Will the Supreme Court hear Perry v Brown (Prop 8 case)?

[scream4ever]

San Francisco files brief with Supreme Court urging them to decline review of Perry v Brown (now technically called Hollingsworth v Brown):

Prop 8 Trial Tracker » The Prop 8 case: analyzing San Francisco’s Supreme Court brief

 

[Kulindahr]

San Francisco files brief with Supreme Court urging them to decline review of Perry v Brown (now technically called Hollingsworth v Brown):

Prop 8 Trial Tracker » The Prop 8 case: analyzing San Francisco’s Supreme Court brief

Superb. That makes clearer what I've sort of felt but couldn't get straight in my mind. Now my question is whether the Ninth saw that SCOTUS would be a risk, and so crafted their decision to keep the case from going to Washington.

 

[scream4ever]

What a big let down it will be if SCOTUS takes it. Everyone has me worked up.

Here in MN (I'm interning for Minnesotans United For All Families) we had a guy from Equality California lead a training. I spoke with him about the current state of the case. He said that his boss expects the Supreme Court to deny the appeal.

Just thought I'd mention that.

 

[rareboy]

Superb. That makes clearer what I've sort of felt but couldn't get straight in my mind. Now my question is whether the Ninth saw that SCOTUS would be a risk, and so crafted their decision to keep the case from going to Washington.

I certainly think this is the case.

 

[rareboy]

What a big let down it will be if SCOTUS takes it. Everyone has me worked up.

We'll get drunk together. It is so essential that California re-instate homo marriage in order for the tide to finally turn across the US and it is so essential that this issue stop being the focus of every election cycle in the US.

 

[scream4ever]

I won't be convinced until I see it happen. I've had my hopes up before in this state only to get completely disappointed.

Well there's not much else that can happen with this case. Even conservative legal scholars are all saying that we can't lose. It's either going to end in a few weeks or else in June of 2013.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well there's not much else that can happen with this case. Even conservative legal scholars are all saying that we can't lose. It's either going to end in a few weeks or else in June of 2013.

My forecast is that this one will end here, and that Olsen and Boies already have another case lined up in another state (and circuit, possibly), one which will push the parameters a little more.

I'm thinking one where the legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill, but a referendum took it away.

 

[maxpowr9]

If the case is closed and all arguments for stays have been denied, doesn't that mean gays can marry in California now?

Until SCOTUS denies hearing the case, then it becomes legal for gay Californians to marry. Reckon that doesn't mean they won't take on one of the several other court cases regarding gay marriage in the US on.

 

[scream4ever]

My forecast is that this one will end here, and that Olsen and Boies already have another case lined up in another state (and circuit, possibly), one which will push the parameters a little more.

I'm thinking one where the legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill, but a referendum took it away.

Probably either Maine, Washington, or Maryland (although I expect Maine will pass marriage equality this year, and probably Washington too, while Maryland I'd say is a tossup, although it is looking better there).

Essentially the same thing will happen with DOMA. When Section 3 is ruled unconstitutional next year, I expect a case to begin soon which will challenge Section 2 of the law (which if overturned would order states to recognize same sex marriage even if it is not legal in said state).

 

[rareboy]

Well there's not much else that can happen with this case. Even conservative legal scholars are all saying that we can't lose. It's either going to end in a few weeks or else in June of 2013.

My money would be on 2013. At least, at this point, I almost hope so.

If it ends in a few weeks, it could be the catalyst the Republicans need to pull the vote for Romney since they would use it to scare the American populace to death with stories of the depravity of liberal homosexuals gay-marrying their children.

Given the egregious lies spitting from Romney/Ryan so far, I can't even imagine what they would do with homosexuals as a device of division and hate.

 

[scream4ever]

Same sex marriage is definitely losing it's status as a wedge issue. It would not have the effect that it did in 2004 IMO.

 

[Kulindahr]

Probably either Maine, Washington, or Maryland (although I expect Maine will pass marriage equality this year, and probably Washington too, while Maryland I'd say is a tossup, although it is looking better there).

Essentially the same thing will happen with DOMA. When Section 3 is ruled unconstitutional next year, I expect a case to begin soon which will challenge Section 2 of the law (which if overturned would order states to recognize same sex marriage even if it is not legal in said state).

Forgive my memory, but I don't recall any of those states having passed a marriage equality bill and then having it rescinded, which was my point: with Prop 8, it's effectively been established that if the state courts say gays can marry, and a referendum takes that away, the referendum doesn't count; a good next step would be to establish that if a legislature says gays can marry, and a referendum takes that away, the referendum doesn't count. The point would then be well established that if the right has once been recognized, it can't be taken back.

 

[Benvolio]

Wrong the Democrats have used it as a wedge issue, by promoting it. They are the moving party.

 

[scream4ever]

Forgive my memory, but I don't recall any of those states having passed a marriage equality bill and then having it rescinded, which was my point: with Prop 8, it's effectively been established that if the state courts say gays can marry, and a referendum takes that away, the referendum doesn't count; a good next step would be to establish that if a legislature says gays can marry, and a referendum takes that away, the referendum doesn't count. The point would then be well established that if the right has once been recognized, it can't be taken back.

Maine did just that in 2009, and while Washington and Maryland have not done it yet they could do it on election day.

 

[rareboy]

Wow. By advocating gay marriage one is making it a wedge issue? What on earth are you talking about? Republicans are trying to get their ignorant constituents out because they fear more about two people of the same sex getting married, then about other issues like the economy and health care.

Republicans rely almost entirely on social issues... since they have failed on economic matters.

Absolutely wrong again, Benvolio.

[Text: Removed by Moderator]

But on this issue BV is nakedly and utterly wrong. The Republicans have even acknowledged using and exploiting homo marriage as an issue in the elections. They are fairly panicking over not having DADT this time around. Time for this toy to be taken away from them.

It is essential to vote for the people in the positions that can finally bring this bizarre farce to an end and help the US take its place with the other modern western states that have recognized and celebrated the diversity and worth of all citizens.

It is beyond time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maine did just that in 2009, and while Washington and Maryland have not done it yet they could do it on election day.

Maryland would probably be the place to tackle another case. Washington would be sort of redundant, since it's also in the Ninth, and Maine is relatively small.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow. By advocating gay marriage one is making it a wedge issue? What on earth are you talking about? Republicans are trying to get their ignorant constituents out because they fear more about two people of the same sex getting married, then about other issues like the economy and health care.

Republicans rely almost entirely on social issues... since they have failed on economic matters.

Absolutely wrong again, Benvolio.

Once upon a time, the Republican party was the party of human rights. Since they [STRIKE]dropped[/STRIKE] threw away the ball, the Democrats picked it up and are running with it. So of course the Democrats are pushing it.

 

[rareboy]

Forgive my memory, but I don't recall any of those states having passed a marriage equality bill and then having it rescinded, which was my point: with Prop 8, it's effectively been established that if the state courts say gays can marry, and a referendum takes that away, the referendum doesn't count; a good next step would be to establish that if a legislature says gays can marry, and a referendum takes that away, the referendum doesn't count. The point would then be well established that if the right has once been recognized, it can't be taken back.

I don't understand why that isn't already the case.

If such action is allowed to stand, isn't the repeal of civil rights for any group also on the table? Why would the US states or the Feds allow the notion that freedom and human rights are so fragile?

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't understand why that isn't already the case.

If such action is allowed to stand, isn't the repeal of civil rights for any group also on the table? Why would the US states or the Feds allow the notion that freedom and human rights are so fragile?

I suppose in a way it is already the case, but it hasn't been established specifically for same-sex marriage. At the moment, with Perry v., it's essentially been established that if a court says same-sex marriage is a right, that can't be undone. Obviously, though, attempts are still being made with referenda to undo the acts of legislatures, and that needs to be quashed. The distinction is that courts are saying, "The right is protected under existing law/constitution", whereas legislatures can be viewed as creating a right that wasn't there. Until a federal court says, "Sorry; can't do that", those attempts will continue, wasting time and money.

But once that's happened, the talibangelicals will be in a bind, because the tide will be coming in but never going out. What's left will be amendments to state constitutions that have already been passed. And when suits are brought against some of those, SCOTUS will be boxed in eventually; they can only ignore suits from multiple states appealing state constitution issues for so long.

With this court, they might just decide it's a state issue, but I don't see any way they can wiggle out of requiring all states to recognize each other's weddings/marriages. Hopefully DOMA will be gone then, so the point might be moot anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

When was that? Back in the time of top hats lol?

Up through Eisenhower, actually. Nixon turned it into a cynical outfit concerned only about power. Ford was a dim bulb who was oblivious to the stirrings of the elephangelicals. Reagan rode the Religiopublicans into office. Bush I was a dose of old-style Republicans. Bush II was a dimwitted puppet of the Nixonian and talibangelical alliance. And Romney . . . now add the plutocrats to the misbegotten triad for a power hungry, reactionary religious plutocracy.