SAN FRANCISCO |
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way on Tuesday for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider California's gay marriage ban, declining an appeal to revisit the case.
Supporters of the 2008 ban, Proposition 8, have lost two rounds in federal court but have made clear they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and hope for a favorable response from the conservative-leaning court.
The top U.S. court could agree to hear the matter in the session beginning in October, putting it on track to decide the case within a year.
"We're not end of the line yet, but we are vastly closer," said Theodore Olson, an attorney for the two gay couples challenging the ban.
An attorney for the ban supporters said that his team was preparing for the next round. "We will promptly file our appeal to the nation's highest court and look forward to a positive outcome on behalf of the millions of Californians who believe in traditional marriage," Andrew Pugno said in a statement.
The Supreme Court could also take on a recent decision by Boston's 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, and hear the two alongside each other, said Thomas Goldstein, a Washington D.C.-based attorney who practices before the top court.
"The timing is too perfect," Goldstein said, adding that the oral argument would resemble this year's proceedings on legal challenges to President Barack Obama's health care plan.
President Obama last month turned gay marriage into a 2012 campaign issue, saying he believed same-sex couples should be able to marry. Republican Mitt Romney disagrees.
The vast majority of U.S. states limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, and popular votes have consistently approved bans on widening those rights.
But polls show growing acceptance of same-sex nuptials, which have been legalized in eight states and the District of Columbia, thanks to votes by legislators and court decisions.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston last week ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denied benefits to same-sex couples in a state where gay marriage was legal.
But appeals courts have so far declined to rule broadly on whether marriage is a fundamental human right for same-sex couples as well as heterosexuals.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February that California's Prop 8 ban discriminated against gays and lesbians. It rejected the key argument by ban supporters that Proposition 8 furthered "responsible procreation."
Ban proponents appealed the ruling to the full 9th Circuit, which could hear it with a larger panel of judges. The court on Tuesday said it would not do so. It also kept the decision ending the ban on hold for 90 days, to allow for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
California is the most populous U.S. state and the home of Hollywood and hippies, but it has a socially conservative side as well. That leaning was clear in the 2008 ballot that enacted Prop 8 by 52.24 percent to 47.76 percent, or some 600,000 votes, ending a summer of legal same-sex marriage.
A federal judge struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, although existing same-sex marriages are on hold pending appeals.
(Editing by Sandra Maler)
Source: www.reuters.com
California gay marriage ban set for Supreme Court - Calgary Herald
LOS ANGELES - A U.S. appeals court upheld Tuesday its decision to strike down a California law banning gay marriage in the state, in the latest step in the dispute's expected path to the Supreme Court.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February that an amendment to the California state constitution banning same-sex marriage violated principles of due process and equal protection under the law.
Supporters of a ban had asked the San Francisco-based federal court to re-hear the case "en banc" - with 11 judges, as opposed to the three-judge panel which ruled in February.
But Tuesday's seven-page ruling concluded: "The petition for rehearing en banc is denied."
Gay marriage was briefly authorized in California in 2008, but later banned by a referendum on what was known as Proposition 8. It rewrote the state's constitution to restrict marriage to unions between a man and a woman.
In February, the three-judge appeals panel in San Francisco ruled by 2-1 that a lower court had properly declared the ban a violation of the US Constitution.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the ruling said. "The constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort."
The February judgment was slammed by Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who said "unelected judges (had) cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage."
But California Attorney General Kamala Harris called the decision "a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice."
The decision did not give gay and lesbian couples the immediate right to wed, as
Source: www.canada.com
California's Prop 8 heads for supreme court after pass by appeals court - The Guardian
California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, is heading for the supreme court after an appeals court declined to revisit the case.
Supporters of the 2008 ban have lost two rounds in federal courts but have made clear they will appeal to the US supreme court and hope for a favorable response from the conservative-leaning justices.
The top US court could agree to hear the matter in the session beginning in October, putting it on track to decide the case within a year. It could also decline to review Prop 8.
President Barack Obama last month said he believed same-sex couples should be able to marry. His Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, disagrees.
Most US states limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, and popular votes have consistently approved bans on widening those rights.
But polls show growing acceptance of same-sex marriages, which have been legalized in eight states and the District of Columbia, thanks to votes by legislators and court decisions.
The first circuit court of appeals in Boston last week ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denied benefits to same-sex couples in a state where gay marriage was legal.
The US supreme court would set national precedent if it decided to take the California case. Appeals courts have so far declined to rule broadly on whether marriage is a fundamental human right for same-sex couples as well as heterosexuals.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
California Voters U-turn on Bullet Train - Car Rentals
According to a new poll, California voters are doing a u-turn on the $68.4 billion high speed rail project they had initially approved funding for. Ambitious plans for a fast track link between Los Angeles and San Francisco at speeds of up to 220mph, making journeys just over two-and-a-half hours, were favoured by 53% of voters in a 2008 ballot. The voters approved the state to raise $10 million in bonds, while the state was also able to get $3.5 billion in stimulus money from the federal government.
The California high speed rail project calls for about 300 miles of track to be added south from the middle of Central Valley over the next ten years and laid to reach the northern outskirts of Los Angeles. Construction on this part of the plan is due to start later in the year. Then a northern link from the Central Valley to San Francicso won’t be finished until 2028. With the funds the state has raised for the project, it’s still short $54.9 billion of what it needs to complete this construction. This has raised fears that the state won’t be able to get the funds needed to finish the later parts of the network, thus it would only be left with a rail line that links minor cities and farming communities.
With these concerns and how the project has been handled, a new poll shows that California voters have turned against the project. Three-fifths of voters polled oppose the bullet train and would stop public borrowing if they were given the chance to vote on it again. Nearly seven out of ten said that they would never or rarely every use the train if it eventually runs between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Out of those polled, not one voter said they would use the high speed rail more than once a week, while just 33% said they would prefer the train over a one-hour aircraft journey or seven-hour road journey. The $123 each way ticket, which is an estimate, is said to deter many as well. Politicians in the state have until August 31 to give final approval to an initial 130-mile portion of track in the Central Valley at a cost of $6 billion, and they are expected to do just that.
California governor Jerry Brown has praised the project as a way to create jobs, and the unions are supporting him. He has personally committed to getting a high speed rail link built since the 1970s. However, he is trying to persuade voters to spend billions on a train while proposing tax increases and austere cuts to public spending at the same time. This includes a 5% paycut for state staff to deal with a deficit in the budget that has grown to $16 billion.
Other supporters say the state’s economy will recover in the long run and the money left over will be from private investors, fees from its own cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government. They believe the high speed rail link will be vital to the economic future of the airline. However, critics say the funding will dry up and California will be left with an orphan track. Assembly Budget Committee vice chairman Jim Nielsen opposes the project, calling it an idea that worsens the more details are released about it. On top of this, the Legislative Analyst’s Office described the funding plan as speculative and vague.
Source: news.carrentals.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment