more articles like this

Capps Affirms Prop 8 is Unconstitutional
updated: Feb 07, 2012, 11:28 AM

Source: Lois Capps' Office

Today Congresswoman Lois Capps (CA-23) applauded the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's 2-1 opinion upholding the 2010 ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 was the 2008 ballot initiative which ended the brief period of marriage equality in California. Capps opposed the initiative. In 2010, a federal U.S. District Court judge struck down Proposition 8, ruling it unconstitutional. Subsequently, marriage equality opponents appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Today's ruling addressed the merits of the case and whether the judge who issued the 2010 ruling, Judge Walker, should have been disqualified from the case on the basis of his personal life.

"Today's ruling is a historic milestone in achieving full equality for all Americans, further confirming what so many Americans have known for some time now-that marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be denied to gay and lesbian couples. Marriage equality is a necessary step to ensure the civil rights of lesbian and gay Americans and their full participation in our society. This decision sends a clear message to all LGBT Americans, but an especially positive one to LGBT youth-you are valued and worthy, your rights are equal to others and not less, and one day you too may grow up and marry your beloved. This is a good day for California and a wonderful day for equality," said Capps.

Capps is a vocal, long-time supporter of equality for gays and lesbians. She supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and is an original co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act (ROMA), which would repeal provisions in DOMA that prevent same-sex couples who are married under state laws from receiving federal benefits. Capps was also a leader on the issue of repealing the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. A Vice-Chair of the Congressional Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Equality Caucus, she supports full equality for LGBT Americans in essential civil rights areas, including but not limited to: employment and housing discrimination, immigration status, federal benefits for families and creating safe schools for LGBT youth.

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 254575	2012-02-07 11:40 AM
Even though Capps is an embarrassment to Santa Barbara I have to agree with her on this one.
COMMENT 254577	2012-02-07 11:40 AM
Therefore, the "will of the people" does not count. What is the point of voting if your vote does not count?
COMMENT 254579P	2012-02-07 11:42 AM
Right on, Lois
COMMENT 254581	2012-02-07 11:50 AM
@577 Maybe people shouldn't vote on things that will inevitably be found to be unconstitutional... Better yet, maybe people should stop trying to create situations where the masses can vote on issues that have an effect on minority populations, which leads to courts ruling things like Prop 8 unconstitutional. Have to say I agree with Lois and the 9th Circuit. But it'll wind up at the Supreme Court at this rate.
COMMENT 254582	2012-02-07 11:50 AM
why were we voting to discriminate against people in the first place 577?
KIDS	2012-02-07 11:52 AM
Right on 582.! This is a great day for California.
COMMENT 254586P	2012-02-07 11:55 AM
Black, white, Asian, brown, gay, lesbian or other..we all have the right to love whom we choose. Period. This is a huge decision in civil rights! Glad I am alive to see it.
COMMENT 254588	2012-02-07 12:12 PM
Santa Barbara County voted NO on Prop 8, so not only is this the right decision by the courts, Capps is also representing the "will of the people" in her district. She is a great Congressperson and we are very lucky to have her represent us.
COMMENT 254590	2012-02-07 12:28 PM
This is not justice - this is pure politics - the people voted - right or wrong - the vote should stand. The right thing to do is wait and vote again and let the people decide - Sad day for our system ....
COMMENT 254594	2012-02-07 12:50 PM
@590 This is actually exactly how the system is supposed to function. It's a little different in California due to our system of ballot initiatives, but the Judicial branch is supposed to interpret and determine the constitutionality of laws. The system that you seem to think is not working properly is one in which laws are never challenged, which is something that happens every day in this country. Exactly as intended.
COMMENT 254595	2012-02-07 12:55 PM
If two consenting adults have a Constitutional right to marry, why is it that three consenting adults cannot? Why are polygamists denied equality?
COMMENT 254600	2012-02-07 01:12 PM
@577 & @590 - Our governement is not a pure democracy. Often times the "will of the mob" must be overruled, because they are not "right" Thumbs up to SY. @595 - Technically, I believe you are correct. There should be no reason that I see that 3 consenting adults could not get married from a moral standpoint. It's outside the social norm, and I wouldn't do it, but I don't know why it's illegal (as long as all Parties involved are aware...i.e. you can't have a guy marry 1 woman and then marry a 2nd woman without the 1st wifes consent)...Maybe there is a good reason and I just don't know it (it would complicate tax law further)
COMMENT 254602	2012-02-07 01:13 PM
Sy- That is smoke and mirrors - this case was shopped into San Francisco - Complete BS - The system that you compliment got SOLD -
COMMENT 254603	2012-02-07 01:14 PM
while i fully support people chosing who they want to love and spend their life with no matter what gender, i also support those people who support leaving the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Maybe there should be another name for gay marriage. what is so wrong with that??
COMMENT 254605	2012-02-07 01:15 PM
@590 Then move to another country. The system is working exactly as intended by our ever-so-venerated Founding Fathers. I for one have complete faith in the separation of powers and our system as-is, even when decisions are made that I am not particularly fond of (see: Citizens United.)
COMMENT 254606	2012-02-07 01:15 PM
The current president and all of the presidential candidates (except Ron Paul ) favor a constitutional ban on gay marriage, so does it matter what CA says?
COMMENT 254608	2012-02-07 01:19 PM
@603 Having "straight marriage" and "gay marriage" is discriminatory and exclusionary. The closest thing I can think of is if we had "white marriage" and "black marriage"; does that put it into perspective?
COMMENT 254610	2012-02-07 01:20 PM
oh goody!!! it is only a matter of time before anyone can can marry whatever they want. Otherwise we would be discriminating against those that want three wives, five husbands, little boys and girls, animals . . . I mean really let's not discriminate against anyone folks. i can't wait to see the fruition of this law enacted even though it is the people of California that have voted in the majority gay marriage is not allowed.
COMMENT 254613	2012-02-07 01:31 PM
Is comment 610, the one that includes animals as potential marriage partners, written anonymously by Rick Santorum?
COMMENT 254620	2012-02-07 01:46 PM
Who cares what you call it. Religions have proven for several thousand years that their followers are blind idiots that will never listen to reason, thus you will never convince the heartiest of the religious morons that gays deserve the same rights as others. Simply change the biased laws that discriminate against gays (regarding taxes, hospitals, etc) then let anybody marry whatever or whomever they want. The church-going wackos can ban gay marriages in their church to their hearts content...they can be happy and the rest of us can be happy.
COMMENT 254621	2012-02-07 01:47 PM
Oh boy 610, how is marrying a gay man or woman comparable to a child or an animal? If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman because the bible says so: can I also stone you for cursing, adultery, disobeying your parents, breaking the sabbath etc.....
COMMENT 254624	2012-02-07 01:53 PM
Earlier this a Seattle woman married a warehouse. No Joke.
COMMENT 254626	2012-02-07 02:00 PM
As an aside, I say we make a law that bans adopting your adult girl/boyfriend in order to shield your assets from a lawsuit. At the very least, if the adoption is allowed then the two are not allowed to have sex anymore.
COMMENT 254627	2012-02-07 02:00 PM
SY, no that does not help. I hear all the time folks say they go to a Black church (heard it on NPR yesterday). That does not offend me and i don't think that is discriminatory or exclusionary. I don't mind calling something what it is. You can't change my mind on that! I support our laws so that is the reality. I am just expressing my opinion of what i see and i call it as i see it.
COMMENT 254630	2012-02-07 02:08 PM
The Judge that wrote the paperwork on this steam pile also wrote that the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional. This is not a unbiased court - Sy - as far as moving - Nope - It's 2 fun educating U on whats right and whats just down right ignorant .
COMMENT 254638	2012-02-07 02:46 PM
Lois Capps has redeemed herself, a little. Her comment is welcome, in stark contrast to her appalling, misinformed vote in support of the Constitution-busting, treacherous NDAA. This piece of weasel-legislation allows for the indefinite, arbitrary detention of US citizens without evidence, charge, trial or representation, as well as targeted assassinations (state sanctioned murder), on the perennially lame excuse of "countering terrorism". This is the language and methodology of tinhorn dictators like Saddam Hussein and Idi Amin. This was the nadir in Capps' otherwise fair voting record: she could not have sunk any lower than that. This part of the NDAA is a sinister introduction into US law of the kind of system against which we fought in World War II, with great sacrifice, to prevent. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
COMMENT 254644	2012-02-07 03:13 PM
Since when is marriage a civil rights issue? Marriage is and always will be a codified religious rule.
COMMENT 254647	2012-02-07 03:21 PM
@644 I'm an atheist, does that mean I can't get married according to you? Marriage is a social/civil issue, not one that belongs exclusively in the realm of the religious.
COMMENT 254652	2012-02-07 03:29 PM
@644 - It became a civil rights issue whenever the government required a marriage certificate from the state to make it official (which really only affects taxes and who the executor of your estate is) Anyone has the right to do get "married" according to their religious (or lack there of) beliefs (whether it be a man & a woman, 2 men, or 5 men & 3 women, etc), but if they want it to be "official" in the eyes of the law, it is a civil rights issue to keep things equal.
COMMENT 254657	2012-02-07 03:38 PM
I don't see how polygamy can be illegal then. Wouldn't that be a civil rights issue too?
COMMENT 254659	2012-02-07 03:48 PM
644- a discriminating codified religious rule is still discriminating. So much hate from "Christians". If it's not hate please explain how legalizing gay marriage would negatively change your life?
COMMENT 254660	2012-02-07 03:49 PM
254657: No, polygamy would only be a civil rights issue if there were laws saying that some people are allowed to be in polygymous marriages, but others aren't. The civil right being protected here is equal protection under the law, not the right to marry.
COMMENT 254664	2012-02-07 04:01 PM
I'll bet you $20 the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal of this case.
COMMENT 254666	2012-02-07 04:06 PM
Yes, 590 imagine a State's law not overriding the US Constitution, as our forefathers designed it. God bless the 14th Amendment! In 30 years all today's Prop 8 supporters will look like the Jim Crow Law supporters of old. Gay rights are human rights, people. I'm am straight, I am Christian and I am proud of today's decision. Bring on the Supreme court!
COMMENT 254668	2012-02-07 04:18 PM
The Idiot that wrote the decision has a very long history of getting kicked to the curb for his slight of hand when it comes to the law. I don't really care if it pass's - it will not impact me - one way or the other. Been married for 30 yrs - I don't care if you marry an atheist chicken - the problem is that 51% of the voters passed this....for all the name calling here - what ever - get over yourselves. The big problem is the sneaky - end around - take it to San Francisco courts to get it to go forward in the state of Cali. & more specific to this judge that has a bad history .....just say'n
COMMENT 254669P	2012-02-07 04:20 PM
As long as the goverment grants certain rights and privilages to married couples that non-married people can not access because they are not married, marriage itself would seem to be unconstitional. I can't see how the goverment can itself create different classes of people based solely on marial status. Capps should be working to stop the descrimination against non-married people.
COMMENT 254680	2012-02-07 04:36 PM
590, you keep making the same point about the judge. But if it doesn't impact you and your 30 year marriage, why worry about it?
COMMENT 254688P	2012-02-07 05:04 PM
If it was left to a vote by the population, Civil Rights would never have happened.
COMMENT 254690	2012-02-07 05:13 PM
Lets just say that Rose Bird comes to mind. Judges at this level effect us all.
COMMENT 254707P	2012-02-07 05:46 PM
254590 - are you aware that one of the lawyers on the side of overturning Prop 8 is conservative Ted Olsen (whose wife died aboard one of the 911 aircraft?) "The time is now" for same-sex couples to be granted the right to marry, he said. Olson also said the majority opinion in today's Prop 8 decision, which was 80 pages long, adhered very closely to existing precedent regarding marriage. That might make it difficult, he noted, for the Supreme Court to hear the case. "The 9th circuit crafted the opinion...very carefully," he said. "It's unassailable and it follows what the Supreme Court" has said in similar cases. That said, he added, he will be ready if and when the Prop 8 case makes it to the Supreme Court. "From the very beginning, we've been planning to be in the U.S. Supreme Court." http://laist.com/2012/02/07/prop_8_lawyer_ted_olsen_t his_is_a_h.php
COMMENT 254720P	2012-02-07 06:25 PM
There are two kinds of marriage, the way I see it. Religious marriage, and state marriage. Some people have 1 or the other, some have both, and of course some have neither. I wedded in the Courthouse, without a religious figure present. I have a state marriage. If religious institutions don't want to marry someone due to their (the institution's) beliefs, that's fine, but I don't think our government has the right to deny marriage between 2 (or more) consenting adults.
COMMENT 254729	2012-02-07 06:47 PM
"254590 - are you aware that one of the lawyers on the side of overturning Prop 8 is conservative Ted Olsen (whose wife died aboard one of the 911 aircraft?)" * Ted Olson .. That is a problem. The FBI was subpoenaed, during the trial of alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui, to produce phone records of calls made from the planes. As presented by the FBI in court, NO phone calls came from Flight 77. Olson's claim that he spoke with his wife is untrue. Olson gave this "evidence" to the 9/11 Commission, under oath, perjured himself by lying to a federal inquiry. He should have been busted for perjury, and cross examined as regards being accessory before (and after) the fact to mass murder. FBI admits Olson either lied or was duped: if he lied, why, and if he was duped, by whom? As a Solicitor General, perhaps had an immunity to investigation/prosecution, unlike we peons. Business as usual in the good ol' boy run US of A
COMMENT 254743	2012-02-07 07:16 PM
638, you should be ashamed. Google "Phone calls from Flight 77" and learn the truth. Not that it matters, this thread is like a dog chasing it's tail. Round and round it goes. . . .
COMMENT 254749P	2012-02-07 07:38 PM
254680 - Ted Olson lost his wife, and remarried a year later. That post was in response to the "Rose Bird" post, and the mention of Olson's wife was just to possibly trigger a recognition of who the person was - he has been on TV quite frequently, and sometimes about his 3rd wife Barbara Olson. Ted Olson is a conservative. "He then served as an Assistant Attorney General (Office of Legal Counsel) in the Reagan administration[2] " "Olson was nominated for the office of Solicitor General by President Bush on February 14, 2001, was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 24, 2001, and took office on June 11, 2001. In July 2004, Olson retired as Solicitor General and returned to private practice at the Washington office of Gibson Dunn." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson See a rerun of Rachel Maddow's show from tonight for an interview with Ted Olson about today's ruling on Prop 8.
COMMENT 254753	2012-02-07 08:04 PM
Why would anyone want to get married if they were not "henpecked" into doing so? Especially if you're not planning on having any children. No wonder Faux "News" got this all wrong!!
SHOREBIRD	2012-02-07 09:49 PM
The Constitution was not written to protect the rights of majorities. It was written to protect the rights of minorities by people who had seen first hand the result of abuse by majorities in their countries of origin. When the case is made to follow " the will of the people" it indicates a willingness to go with "mob rule" instead of existing codified civil rights. The comparison between letting gays get married and letting people marry scores of people, animals or inanimate objects are brought up by only the silliest inane people and should be ignored.
COMMENT 254798	2012-02-08 06:43 AM
'If you start giving civil rights to gays, then pretty soon everyone will want them.' YAY!
COMMENT 254810	2012-02-08 07:02 AM
If you folks believe that God created everything....then gay folks are his and not yours to make decisions for. Look in the ocean people, fish change genders to have babies, one big sperm cocktail going on down there, it really is silly to fight about love, don't you think?
ELAZ	2012-02-08 07:46 AM
THANK YOU LOIS! This married, straight ally of the GLBT community says no one is equal until all are equal and marriage is a civil right. One step toward justice for all, a long way to go!
COMMENT 254841P	2012-02-08 08:01 AM
Video of Ted Olson on Rachel Maddow show It is interesting to listening to his reasons.
COMMENT 254848	2012-02-08 08:09 AM
Shorebird wins for the the silliest, inane, pleonastic tautology of the day.
COMMENT 254857	2012-02-08 08:15 AM
YOU all win for commenting on others posts...This whole thread should be thrown out
COMMENT 254988	2012-02-08 10:35 AM
680, perhaps you should take it up with the FBI, if you feel they lied under oath. ????:|| ???.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/ The evidence is there. Barbara Olson's "phone calls" did not happen. But believe what you want, if it makes you feel more comfortable.
FLICKA	2012-02-08 11:38 AM
Good to see on edhat that so many are standing up for the ruling. Can't imagine what some people have against gay marriage, not really their business. My gripe w/pologamy is when they bust the sanctimonius men, they find the wives and children collecting welfare because the dude can't support them.
COMMENT 255153	2012-02-08 04:05 PM
It's a great day for California and I'm proud to be represented by ms. Capps. Thank you, Lois, for standing up for civil rights for all persons.
COMMENT 255179P	2012-02-08 04:51 PM
254638 - I am discussing Prop 8, and nothing else. Period.
COMMENT 255202	2012-02-08 05:54 PM
Washington state lawmakers pass gay marriage bill!!
COMMENT 255454	2012-02-09 12:34 PM
you cant vote on equal rights, people. theres no activism going on here if you know anything about constitutional law. we cant vote slavery back. we cant vote back bans on interracial marriage. it doesnt matter how you vote; thats not how this country works. and you cant get around equal rights by writing discrimination into the law itself. its like trying to make a law that bans marriage between two people of the same race, sand say, "oh, you have an equal right to marry outside of your race! its equal!! everyone has to do it!" but the ones who get to enjoy that right are those who dont have love interests that are the same race. equal protection under the us constitution would reject that. you can marry a person of the opposite sex if you want--no ones stopping you--mind your own business.

22% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.