Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 12, 2010

GOING TO THE CHAPEL.... Last week, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker declared California's Proposition 8, banning marriage equality in the state, to be unconstitutional. Today, Walker said Prop 8 will no longer apply to California, as of Wednesday afternoon.

The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban ruled Thursday that gay marriages can resume starting Aug. 18.

The decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker means gay and lesbian couples will have to wait six days before they can get married. That gives gay marriage opponents time to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeals court fails to act by 5 p.m. local time next Wednesday, then gay marriages can go forward.

In his ruling, Walker concluded, "Because proponents make no argument that they -- as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs -- will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay."

That's obviously encouraging, but we don't yet know whether the 9th Circuit, generally considered the most progressive appeals court bench, will again stay the ruling, and keep the ban in place as the case continues through the appeals process.

I'm not an attorney -- those who know the procedural details here are encouraged to weigh in on this in the comments section -- but it's my understanding that today's announcement will, at a minimum, expedite the review of Walker's decision from last week.

On a related note, FDL has an interesting item on the three judges most likely to hear the appeal at the 9th Circuit, and why there's ample reason to be optimistic that the three will uphold the underlying Walker ruling.

Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I'm so happy for this..that was a terrible injustice!

Posted by: Cha on August 12, 2010 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

STEP ONE: Ruin Traditional Marriage.
STEP TWO: Adopt Terrorist Anchor Babies.
STEP THREE: Put Terrorist Anchor Babies Through Med School. (NOTE - Step Three takes about 25 years.)
STEP FOUR: Terrorist Anchor Babies Oversee Death Panels.
STEP FIVE: Kill Grandma, Destroy America.

Are you happy, you godless, latte-sipping athiests? Well? Are ya?

Posted by: Cazart on August 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

The really interesting part is that the ruling questions the proponents' standing to appeal the issue at all because they are not officers of the state. They could simply get bounced on the standing issue, as none of the California State defendants has appealed.

Posted by: abject funk on August 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Correct. The proponents were merely intervenor-defendants. They don't have the same power to appeal as the actual defendant (in this case, the State of California). Similarly, a subdivision of the state (in this case, Imperial County, which apparently wants to appeal) doesn't have the standing to appeal.

Posted by: DJ on August 12, 2010 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Cazart: how dare you suggest that I sip latte? I swill good American-roast (none of that wet-charcoal crap) coffee. Black, thank you, and no candy in it, either.

Apart from that, yeah, I'm pretty happy. Although I do kind of wish you'd kept Project Grannykill under your hat.

Posted by: Cap'n Chucky on August 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

DJ -- MSNBC's Pete Williams made this very point when the news broke. Apparently the state is not going to appeal, and they were the defendants. He said there was a question whether or not the Pro-Prop 8 folks had standing to appeal. Any lawyers out there? Speak up!

Posted by: Michael Carpet on August 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Who filed the stay? The same issue of standing would have existed then as well.

Posted by: Scott F. on August 12, 2010 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

The judge in his ruling has said that the proponents have to demonstrate to the court how they would be harmed if gay marriages were allowed and then said they had not done so in the trial.

In fact, that was the core of the trial as spelled out by David Boies the other day. It is one thing to make wild claims about how civilization as we know it will collapse if gays are allowed to get married, and another to come into a court and provide evidence which is challengable under cross examination.

They had to do that and they did not convince the court that they would be harmed.

Of course there is the claim that if gay marriage is allowed, the supply of "rent boys" could dry up and that hundreds of pseudo experts whose primary income came from appearing in court and offering "scientific" proof that gays were unclean would have to begin looking for other work.

Posted by: dweb on August 12, 2010 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Good link to describe what is next:

http://www.calitics.com/diary/12278/prop-8-walker-denies-stay-temporary-stay-in-effect-until-august-18

Posted by: cthulhu on August 12, 2010 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Are you happy, you godless, latte-sipping athiests? Well? Are ya?" - Cazart

Yes, but I take my coffee black, thanks ;-)

Posted by: Marko on August 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

@Cazart

You forgot Step 1.5: Round up conservatives and place in internment camps for political reeducation.

That's, like, one of the most critical steps.

Posted by: jsacto on August 12, 2010 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

As others have said, to get to IX, the proponents have to pass 4 "tests" to go on in an appeal (remember, they aren't the named defendants in this case). Walker found they failed all of them.

Once the named defendants in the case asked Walker to drop the stay and said they have no interest in enforcing Prop 8, there was really nothing for him to do except issue another scathing ruling to the Flop 8 crowd.

Posted by: The Answer Was Orange on August 12, 2010 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a link to his ruling: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/Final_stay_order.pdf

It's only 11 pages and because of its clarity, I think it's the best source for understanding what's going on (no offense Mr. B!).

Posted by: The Answer Was Orange on August 12, 2010 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK
The really interesting part is that the ruling questions the proponents' standing to appeal the issue at all because they are not officers of the state. They could simply get bounced on the standing issue, as none of the California State defendants has appealed.

In fact, key State defendants (the Governor and Attorney-General) have not only not appealed, they have filed briefs opposing a stay of the trial court order.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 12, 2010 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

The 9th Circuit is a notoriously liberal America-hating example of activist jurists, and thus the right-wing blogosphere will have a head explosion when it upholds Walker's decision. That's after the head explosion it will have today's decision. The end is near because because the gay judge has once again advanced the godless, satanic, homosexual agenda. Go get your guns, you god-fearing simpleton gooks!

Posted by: rrk1 on August 12, 2010 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

Exactly Mr. or Ms. Dicely. Also, the ruling relies upon previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings that bounced appeals based on the fact that the parties pursuing the appeals were not adversely affected.

He really put the bow on the gift box that was his original opinion with this one. My favorite part was when the claim the current same-sex marriages would be under a cloud of "uncertainty" was his remark that "none of the proponents have stated they intend to enter into a same-sex marriage." Ouch!

In any event, he really spelled out the legal road the 9th Circuit might take if they just want to affirm his ruling and allow his findings of fact and conclusions of law to stand.

I have even heard that some right-wing legal groups think that an appeal the U.S. Supreme Court might be unwise tactically. Better to have it happen state by state than have a global ruling on this issue at this point. That is an optimistic take, but hopefully it will be binding on the 9th Circuit if that happens (I live in WA, where our own Supreme Court refused to recognize same-sex marriage in a truly atrocious opinion a few years ago).

Anyway, Judge Walker continues to impress.

Posted by: abject funk on August 12, 2010 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

abject funk:

If the 9th and SCOTUS ultimately decide there is no standing then the ruling will only apply to CA. BUT, if that happens, I expect AFER will likely move to another state like WA or OR and try to get another case going along similar lines. And they will have the CA precedent to work from.

Posted by: cthulhu on August 12, 2010 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Are you happy, you godless, latte-sipping athiests? Well? Are ya?" - Cazart

I'm just athy, not necessarily any athier than anyone else, and certainly not claiming to be the athiest of all -- I didn't even know there was a competition involved, let alone enter it. Maybe if I knew who the judges are, so I could try to bribe them?
But I'd kinda guess the fix is in, and Harris, Dawkins, or Hitchens would hold the title more or less permanently; who else could even have a chance?

Posted by: smartalek on August 13, 2010 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

input this URL:
( http://www.fashionclothe.com )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

Posted by: jian on August 13, 2010 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly