Antonovich: U.S. Supreme Court Should Hear Appeal on Prop. 8 Ruling
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced Tuesday that Californians who voted to oppose same-sex marriage in California are now disenfranchised with the court's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.
Photos
Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich wants an appeal on Prop. 8 to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, after Tuesday's landmark decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court.
Antonovich represents the 5th District, which includes La Crescenta, Glendale, La Canada 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 that an appeal should reach 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.”
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter, and Judge Michael Hawkins, a Clinton appointee, voted in the affirmative, Antonovich said. The dissent was submitted by Judge N.R. Smith who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
It's likely that the 2-1 decision could be appealed to either the full 9th Circuit Court or to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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."
Rep. Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park, who is running for Congress in the new 27th district that includes Altadena, quickly issued a statement of support for the ruling.
"This is the second court to rule against Proposition 8, and it is further validation that under the Constitution, and as a matter of fundamental fairness, the LGBT community is due the same basic human rights heterosexuals enjoy," Chu wrote.
She also acknowledged that the ruling would likely be challenged.
“This is a tremendous victory for everyone fighting for justice and equality. And while it should be celebrated, our efforts can’t end here," Chu wrote. "The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to hear this case, and I urge the Court to defend the rights of all Americans by reaffirming today’s ruling.”
State Attorney General Kamala Harris also applauded the decision, saying, "Today's ruling is a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice."
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."
Nico
8:46 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I wish Mr Antonovich would instead focus on improving the empty storefronts and neglect in his district (Altadena) Maybe we could have a wedding planner store open up here instead of the shuttered abandoned buildings.
Steve Lamb
8:33 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Nico- RIGHT ON we don't elect Supervisors to comment on State or national policy issues. We elect them to do things like fix our streets and get out of the way of our local businesses. he's trying to distract us.
B. Allen
9:50 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Time for Mr. Antonovich to go Bye Bye and Hello Judy Chu!!!!
Steve Lamb
8:34 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Antonovich is a member of the Board of Supervisors, Judy Chu is a member of the U.S. Congress.
Portsmouth Citizen
10:32 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Mr. Antonovich wants the decision appealed to the Supreme Court because he believes they will overturn the district court and the appeals court.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Antonovich.
Ted Olson believes the case will win in the Supreme Court. Ted Olson was appointed to the Office of Legal Counsel by President Reagan, and he served as Solicitor General of the United States for George W. Bush. He has personally argued literally dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. By contrast, Antonovich isn't even a lawyer, yet he seems to think he is qualified to make statements about judges and the law.
I'll put stock the statements of Ted Olson over those of Antonovich regarding the Prop 8 case any day.
DELOREZ RAMOS
12:27 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
GOD! REPEAT GODS! commandments are NOT! debatable period! Antononvich is the DEVIL in human form. "IT" also, is for kidnapping "FOSTER CHILDREN" he and his lap dog, Mark Ridley Thomas. The two devils, have no problem, illegally stealing children for profit. Yet. they have no problem with that which goes against GOD! Watch your backs DEVILS, this is the year 2012!
Robby
4:36 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
ROTFL
Steve Lamb
8:35 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
PREACH SISTER
Lisa Hastings
2:37 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
It sounds like someone had her children taken away.
Stuart Clark
1:27 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
This merely indicates that Antonovich has no idea how our justice system works. This is amazing ignorance on the part of our long time county supervisor. The Supreme Court never appeals anything! Rather, appellants bring cases to them and they either decide to adjudicate them or not.
Disenfranchisement of those who vote to unconstitutionally deprive a select minority of their rights is the proper job of the courts. The "activist judges" label can better be applied to recent conservative judicial decions than to this one.
Redmond Carolipio
10:11 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Hi Stuart, you're absolutely right, but the error was actually ours. We've fixed them in the headline and the story. Thanks for reading!
Pearl
2:19 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
From the courts opinion:
“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without legitimate reason for doing so, the People of the California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground." US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal opinion in Perry v Brown Prop 8 - February 7, 2012
Sounds pretty fair to me. We should never put people's civil rights up to a vote of the majority. Prior to Prop 8 our state Supreme Court had decided it was unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying and enjoying the rights and privileges and protections that marriage conveys. In 2008 gay men and women had the right to marry in Calif. Prop 8 took that right away. Our constitution was specifically written so judges could step in and overturn the tyranny of the majority and protect minorities. If we had put racial desegregation or inter-racial marriage up to a vote the majority of Americans in the 50's and 60's would not have voted to desegregate OR allowed blacks and whites to marry. Even women's right to vote were repeatedly voted down by voters (all male I might add) in states before congress passed a constitutional amendment. If you read the entire 128 page opinion is is narrowly tailored to effect only Calif and that Mr Antonovich is called "judicial restraint."
Michael O'Neal-Petterson
10:41 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Maybe Antonovich should start worrying more about why it's a crime to throw a football or a frisbee on a county beach. What is wrong with our "Supervisors?"
Steve Lamb
8:43 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
First of all, the Courts decision is legally wrong at the outset. Marriage is presently a privilege licensed and controlled by the State. It is not a right. Were it a right, one would not need a license from the State to obtain it. Its amazing that Federal Judges can be just as ignorant on the law as County Supervisors.
Second, if homosexual people have a Civil Right in California to marriage, they have it in EVERY state under the 14th Amendment. This was clearly established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the issue of inter racial marriage some fifty years ago. This would mean that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is Unconstitutional under already existing precedent. If this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court and they decide based on the existing precedent and law Supervisor Antonovich will find Homosexual Marriage will be legalized nationally.
Steve Lamb
8:46 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Of course I believe the government should be removed for solemnizing marriage entirely. Marriage is a spiritual not a State institution. It belongs in the Church. Now this thing with Tax benefits, this corporate entity that is under the power of the state we need to call it what it is- A Civil Union and we should allow the State to license and regulate THAT. Its a sin that we ever allowed the State to regulate the spiritual institution.
Greg Gearn
12:49 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Well that's two less votes in this household for Supervisor Antonovich. Oh and next door, one less vote, and next door to that, two less votes. And by the time I talk to the rest of our pro-marriage neighbors who are looking forward to a wedding at our house, I think we can probably count on at least a dozen, maybe two dozen less votes for Mr. Antonovich.