A Court Has Blocked California Gay Marriages During the Appeal

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 10:57 PM GMT
    More news coming in, only having a breaking headline, I presume it's the Court of Appeals there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 11:20 PM GMT
    Southbeach, I hate to say this, but your comment is totally uncalled for. What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 11:47 PM GMT
    OK, here's a news story on it:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730337/ns/us_news-life/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 11:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSouthbeach, I hate to say this, but your comment is totally uncalled for. What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

    What it has to do with is attacking me, his presumed nemesis, while trying to sabotage a gay-interest topic he doesn't want to see discussed. Or else he would discuss it, and not me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 11:50 PM GMT
    oh, how fabulous!! i didn't see what the invisible one said!! how are you wilton? how ya been, babe? icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 11:58 PM GMT
    dancerjack saidoh, how fabulous!! i didn't see what the invisible one said!! how are you wilton? how ya been, babe? icon_smile.gif

    Just great, my luv, and you? My little RJ project right now is helping a member plan his trip next week to a major US city, one I just happen to know very well, but which is new to him. This is when I really love to be on the Internet, and gay social sites, and see their true power & potential, something that still amazes me. And that I take advantage of myself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:02 AM GMT
    oh, good. i'm so glad to hear it. it's really nice when the people on here are nice to each other. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:53 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Wilton said
    dancerjack saidoh, how fabulous!! i didn't see what the invisible one said!! how are you wilton? how ya been, babe? icon_smile.gif

    Just great, my luv, and you? My little RJ project right now is helping a member plan his trip next week to a major US city, one I just happen to know very well, but which is new to him. This is when I really love to be on the Internet, and gay social sites, and see their true power & potential, something that still amazes me. And that I take advantage of myself.

    Well, I hope your little RJ project isn't a Muslim and that he doesn't want to visit the WTC site.... since you've banned all Muslims from being closer than 100 miles to the site.

    What YOU hope is to derail this thread. As you tried to derail my thread about the iPhone 4, so that I had to delete and restart it.

    Your own threads are disruptive provocations, and then you disrupt the threads of others. Kind of a predictable pattern with you, that most members here recognize.

    Now we're talking about the Prop 8 appeal here, not about me, and certainly not about you. The general RJ protocol most of us follow is to try to stick with the OP's topic.

    If you don't like that topic, go participate somewhere else. You do have choices. Now begone, before somebody drops a house on you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:59 AM GMT
    wilton, you should just ignore the douchebag. this is a good topic.... so BACK on track now:

    yeah, so it was the court of appeals that held the stay on walker's decision until the case is heard most likely around december.

    sucks huh?
  • Peteyboy583

    Posts: 32

    Aug 17, 2010 12:59 AM GMT
    First, It makes complete sense for the Court of Appeals to stay the decision, because if nuptuals occurred during the appeal period and the district court was overturned (which, considering it is the 9th Circuit - the most "liberal" circuit) is highly unlikely, those nuptuals would be voided.

    Second, SouthBeach, considering this is a thread about courts, your proposition, if it became law, would not survive judicial scruitny because there is no compelling government interest in that type of discrimination. The Supreme Court holds religious and ethnically based laws to be strictly scrutinized. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education.

    Therefore, while I commend your useage of the First Amendment, even though it is not the subject of this thread, your proposition does not hold water and is political rhetoric.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 1:25 AM GMT
    The 9th Circuit has in fact accelerated the usual appeal schedule for this, I believe, which can be glacially slow in US courts. But they've put it in December, after the November elections. perhaps to minimize it as an issue during the general election.

    The lifting of Judge Walker's stay may have it's own tactical reasons as well, if not legal ones. And there might have been a legitimate concern that gay marriages performed during the stay would be invalidated if the US Supreme Court ultimately rules to uphold Prop 8, a real possibility.

    The marriages performed in the months before Prop 8 was enacted were upheld as legal by the California State Supreme Court, but the US Supreme Court might not do that in the case of this ruling by Walker. That would only cause more confusion & grief for gays, which perhaps the 9th Circuit wishes to avoid.

    Of course, there will no doubt be some gay couples who won't survive to see this all the way to the Supreme Court, a process perhaps taking close to 2 years, a partner dying without ever having had the chance to say they were married, even if only briefly. On balance, I'd rather the stay against the Prop 8 ban had been upheld.
  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Aug 17, 2010 1:39 AM GMT



    http://prop8trialtracker.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 1:40 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    Well, I hope your little RJ project isn't a Muslim and that he doesn't want to visit the WTC site.... since you've banned all Muslims from being closer than 100 miles to the site.


    While I agree that Wilton's comments were totally out of line, you're pretty much losing the high ground here. Stop derailing threads, you've already whined at people for doing the same to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 2:22 AM GMT
    he definitely ruins every thread....I just click ignore on dumb people like this....*click
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 4:41 AM GMT
    I don't understand what's going on now. Can someone please explain very succinctly. So gays can't get married in California now? From what I understand the judge gave the Court of Appeals 6 days,...and then what happened?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 4:58 AM GMT
    JB82 saidI don't understand what's going on now. Can someone please explain very succinctly. So gays can't get married in California now? From what I understand the judge gave the Court of Appeals 6 days,...and then what happened?


    I think this article explains it simply and clearly:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/17prop.html?hp
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 17, 2010 7:52 AM GMT
    --The 3 Justices who ruled to extend the stay, were chosen randomly from the total of 47 Justices on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
    --And, a different 3 Justices will be chosen randomly for the December hearing.
    --Then, the losing side will request that a larger group of justices (I can't remember if it's all 47 justices) vote on what the outcome of the case should be.
    --And, that will be the final ruling, at this stage.
    --Then, the losing side will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    There is a possibility that the hearing in December will end with a ruling not "Yes or No" on gay marriage, but on whether the people bringing the case to the court have "standing," (anything to gain or lose from the outcome of the case).

    Normally, it would be the State of California (Attorney General and/or Governor) bringing the case (against Judge Walker's ruling) to the Ninth Circuit Court, because they have standing because they represent the interests of the people of the State of California. But, both of them agree with our side !

    If the Ninth Circuit rules, after the December hearing, that the people appealing the case to them don't have standing, I don't know is it ends right there and we automatically win.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 4:33 PM GMT
    one thing i was pondering earlier was.... what if the 9th circuit agrees with walker's decision, and then what if the opposition decides not to appeal to the supreme court as a calculated political move?

    could they be so fucked up as to purposely not appeal to the supreme court so that they leave no chance for them to rule prop 8 unconstitutional and thus lifting all such bans in all states?

    if it only reaches the 9th circuit, then we would have only made progress in california, right? what is the probability that the supreme court would rule in our favor? and if those probabilities are good, and they decide not to appeal, would there be a way to force it all the way up?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 17, 2010 8:58 PM GMT
    txguy1605 saidone thing i was pondering earlier was.... what if the 9th circuit agrees with walker's decision, and then what if the opposition decides not to appeal to the supreme court as a calculated political move?

    could they be so fucked up as to purposely not appeal to the supreme court so that they leave no chance for them to rule prop 8 unconstitutional and thus lifting all such bans in all states?

    if it only reaches the 9th circuit, then we would have only made progress in california, right? what is the probability that the supreme court would rule in our favor? and if those probabilities are good, and they decide not to appeal, would there be a way to force it all the way up?




    I can't imagine any reason why our opposition would not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are rabidly anti gay marriage.

    You are correct that, "if it only reaches the 9th Circuit, then we would have only made progress in California." But, California being such a huge state with such a huge population, it would carry a lot of weight in influencing other states to follow along.

    The probability that the Supremes would rule in our favor, is a wild guess. If they strictly follow the law, we can't lose. But, in recent years, we've seen that in 2 extremely high profile cases, they've made highly controversial political activist decisions.

    Normally, when any losing side decides not to appeal, that's the end of it. And, normally, cases don't go before the Supreme Court unless a lower court appeals to the Supremes, and the Supremes agree to hear the case.

    But, we saw the Supremes actually REQUEST that attorneys bring the corporation political campaign donation case before the Supreme Court. So, the Supremes could do the same thing with gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2010 12:10 AM GMT
    Having a law prohibiting christians from having a political voice in their own county is just wrong, after all America is the western worlds biggest christian county, and they are forbade from having a voice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2010 3:01 AM GMT
    isaidwhat said
    While I agree that Wilton's comments were totally out of line, you're pretty much losing the high ground here.


    rofl

    stick around newbie, y'ain't seen nuthin' yet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2010 3:06 AM GMT
    txguy1605 saidone thing i was pondering earlier was.... what if the 9th circuit agrees with walker's decision, and then what if the opposition decides not to appeal to the supreme court as a calculated political move?

    could they be so fucked up as to purposely not appeal to the supreme court so that they leave no chance for them to rule prop 8 unconstitutional and thus lifting all such bans in all states?

    if it only reaches the 9th circuit, then we would have only made progress in california, right? what is the probability that the supreme court would rule in our favor? and if those probabilities are good, and they decide not to appeal, would there be a way to force it all the way up?

    The current conservative make-up of the US Supreme Court guarantees the failure of any attempt to overturn Prop 8. If the 9th Circuit rules to uphold Judge Walker's decision, conservatives will have the appeal filed within hours, I promise you.
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Aug 18, 2010 3:07 AM GMT
    aunty_jack saidHaving a law prohibiting christians from having a political voice in their own county is just wrong, after all America is the western worlds biggest christian county, and they are forbade from having a voice.


    Why should their holy book and religious views dictate the laws? I thought the US had a division of religion and state? People who vote with a religious bias and closed mind mentality should need to take an IQ test before being allowed to vote; as they obvious can't form an opinion on their own.

    PS: Sorry grammar police

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2010 3:15 AM GMT
    I thought the most interesting part of this was the Court of Appeal asking the defense (the anti gay marriage group) to explain why they have standing here. Since the State of California did not appeal the only group defending Prop. 8 is a private group, which probably would not have legal astanding to appeal this case. If the Court find they do not have standing, that ends the appeal. They would not be able to appeal to the Supreme Court as I understand it. The ruling would apply only to California, but that is enormously significant in itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2010 3:19 AM GMT
    I SWEAR IM GONNA CUT DA BITCHES!!! icon_evil.gif