Gay Marriage in CA redux

[Cole Parker]

Interesting developments going on:

The federal judge who decided in favor of legalizing gay marriage but delayed inplementation of the order for a week was to have waived the delay this week, but instead extended it another week to allow anyone apealing his decisison more time to do so.

But, a legal entanglement has arisen. It turns out, only the losing party in this case has the right of appeal. In this case, it was a contest between the gay applicants versus two people, our governor and our attorney general. Both of those people, Arnold and Jerry Brown--who is currently running for governor--have come out in support of the judge's decision, and both have said they won't appeal.

This means the liklihood of a legitimate appeal being filed is slim, and the liklihood strong that the judge's decision to permit gay marriages will stand and be enacted next week.

C

[Trab]

Wow.

[Richard Norway]

Wow! and OMG!!!!!!!!

Do you all know how expensive a proper wedding can be? We had originally planned on it being at Wayfarers Chapel in Portuguese Bend and the reception on the Queen Mary in Long Beach. OMG!! Now I have to auction off my soul to pay for it. Any takers?? :)

[E.J.]

This means the liklihood of a legitimate appeal being filed is slim, and the liklihood strong that the judge's decision to permit gay marriages will stand and be enacted next week.

no appeal also means no supreme court, which means this decision will only apply to California....for now

[Richard Norway]

I'm not so sure E.J.

This decision was in Federal Court, so it would apply to the whole US. If the defendants won't appeal, I'm sure that others in other states will sue and it will eventually wind up in the US Supreme Court.

But this is still monumental! I never thought it would happen in my lifetime.

[The Pecman]

I think Richard is right in a way, in that gay marriages in California have to be observed in all states -- at least, the way I understand the law.

The trick is when they're going to appeal it -- and whether the court will agree to hear the appeal. Let's face it, this is going to eventually wind up in the Supreme Court. I just hope we have enough liberals on the bench for this to pass. If Obama loses the next election (and it isn't looking great), his successor could appoint one more conservative, which will be enough to kill the whole thing.

[Cole Parker]

I believe EJ is correct. While it was heard in federal court, the case itself was a suit against California for denying a group of it's citizens the rights other citizens have, a suit asking to estop the provisions of Prop 8. The judge ruled the proposition violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Therefore, he set aside Prop. 8, which will have the effect of allowing gay marriages in California.

It says nothing about the rest of the country. Pecman is right that in general, marriages in one state are held valid in another, but this finding does not do what the Supreme Court would do, make gay marriage a nationwide right. And in fact, it may slow down the process whereby that matter will appear before our highest court.

That's my reading on it. But California legalizing gay marriage is a huge deal. The saying, 'As California goes, so goes the Nation,' has proven correct many times before this. And we're what, almost 10% of our country's population?

C

[Graeme]

I think Richard is right in a way, in that gay marriages in California have to be observed in all states -- at least, the way I understand the law.

My understanding (from another country and from a non-lawyer) is different. DOMA says that gay marriages in one state do not have to be recognised in other states. Until DOMA is repealed or found to be unconstitutional, this ruling will only affect CA.

[colinian]

I saw this very funny YouTube vid on Brody's blog and decided to post it here.

Colin

[Drewbie]

I saw this very funny YouTube vid on Brody's blog and decided to post it here.

Colin

especially they make gay babies one :P

[The Pecman]

Wow, those are great. I'm gonna pass them along to some friends of mine... (The Mormon one had me on the floor!)

[E.J.]

Ninth Circuit stays Perry ruling

Appellants? motion for a stay of the district court?s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.

The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[Cole Parker]

Uh, could someone put that in English?

C

[JamesSavik]

Translation *The lawyers are going to have a circle jerk for six months.*

[colinian]

Uh, could someone put that in English?

There's a consideration that support for a proposition that was overturned in a Federal Appellate Court must be defended by the State, not by the original proponents of the proposition. If that is supported by the 9th Circuit Court, the appeal of Judge Walker's decision will be denied, and proposition 8 will be overturned. That's essentially what's meant in the highlighted section in E.J.'s post. Of course, there's the probability that in any case it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then the first question will be, will the U.S. Supreme Court hear the appeal? If they do, their decision could be to send it back to the 9th Circuit Court, refuse to hear the case, or schedule the case to be heard.

Colin