On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after.
On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2–1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Legal challenges to Proposition 8 were presented by opponents quickly after its approval. Moreno wrote that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority. Horton, in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited exception to the state equal protection clause" in his dissent, Justice Carlos R.
As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", thereby superseding the 2008 ruling. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage ( Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court.
0 kommentar(er)
