.

Update: Antonovich Says U.S. Supreme Court Should Review Prop. 8 Ruling

A California Appeals Court ruled that Proposition 8, the voter-approved same-sex weddings, is unconstitutional.

Update: Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review Proposition 8, after Tuesday's landmark decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court.

Antonovich represents the 5th District, which includes La Crescenta, Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, Altadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, San Marino, South Pasadena and Glendora. 

He released a statement Tuesday that the U.S. Court of Appeals upholding U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

“Once again, activist judges with a political correctness agenda have disenfranchised the people who voted overwhelmingly to oppose same-sex marriage in California—over 4.5 million Californians in 2000, and over 7 million in 2008," Antonovich said. "This ruling needs to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.”

Original Article: Supporters of same-sex marriage in the Southland and across the state scored a major victory today when a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex weddings, was unconstitutional.

The 2-1 decision, however, will likely be appealed to either the full 9th Circuit Court or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite the ruling, a stay on gay marriages in California will remain in effect while the court case continues.

But that didn't temper the elated reactions from supporters of same-sex unions.

"It gives Californians the respect that they should be getting," said Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, the first openly gay man to serve on the body. "We don't have our basic civil and human rights in our relationships. We don't get the IRS benefits. We don't get Social Security benefits. We don't have any of those benefits that are codified in Washington."

Lorrie L. Jean, chief executive officer of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said, "We are one step closer to the day the freedom to marry will ring in California once again.

"This draws nearer the day when every American will be able to marry the person they love, regardless of gender -- and to have that important commitment recognized by the law of the land," she said. "Having that commitment honored is no small thing."

According to the court panel's ruling, the proposition's primary impact was to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."

"It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain and use the designation of "marriage' to describe their relationships," according to the court's decision. "Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in child-rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples.

"Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard those liberties."

Opponents of same-sex marriage were equally strong in their words condemning the ruling.

Proposition 8 supporter Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, blasted the ruling, calling it "unfair to the voters, against our republic, against our democratic system..."

"It's illogical and unconstitutional to claim that natural, unchangeable race and ethnicity is the same as sexual behavior," he said. "That's not fair or true. Race and ethnicity are inherited, but science has never found homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality to be inherited or unchangeable."

The case had been pending before the appellate court for months, including a delay while it awaited a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing to appeal the issue. The Supreme Court eventually said they do.

In March 2000, California voters approved Prop. 22, which specified in state law that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But in May of 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gays, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the ensuing months.

Opponents of same-sex marriage quickly got Prop. 8 on the November 2008 ballot to amend the state constitution, and it was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent. The approval was followed by statewide protests and lawsuits challenging Prop. 8's legality.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, but also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed in 2008 would remain valid.

Same-sex marriage supporters took their case to federal court, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled in August 2010 that Proposition 8 "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Backers of Proposition 8 -- ProtectMarriage.com -- appealed to the 9th Circuit, because then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to do so. The appellate court heard arguments last year, but put a decision on hold while it awaited the state Supreme Court's ruling on the ability of Prop. 8 backers to press the case forward.

Once the state Supreme Court decided that Prop. 8 supporters had legal standing, the 9th Circuit moved ahead with its consideration of the case, hearing more arguments in December on a motion by Prop. 8 backers asking that Vaughn's ruling be thrown out because the judge was in a long-term same-sex relationship that he had not disclosed.

Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, said the issue would definitely be appealed, but a decision had not yet been made on whether to ask the full 9th Circuit court to hear the case or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We're not surprised by this decision, and expected a 2-1 decision and the interpretation of the equal-protection clause is what's at root here, as well as whether marriage should be defined according to the wishes of two people or whether it should be defined in terms of its purpose and definition for society and future generations," Prentice told KNX Newsradio.

Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statement saying the court "has rendered a powerful affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision."

Ron Rosen February 09, 2012 at 02:01 PM
Technical corrections: Not sure if this error was made by Antonovich or what, but the procedure is to appeal something "to" the Supreme Court - it is not appealed "by" the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not "appeal" a ruling, a ruling "is appealed to" the Supreme Court or, said another way, a litigant "appeals" a ruling "to" the Supreme Court. I've always had a special feeling for Mr. Antonovich ever since I made a complaint to him in 1986 about how my first property tax bill was handled, and he failed to respond. Courts are not here to uphold the will of the majority (unless there's a constitutional amendment). Courts are here to make sure that things the majority may vote for follow the constitution. Of course, nowadays it's all political.
Daniel February 09, 2012 at 04:20 PM
"...activist judges with a political correctness agenda..." So it's wrong to be politically correct, or an activist? So stagnating in the same outdated values that have turned this country into a hellhole is the right thing to do? Am I seriously the only one who wonders why this idiot is still in office?
Stephen McCarthy February 09, 2012 at 05:23 PM
Aside from the bloviating rhetoric from all sides, the author of this article, and the headline writer need a course in basic civics. They use the phrase "Supreme Court should appeal..." This is NOT what Antonovich said. The Supreme Court CANNOT appeal, it can HEAR an appeal. Antonovich stated that the ruling should BE APPEALED TO the court. To miss quote him in this manner makes him seem to be a moron who doesn't know how government works. He is not. If anyone thought that this would not get to the Supreme Court, they were delusional. What gets me is that all the anti-gay marriage language is lifted directly from the anti-interracial arguments of decades ago. How is it anyone's business but the couple involved? My marriage has nothing to do with anyone else's. It's not affected by others getting married. Try and find a real issue of importance to get worked up over instead of this fear mongered side show.
Daniel February 09, 2012 at 05:35 PM
@ Stephen: Without trying to seem too crude...damn straight. I said something to the same effect earlier, but you managed to put it in a more eloquent way.
Patrick Lee February 09, 2012 at 06:02 PM
Hi guys: We've fixed the errors in the headline and story. Thanks for pointing it out.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »