Judge Doubts Gay Marriage Ban’s Backers Can Appeal

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Judge doubts gay marriage ban’s backers can appeal

The Associated Press
Published: Friday 13th of August 2010 07:55:18 AM

The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_trial

[joeybee12]

1. All they got is hate, and you can't appeal on the basis of hate apparently...KNR

[ellenfl]

2. i don't see how they could have any legal standing. eom

[backtomn]

8. They have standing for trial, but not for an appeal???

Please.....This judge REALLY blew it by saying that. However, as I have said before (like it or not), this will come down to what Justice Kennedy thinks. We will just have to wait and see. I can't claim to be confident in depending on one unpredictable Supreme Court Justice. Something is wrong with that system.

[4lbs]

9. The proponents of Prop 8 aren't the ones that brought it to trial.

The opponents of Prop 8, the California LGBT, are the ones that did.

Judge Walker said that the proponents don't have standing to appeal.

[backtomn]

23. Seems logical to me......feel free to correct, after reading

The state of California did not take up the case of the referendum passed by the people, so private groups took up the case. Those people were allowed to be "defendents" in the case (which suggests that they have standing). If they did not have standing to be defendents, why would they not have standing in an appeal. If they did not have standing, the judge could have entered a Default Judgement in the case saying that there is no disagreement among the people with standing in the case.....meaning that the Governor and Attorney General sided with the plaintiffs, so there is no disagreement among those with standing.

I disagreed with that statement....BUT MY POINT IS THE SAME....this will likely go to the Supreme Court and Justice Kennedy will decide. If it is not apparent to you that this is AN OPINION, then that is your problem, not mine.

[FreeState]

29. Actually the Prop 8 defenders do not and did not ever have standing

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/11/breaking-judge-walker-to-rule-thursday-on-stay-in-prop-8-case/

Didn’t Judge Walker Already Rule That The Prop 8 Supporters Have Standing?

No. Judge Walker decided that the Prop 8 Backers could intervene, not that they have Article III standing. To intervene in a case, a party does not need to show that they have standing. That’s because a “case or controversy” already exists. (The Plaintiffs had standing to bring the case because they were being denied their constitutional right to get married.) Since both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants already had standing, the Court had jurisdication over the “case.” From there, deciding that the Prop 8 supporters could intervene in the case was an easy call. The law of the Ninth Circuit holds that a “public interest group may have a protectable interest in defending the legality of a measure it had supported.”

But this does not mean that it has standing. To the contrary, on several occasions the Supreme Court has recognized that a party who was allowed to intervene in litigation does not necessarily have standing. For example, the Supreme Court said:

"If the original party on whose side a party intervened drops out of the litigation, the intervenor will then have to establish its own standing to continue pursuing litigation. (Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64, (1986))

[backtomn]

26. Actually......2 couples brought the case....

with the support of the Governor, Attorney General, etc. See the attached case.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

[DeSwiss]

13. It might help if you.....

...prefaced statements like that with: "In my opinion"

- Just sayin.......

[greiner3]

16. Enjoy your stay.

[Binka]

21. +1! n/t

[backtomn]

24. Try again

Both sides need to have "standing" :)

[msanthrope]

33. Both sides did have standing, but you conflating the proponents and the defense.

The couples who brought the original case has standing because they were denied marriage.

The defense was the State of CA, represented by the Attny General.

The proponets of the law were allowed in as intervenors. Intervenors are allowed in if they are a party in interest in the original case. Here, since the proponents were involved in the fomenting of the Prop, AND because they made the correct argument that the Attny General was not going to see to their interests, they were allowed in.

They are not a party in interest on the appeal, because there is no defense this time. The State of Ca isn't appealing.

[backtomn]

36. I understand what you are saying, but....

if you look at the link I cite in message #26, you will see that the Attorney General is not listed as a defendent (or intervenor). Apparently, the judge did allow someone to take over that role for the Attorney. Why would that not apply to the appeal? It seems to me that they might have the same argument on appeal......the Attorney General and Governor are not defending the vote of the majority of Californians. It seems to me that they would also have other issues on which to base an appeal.....there almost always are.

[msanthrope]

37. As I stated, the Attorney General represents the

State of CA. The AG himself would not be listed as a party unless the Office itself was part of the lawsuit. They are the 'lawyers' for the State of CA.

No one else was assigned to take over the defense for the State of CA.

The State, through the AG, did put on a defense. They just didn't dispute much of the plaintiff's case.

What you seem to be confusing is the role of the intervenors/proponents--they DID NOT 'take over' for the defense, but presented their own arguments, after the AG.

[fascisthunter]

34. see post #34

[No Elephants]

38. I thought they intervened in the trial? Standing will be an issue in this case

if the state does not appeal. However, I have no guess as to how it will turn out.

[Deep13]

3. The very essence of the truth of this matter.

Gay marriage affects no one except for those participating in it. One has no right to make others suffer for the sake of his own religious prejudices.

[RKP5637]

4. Some just thrive on hatred and they use religion as a banner under which to

practice hatred.

[savalez]

19. Exactly!

[dickthegrouch]

5. But But But He should have recused himself!

So if a gay man who might want to get married should have recused himself on conflict of interest grounds, lets explore who else has conflicts.

Straight men who might want to get married
Straight women who might want to get married
Married people
Divorced people
Religious people
Kids who've been fed a diet of "when you get married...."
Young adults fed a diet of "When are you getting married?"
Anyone who's ever heard the phrase "Married and lived happily ever after"

Have I eliminated everyone yet ?




edit: sp error

[Deep13]

6. Only an androgynous, nonsexual judge is impartial!

Know any?

[BootinUp]

18. Thats what we need, an alien from an androgynous world, lol. nt

[mrcheerful]

7. As far as the pro Prop 8 supporters reasoning that somehow gays marrying would somehow effect

children as one of their arguments BS. The same argument was also used for mixed babies before 1964, I remember very well how racists used children of mixed couples as an excuse, the poor children weren't accepted by either the white race nor the black race, but as we see today few people outside of racists even blink an eye when they see mixed race children or when they see white looking kids in the stores with black grand parents or the other way around. Funny how these sick fucks play the children card when it suits there needs while at the same time refusing to help feed these kids the rest of the time.

[Yavin4]

22. "few people outside of racists even blink an eye when they see mixed race children "

Some of those mixed race kids born during the 1960s turned out okay:

[Metta]

10. They have fear, too, though it's all slight of hand. Nothing to see here.

Happy karma.

[LiberalFighter]

11. I wonder how they will argue that the ruling will harm them?

That the churches won't be able to perform as many marriages?

That the wedding industry won't be able to sell as many wedding dresses?

That the jewelry industry won't be able to sell as many diamond engagement and wedding rings?


Wasn't there a prohibition of interracial marriages even within churches at one time? Another thing that religion gets wrong.

[JBoy]

12. Ha! Checkmate.

[CatholicEdHead]

14. Yes and No

What we would probably see is Prop 8 Redeux. From what I understand of CA law, you can bring constitutional amendments over and over ad infidum. So the 8ers will just restart back on square one. CA needs to change their proposition laws to make it more restrictive on such frivolous proposals like Prop 8.

[Mz Pip]

20. The next time I don't think it would pass.

There is much more support in CA for gay marriage than there was in 2008. I don't think the hate campaign the the Prop 8 people ran will work again.

I do agree that CA intitative process creates more problems than it solves.

[damntexdem]

15. Much of the argument was about their lack of standing to request a stay.

But it certainly did suggest a lack of standing to even appeal.

[BootinUp]

17. Here comes the Judge.

He really slammed the gavel down on the discrimination dint he?

[HoraceX]

25. Hmm.

The merits of the substantive issue aside, isn't there something a wee bit disconcerting about the courts overturning the will of the people - expressed through a referendum - and then ruling that the proponents of the referendum aren't allowed to challenge the ruling?

[strategery blunder]

27. I'm far more troubled by tyranny of the majority

and bigots using referenda to vote to overturn people's constitutional rights.

If a referendum is as blatantly unconstitutional as prop 8 was, it SHOULD be overturned by a judge.

[BootinUp]

32. Its all in the court opinion

give it a read, or at least find a thorough analysis of it. Its going to go down as one of the more important cases in recent times. Constitutional rights are not things that States can deny or make laws denying them.

New here?

[Bandit]

39. Let's have a vote to bring slavery back

If the will of the people want it , why not?

[dickthegrouch]

40. Or vote to restrict voting to men !!

While watching Prop 8 the Mormon Proposition, I was yelling at the television when one particular woman was whining about how her vote was being discounted. I really wanted to bring the point home that she wasn't even allowed to vote less than a hundred years ago, and the she still hadn't learned what voting was really for.

I heartily approve of the attempt to restrict divorce as a way of challenging the churches' hypocrisy on "defense" of marriage. But I'd love to find something equally outrageous to vote on which clearly restricts rights.

One of the signs said "A moral wrong does not make a Civil right", and I just thought "how clueless can you be?". These people just don't understand the difference between a State conferred right without any prejudice or favor and a members club conferred ceremony which happens to have the same name.

The churches need to be taught a lesson and put in their place IMHO. TAX every single one until they perish.

[DeSwiss]

28. And then there's another part of Judge Vaughn's decision.....

...that is just delish!!!

Focus on the Family vastly outpaced Mormon spending on Proposition 8

Ministry, related donors spent $1.25 million on anti-gay marriage measure
Digg Tweet By Ernest Luning 2/11/09 7:37 AM

Altogether, donations supporting Proposition 8 from Focus on the Family, one of its major benefactors and an offshoot lobbying organization totaled more than $1.251 million — just shy of the $1.275 million contributed by ProtectMarriage.com’s largest donor, the Knights of Columbus, the Connecticut-based political arm of the Catholic Church. In addition to $727,250 reported by Focus on the Family, major backer and board member Elsa Prince, the billionaire heiress of Holland, Mich., donated $450,000 to ProtectMarriage.com in two cash chunks and the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, a Christian-right lobbying organization spun off from Focus on the Family and founded in part by Prince’s foundation, chipped in $74,400.

http://coloradoindependent.com/21271/focus-on-the-family-vastly-outpaced-mormon-spending-on-proposition-8

Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8
L.A. NOW
LA Times | January 30, 2009 | 5:51 pm

Top officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed reports today indicating that they donated more than $180,000 in in-kind contributions to Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.

The contributions included tens of thousands of dollars for expenses such as airline tickets, hotel and restaurant bills and car-rental bills for top church officials such as L. Whitney Clayton, along with $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time” for church employees.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html

:rofl:

[Binka]

30. Oh Yeah Baby! I Was Laughing To Myself This Morning

Thinking about the $$$$$$ the bigot fundies dumped into the "God Hates Fags Prop 8" coffers. Wicked DELISH!:evilgrin: Did you catch the name Elsa Prince as one of the donors? That would be the Mother of the evil spawn Eric Prince the ASSHOLE founder of Blackwater. :rofl:

[The Second Stone]

31. Judge Walker underestimates the mendacity

of the conservative majority of the USSC

[fascisthunter]

35. stick a fork in the right wing hate crusade...

poor poor fearful bigots.... what will they ever do.