Gay marriage battle relaunches, challenged in court

[White Eagle]

It is the Mercury News site certificate that is invalid.

You can view the exact same article here. (The article is a syndicated release from Associated Press.)

Thanks.
I haven't seen that particular message. I wouldn't know which way was valid or not.

 

[White Eagle]

I too hope that Judge Sotomayor is on our side, but more importantly I hope that Judge Sotomayor will decide cases according the the law and the facts rather than according to her own prior preconceptions (which is necessary to protect predictability and equality under the law).

These two lawyers opinion of the matter is exactly what I've been wondering why nobody has brought it up in the courts.
I haven't seen anything about Sontomayor's opinion on gay marriage.

 

[White Eagle]

Wow, so the first step would really be starting on July 2? That would be awesome if they could suspend Prop. 8 until the ruling.

I agree that the pair-up is awesome. It could really appeal to both the liberal and conservative sides of the court. Good luck Christian Right getting attornies as good as them (Kenneth Starr doesn't even come close!)!

You mean the Elephangelical's?

 

[frankfrank]

This scares me.

The strong idealist in me would love to see it go all the way to The Supremes, and [STRIKE]Diana Ross[/STRIKE] Justice Kennedy being perhaps the fifth (or, better, sixth) vote overturning the November results, but I'm not very confident.

Wouldn't it have been more prudent to get a repeal on the ballot in 2010 and let it run its course, THEN appeal if necessary...or would that extend the appeal past the timetable when it is legally possible to file it?

 

[CaptainRush]

July 2 is when it's pitched, how long will it take to find out if Prop 8 gets malfunctioned and how long will it take for a ruling?

 

[Kulindahr]

Interesting that one of the attorneys representing this legal challenge to overturn Prop 8 was also President George W. Bush’s Solicitor General, is a member of the Federalist Society, and was recently considered a reliably conservative candidate for nomination to the Supreme Court.

That's what happens when you get people who actually believe in liberty, and in what the Constitution actually says.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe so, but its often pointed out that in similar situations (such as civil rights for blacks), if the oppressed minority did not ram it down people's throats their cause went nowhere, and I tend to agree.

There are still conservatives around who consider Eisenhower a "damned traitor" for sending federal troops to "help them niggers".

These two lawyers opinion of the matter is exactly what I've been wondering why nobody has brought it up in the courts.
I haven't seen anything about Sontomayor's opinion on gay marriage.

I don't recall there being quite the opening this has provided. As the two lawyers pointed out, the wording of the CA SC ruling practically plead for this to go the the federal courts.

You mean the Elephangelical's?

The ReligioPublicans.

Wouldn't it have been more prudent to get a repeal on the ballot in 2010 and let it run its course, THEN appeal if necessary...or would that extend the appeal past the timetable when it is legally possible to file it?

There's no legal timetable; it's a matter of when someone believes they're being discriminated against and goes for relief.

It might be well into the next decade if we wait for a Supreme Court decision. It would have to be scheduled and ruled on by three court levels, Distric, Appeals, and Supreme, each of which could take years themselves. In a best case scenario, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco (arguably the most liberal out of the 12 federal appeals courts) makes a decision in our favor and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

Given the SCOTUS case load, that's possible.
Then the nation's "non-traditional marriage" types can all move west.

OTOH....

What happens to most cases that have a regional effect is they are appealed and heard by the local circuit court, and then the Supreme Court denies a further appeal. The Supreme Court hesitates to take up cases of regional importance. As the legality of proposition 8 concerns events and specific issues that have transpired only in California, I doubt they would hear it anyway. The heart of this issue really is the conflict between the California Constitution and the US Constitution, namely are people able to vote away state constitutional rights under the US Constitution. No other state has had that happen. The only similar case that the Supreme Court has heard like this was Romer vs. Evans. In 1992, the people of Colorado voted by a 53.4% majority, for a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the passage of any gay rights laws. A further parallel to the Prop. 8 case is the state district court that initially hear the case granted a temporary injunction preventing its enforcement until the case was heard. After the legal wranglings in state court, it was eventually appealed by the State of Colorado to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS upheld the state court ruling that overturned amendment 2. Due to these parallels, Romer vs. Evans is a key case that the two attorneys are using to overturn prop 8 in federal court.

