PROP 8 Ruling today.. TUESDAY

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

    Feb 07, 2012 3:12 PM GMT
    The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Tuesday, February 7) by 10:00 a.m. in Perry v. Brown, case numbers 10-16696 and 11-16577, regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the denial of a motion to vacate the lower court judgement in the case. A summary of the opinion prepared by court staff will be posted along with the opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 4:09 PM GMT
    Watching CNN and Twitter!

    Basically, this ruling determines if I will stay in the US or move elsewhere.

    Canada or Israel are my two best options.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 4:10 PM GMT
    And the whole world is about to ejaculate.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Feb 07, 2012 6:18 PM GMT
    I just saw the news break: Appeals Court Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

    Just think -- all those Mormons, wingnuts, etc., wasted ALL that money that could have gone toward feeding the poor, curing cancer, building schools or making the country a better place.


  • Feb 07, 2012 6:20 PM GMT
    Colbert_Nation saidI just saw the news break: Appeals Court Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

    Just think -- all those Mormons, wingnuts, etc., wasted ALL that money that could have gone toward feeding the poor, curing cancer, building schools or making the country a better place.



    "LIKE"
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Feb 07, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
    I'm reading the text of the decision now, and it's another smackdown. AWESOME.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Feb 07, 2012 6:23 PM GMT
    "Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for two couples who sued to overturn the ban have said they would appeal to the Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling."

    Oh. Right. I forgot. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Rusty491

    Posts: 26

    Feb 07, 2012 6:28 PM GMT
    I am so proud to say that my "Legalize Gay: Repeal Prop 8 Now" is now an ancient relic!
  • nomadfornow

    Posts: 1069

    Feb 07, 2012 6:33 PM GMT
    I'm happy for this news, but it's far from over. This is going to the Supreme Court... and given the current lineup of the bench, that could be a problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 6:34 PM GMT
    Praying for SCOTUS to follow through.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 6:35 PM GMT
    You guys are overstating this. It's unlikely to change anything... gay marriages are probably not going to resume anytime soon in California.

    This is just another step to the Supreme Court. And frankly, I'm worried about the Supremes. Scalia needs to choke on a chicken bone.

  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Feb 07, 2012 6:40 PM GMT
    endo saidYou guys are overstating this. It's unlikely to change anything... gay marriages are probably not going to resume anytime soon in California.


    This is true. Today's decision doesn't vacate the stay.

    endo saidThis is just another step to the Supreme Court. And frankly, I'm worried about the Supremes. Scalia needs to choke on a chicken bone.


    I'm a little worried about them, but not as much as I was before. The appeals court also found that Prop 8 offered no benefit to childrearing or "responsible procreation", and did not harm any existing straight marriages.

    The proponents could also appeal to the Ninth Circuit en banc (that is, all the judges on the Ninth Circuit and not just three of them), but I think they're going to be splashy and go right to the top.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 6:50 PM GMT
    Colbert_Nation saidI just saw the news break: Appeals Court Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

    Just think -- all those Mormons, wingnuts, etc., wasted ALL that money that could have gone toward feeding the poor, curing cancer, building schools or making the country a better place.



    Oh but I thought they still did that anyways because they are rich, thus disposable income to invest in their country and beliefs too.
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Feb 07, 2012 6:51 PM GMT
    Ritournelle saidAnyone knows what happens if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case?


    Then the appellate court ruling only applies to the jurisdiction of the appellate court. Other appellate court circuits can use today's decision as precedent, though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 6:55 PM GMT
    So could this be a precedent if the NH legislature overturns same-sex marriage there?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 6:58 PM GMT
    TrueBlueAussie said
    Colbert_Nation saidI just saw the news break: Appeals Court Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

    Just think -- all those Mormons, wingnuts, etc., wasted ALL that money that could have gone toward feeding the poor, curing cancer, building schools or making the country a better place.



    Oh but I thought they still did that anyways because they are rich, thus disposable income to invest in their country and beliefs too.


    Just to get Prop8 passed? 40 Million Dollars.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/prop-8-voter-anonymity-denied-by-judge_n_1082202.html

    Washington State's battle, SSM proponents are bolstered by major employers including some really big names including Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/bruni-java-and-justice.html

    Author Frank Bruni, you're handsome.
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Feb 07, 2012 7:04 PM GMT
    medfordguy saidSo could this be a precedent if the NH legislature overturns same-sex marriage there?


    NH legislators could mention today's decision as a reason for their votes, but it isn't quite the same. New judicial decisions build on prior decisions - sort of a slippery equivalent to how new mathematical proofs depend on prior proofs - so today's ruling could affect future decisions.

    RobertF64 saidAuthor Frank Bruni, you're handsome.


    Handsome AND smart. And taken, too, unfortunately.
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Feb 07, 2012 7:17 PM GMT
    And the money came from both sides. I donated more money to try and fight prop 8 than I have ever done for a political issue. And I'm sure that there are many more that did as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2012 7:32 PM GMT
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Feb 09, 2012 10:26 PM GMT
    Gay marriage: U.S. Supreme Court may not hear Prop. 8 appeal

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/prop-8-supreme-court-may-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Feb 12, 2012 5:22 AM GMT
    Prop 8 Is Unconstitutional ...Imagine


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

    Feb 12, 2012 5:39 AM GMT
    metta8 saidProp 8 Is Unconstitutional ...Imagine


    My own moment was awesome.. I watched the feeds come in for 15 minutes via my android until the one came in! I hooted in the hangar at the airport in FL and then called everyone I knew that was waiting for the word.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 5:53 AM GMT
    It's not that clear-cut. The 2-1 ruling, while very favorable to our cause, applies only to California, not even to the entire territory covered by the Ninth Circuit. That's because the ruling declares it unconstitutional to take away the right to marry, which gay Californians enjoyed.

    On one side, that's bad: the 9th didn't rule that there was a Federal right to gay marriage, which means that all other 49 States (minus the ones that already have gay marriage) have to wait.

    On the other side, that's good: as long as the ruling affects only California, I doubt that the Supreme Court will want to get involved. They certainly don't want to be the Justices that created a Constitutional right to gay marriage. But they know which way the wind is blowing, and they don't want to be forever remembered as the last hurrah of homophobia (Dred Scott, anyone?)

    If I were inclined to bet, I'd say that Prop 8 supporters should be going for a full hearing, hoping for a different ruling with which to go to the Supreme Court. If that doesn't happen (not likely to happen), then the Supreme Court will not grant certiorari and gay marriages can begin.

    I love the way the judicial system is playing it. It's an interesting chess game: Judge Walker with the opening gambit, then the panel with an interesting twist. It's judicial drama, and we are on the winning side!
  • jim_sf

    Posts: 2094

    Feb 13, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    themachine saidIt's not that clear-cut. The 2-1 ruling, while very favorable to our cause, applies only to California, not even to the entire territory covered by the Ninth Circuit. That's because the ruling declares it unconstitutional to take away the right to marry, which gay Californians enjoyed.

    On one side, that's bad: the 9th didn't rule that there was a Federal right to gay marriage, which means that all other 49 States (minus the ones that already have gay marriage) have to wait.


    If they found it unconstitutional to take that right away, though, then couldn't that have an effect on potential repeal efforts elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 6:35 PM GMT
    in a "most minimal" vein, it is a precedent that would prevent any state within the 9th CC's territory (spanning most of the Rocky Mountain and Pacific states, Texas, and a handful of plains states?) that public referenda to amend state constitutions to remove rights (to marriage) are unconstitutional.

    A wider test could be applied to any popular initiative to legislate or remove marriage rights by (state) constitutional amendments within 9th CC jurisdiction.

    The present SCOTUS, I think... will not touch this with a barge pole. Though if it does, I'm thinking that the way the opinions were written (to appeal to Justice Kennedy) it would be a clear 5-4 decision in favour of federal recognition of marriage equality.

    Such a decision however, would necessarily also have to pre-empt DOMA in its entirety to ensure that both the Equal Protection Clause and Full Faith and Credit Clauses are unimpeded. That is where things may get tricky.