Assim, a Proposta 8, que proibia o casamento homossexual e fora aprovada por 52% dos eleitores californianos em 2008, foi derrubada. A decisão da Corte apoiou a postura do ex-juiz e presidente do tribunal Vaughn Walker, que em 2010 considerou a união gay um direito fundamental protegido pela Constituição.
“Apesar de a Constituição permitir que as comunidades aprovem a maioria das leis que elas acreditam ser desejáveis, isso requer que exista pelo menos uma razão legítima para a sanção de uma lei que ameaça diferentes classes de pessoas de diferentes formas”, escreveu o juiz da 9ª Corte, Stephen Reinhardt. “Não há razão para que a Proposta 8 possa ter sido aprovada”.
A Corte disse que o casamento gay não poderá ser oficializado na Califórnia até que expire o prazo para que os defensores da Proposta 8 apelem sobre a decisão à 9ª Corte de Apelações. Assim, o casamento gay permanece suspenso até que o tema seja judicialmente solucionado. Os opositores do casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo poderão ainda levar o caso à Suprema Corte americana.
A Corte acrescentou que não há provas de que Vaughn Walker teve preconceitos e que deveria ter anunciado que é gay e mantém uma relação de longo prazo antes de emitir a decisão.
Leia mais sobre esse assunto em http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/california-derruba-veto-ao-casamento-gay-3907252#ixzz1ljfEDFk2
(02-07) 12:34 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional today, saying a state can't revoke gay rights solely because a majority of its voters disapprove of homosexuality.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Proposition 8's limitations on access to marriage took rights away from a vulnerable minority without benefiting parents, children or the marital institution.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion.
"The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort." (Read the full ruling here.)
Reinhardt, joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, pointedly refrained from deciding whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. Instead, he said Prop. 8 violated the Constitution because it was rooted in moral disproval of gays and lesbians and withdrew rights they had won less than six months earlier, when the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
Their narrowly framed ruling would apply only to California, if upheld on appeal.
In dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith said Prop. 8 must be upheld if there was any reasonable basis for its enactment. For example, he said, Californians could have concluded - rightly or wrongly - that children were better off with married, biological parents, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples would encourage responsible child-rearing.
But the court majority said prohibiting same-sex marriage does not encourage opposite-sex couples to marry or raise children.
Sponsors of Prop. 8, who defended the measure in court, denounced the ruling.
"We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and a woman," said Andy Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage.
The ban on same-sex marriage remains in effect while the case proceeds toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
Announcement of the impending ruling this morning drew about 100 gay-rights supporters to the courthouse steps. They cheered when a woman emerged, held up her laptop computer and shouted that the court had struck down Prop. 8.
"It brings you to tears," said James Pearman, 60, of Daly City. "You know that you are equal. You know that you have rights, that children (of gay parents) will have rights."
Prop. 8 was approved by 52 percent of the voters in November 2008. It amended the California Constitution to repeal a May 2008 ruling by the state Supreme Court, which said the state's then-existing ban on same-sex marriage violated California's constitutional guarantee of equality.
After the nation's first federal court trial on same-sex marriage, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop. 8 in August 2010. He said gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry their chosen partner - a broadly stated ruling that, if upheld on appeal, would apply nationwide.
The appeals court majority took a more limited approach, which could narrow the scope of future Supreme Court review of the case.
Reinhardt relied on a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Colorado initiative prohibiting cities and counties from enacting civil rights laws protecting gays and lesbians. The high court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said a state violates equal protection when it strips rights from a vulnerable minority for no apparent reason other than moral disapproval.
Prop. 8 falls into the same category, Reinhardt said.
He said the rationales offered by the measure's supporters were either unsupported by the evidence, like promoting responsible child-rearing, or legally baseless, like preserving a traditional but exclusionary definition of marriage. Reinhardt also said evidence presented to Walker showed that the Prop. 8 campaign appealed to voters' fears of homosexuals.
With no demonstrated "legitimate purpose," Reinhardt said, the court must conclude that the ballot measure was rooted in "disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class."
In another part of the ruling, the court unanimously rejected arguments by Prop. 8's sponsors that Walker should have been disqualified, and his decision set aside, because he did not reveal at the time of the trial that he is a gay man with a longtime partner, whom he could marry if same-sex marriage were legalized.
The court said a judge is not required to disqualify himself just because his ruling might affect him, along with many other members of the public.
Chronicle staff writer Will Kane contributed to this report.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Proposition 8's limitations on access to marriage took rights away from a vulnerable minority without benefiting parents, children or the marital institution.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion.
"The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort." (Read the full ruling here.)
Reinhardt, joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, pointedly refrained from deciding whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. Instead, he said Prop. 8 violated the Constitution because it was rooted in moral disproval of gays and lesbians and withdrew rights they had won less than six months earlier, when the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
Their narrowly framed ruling would apply only to California, if upheld on appeal.
In dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith said Prop. 8 must be upheld if there was any reasonable basis for its enactment. For example, he said, Californians could have concluded - rightly or wrongly - that children were better off with married, biological parents, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples would encourage responsible child-rearing.
But the court majority said prohibiting same-sex marriage does not encourage opposite-sex couples to marry or raise children.
Sponsors of Prop. 8, who defended the measure in court, denounced the ruling.
"We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and a woman," said Andy Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage.
The ban on same-sex marriage remains in effect while the case proceeds toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
Announcement of the impending ruling this morning drew about 100 gay-rights supporters to the courthouse steps. They cheered when a woman emerged, held up her laptop computer and shouted that the court had struck down Prop. 8.
"It brings you to tears," said James Pearman, 60, of Daly City. "You know that you are equal. You know that you have rights, that children (of gay parents) will have rights."
Prop. 8 was approved by 52 percent of the voters in November 2008. It amended the California Constitution to repeal a May 2008 ruling by the state Supreme Court, which said the state's then-existing ban on same-sex marriage violated California's constitutional guarantee of equality.
After the nation's first federal court trial on same-sex marriage, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop. 8 in August 2010. He said gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry their chosen partner - a broadly stated ruling that, if upheld on appeal, would apply nationwide.
The appeals court majority took a more limited approach, which could narrow the scope of future Supreme Court review of the case.
Reinhardt relied on a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Colorado initiative prohibiting cities and counties from enacting civil rights laws protecting gays and lesbians. The high court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said a state violates equal protection when it strips rights from a vulnerable minority for no apparent reason other than moral disapproval.
Prop. 8 falls into the same category, Reinhardt said.
He said the rationales offered by the measure's supporters were either unsupported by the evidence, like promoting responsible child-rearing, or legally baseless, like preserving a traditional but exclusionary definition of marriage. Reinhardt also said evidence presented to Walker showed that the Prop. 8 campaign appealed to voters' fears of homosexuals.
With no demonstrated "legitimate purpose," Reinhardt said, the court must conclude that the ballot measure was rooted in "disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class."
In another part of the ruling, the court unanimously rejected arguments by Prop. 8's sponsors that Walker should have been disqualified, and his decision set aside, because he did not reveal at the time of the trial that he is a gay man with a longtime partner, whom he could marry if same-sex marriage were legalized.
The court said a judge is not required to disqualify himself just because his ruling might affect him, along with many other members of the public.
Chronicle staff writer Will Kane contributed to this report.
Bob Egelko is a Chronicle staff writer. begelko@sfchronicle.com.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/07/BA1H1N3T1H.DTL#ixzz1ljgoGWwM
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário