marriages.”
Andy Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee stated, “We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and a woman.”
As soon as the appeal is made, Proposition 8 will be headed for the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court receives approximately 10,000 cases per year and hears around 80 of these cases.
The Big Question for supporters of traditional marriage has now become:
What is it better for traditional marriage?
One, the Supreme Court does not grant hearing to the Proposition 8 trial, Judge Reinhardt’s decision is final and only applies to California, or
Two, the Supreme Court grants Proposition 8 hearing and the constitutionality of same-sex “marriage” is decided by nine people?