It's because of the issues -- state constitution v. federal, Romer v. Evans, marriage as a fundamental right, even DOMA -- that SCOTUS would almost have to pick it up: failure to do so would create legal chaos, where in part of the country the US Con. would be considered supreme and most in which it was an open question; part in which marriage rights for all are considered as pre-existing, and part in which they can be defined by the states.

 

[CaptainRush]

Small Update.

A hearing is scheduled by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for next Thursday for a preliminary injunction on prop 8.

http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12696100

I would be smitten hard if the injunction passed just to spite.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
It would be nice to know what other groups are joining in. The Pink Pistols filed supporting briefs in the Heller case, but this isn't exactly related to our interests; surely, though, there are other groups who should have something to say, such as PFLAG, the national gay libertarian group, the Libertarian Party, and others. It would be nice to be able to read their briefs; some of those from small groups in prior cases have been brilliant.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

P.S. I've also heard that Clarence Thomas is planning on retiring soon.

 

[Kulindahr]

They're a little thin in the tenor section, and definitely short in bass.

But the strings have it down!







(that really ought to be sung by a 32- or even 48-voice choir)

 

[Kulindahr]

This, IMHO, is more suited to this forum, anyway:

 

[opinterph]

… It would be nice to be able to read their briefs; some of those from small groups in prior cases have been brilliant.

The case is titled Perry, et al., v. Schwarzenegger, et al.

I can’t find a comprehensive list of amicus briefs, but listed below are some links to the more prominent filings in the case:

California Attorney General’s Answer to the original Complaint
http://lawdork.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/brownanswerinperry.pdf

San Francisco Attorney General’s Amicus Brief
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/city_attorney/cases/PROP8-USDIST-AMICUS.PDF

Alliance Defense Fund’s Motion to Intervene
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/UserDocs/SchwarzeneggerMTI.pdf

ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense, and National Center for Lesbian Rights Amicus Brief
http://lawdork.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/aclubrief.pdf​

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

They're a little thin in the tenor section, and definitely short in bass.

True, I was just in a rush to find one that didn't have the embedding disabled. I don't understand folks bein' stingy with the youtube vids but whatever.

I wouldn't have been able to help them out. I can't go high enough for tenor or low enough for bass. Baritones; opera's unsung heroes.

Besides, let's not split hairs, Clarence leaving is a joyous occassion, I'd settle for two sopranos and an out-of-tune clarinet. I'm googling to see if the claim is substantial, don't wanna get my hopes up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gotta say it was a pretty weak performance. The choir really was lousy.


Thanks for the incredibly funny link, gay men's choir was much better hehe.

I've been in several choirs; sang lead tenor in one, so I have to agree -- that first choir was seriously lacking.

BGMC is both quality in singing and known for having fun -- this is the best example I've seen of the latter! But hearing the Hallelujah with just male voices was weird.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Enough about the choir. What's the latest on the topic?

 

[CaptainRush]

Enough about the choir. What's the latest on the topic?

Today is the day they find out if it's unconstitutional or not.

 

[Kulindahr]

Today is the day they find out if it's unconstitutional or not.

You know, the Declaration of Independence was actually done on the 2nd; they just spent two days arguing about it.

Maybe this day will see another sort of declaration of independence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Good question.

The trial is scheduled for January, 2010. I'm not sure of the exact date.

The latest development in the case is a request from the pro-gay lawyers for Yes on 8 campaign internal memos. Their lawyer, Charles Cooper, is defending the secrecy of these memos and other internal communications on the basis of potential harassment.

Realistically, we could expect some extremely damning evidence should these internal memos be made public. We all know the real goal here was to keep gays permanently 2nd class citizens.

All they'd have to do would be to leave the names off the memos, no?

 

[Kulindahr]

They would become part of the public court record anyway.

I've read of cases where documents were obtained, and by the judge's order certain parts were kept blacked out/confidential. The judges merely had to say it was in the interest of justice, so the case could proceed.

I saw documents for one where there were names within the text, and there were just black blotches where the names had been -- and blotches where any references were that might have helped figure out the names (addresses, office numbers, meeting times, etc.). Reading them gave a headache.

Of course, I'm only talking about personal names -- leave any churches, PACs, or whatever on them....