(Calif.) Supreme Court rules Prop 8 supporters can defend the law

[Newsjock]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

The California Supreme Court on Thursday handed supporters of Proposition 8 the legal right to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage, sending the case back to a federal appeals court to resolve the broader questions at the heart of the constitutional showdown.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices sided with Proposition 8 sponsors, who've argued they should be able to appeal a federal judge's decision last year striking down the same-sex marriage ban because the governor and attorney general have refused to defend the voter-approved law. The state Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed that Proposition 8 backers can go it alone in trying to preserve the gay marriage ban.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals triggered the Supreme Court's intervention earlier this year, asking the justices to decide whether sponsors of ballot measures such as Proposition 8 have so-called "standing" under California law to defend those laws when top state officials abandon a case.

With that issue unresolved, the 9th Circuit put on hold its review of former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's August 2010 ruling that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples.


Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_19357133

[Tesha]

1. This is the safe course (and courts usually favor such a course).

This way, '8' will still get a defense so when it continues to
be over-turned the whiners won't be able to say "but the
court case was rigged to favor Teh Gays!".

Tesha

[alp227]

2. Good, let 'em keep embarassing themselves.

[William769]

3. Recommended.

[Iggo]

4. I don't understand.

Does this mean they have legal standing? And doesn't that standing mean that the court accepts that the Prop 8 supporters might suffer harm if the law is overturned?

I'm no expert. I've just been following along as best I can since this whole fiasco started.

[freshwest]

9. I'm confused and out of the loop. I thought the battle was done, that the CA court overturned '8.'

So it's still in effect? How can they keep coming back?

Or is this part of a plan to put this on the ballot again?

Although the rights of the minority should not be determined by the majority, but by principles that elevate the rights of all.

Honestly, I'm getting to feel that the state should stay out of who wants to get married, no matter what gender they are. Just let people have their ceremonies of whatever sort, and make contracts between each other that they can file in court to maintain their rights. There is a lot of mythology regarding marriage in general.

Just a idea, I know it doesn't satisfy the emotions of either camp, but some of my ancestors were Quakers and refused to file with the state, only with their church. I respect those who want to announce their commitment before the community that supports them. It's all private and should not be subjected to bigotry.

[totodeinhere]

5. I don't think this matters. Prop 8 will be overturned soon, either by the federal

court or failing that by the voters. In fact, maybe this is a good development. Now the cretins who support Prop 8 won't have any excuses when it is struck down.

[Hosnon]

6. This matters and it is a good thing.

For the country (albeit potentially at the expense of Californians).

California chose not to appeal the District Court's ruling that it is unconstitutional. Without anyone with legal standing to appeal that decision, it would have stood. Net effect: guaranteed equal marriage rights for Californians but no decision by the Supreme Court.

Now, the case can go to the 9th Circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court. While this decision means that the Supreme Court might decide Prop 8 is constitutional (and thus erase equal marriage rights in California), it also means that the Supreme Court might decide Prop 8 is unconstitutional (hopefully in an opinion broad enough to effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide).

I hate risking the rights of Californians but success in the Supreme Court would be historic.

[totodeinhere]

7. Getting it to today's Supreme Court is taking a big chance.

If they ruled against gay marriage it could set the cause back for years. I would rather wait for the balance of power on the court to change first. If President Obama can get reelected I think there is a good chance that the balance could shift during his second term.

[Hosnon]

8. The only problem is that we can't just ask the Supreme Court to decide something.

A case with the important legal issues must reverse-Plinko its way all the way up.

This case is good. The trial judge issued something like 80 pages of facts - and facts are essentially set in stone on appeal. (So if the trial court found as a fact that being raised by same-gendered parents does not harm the child, the SCOTUS must accept that as a fact.)

Obama may not win, and the Court may swing harder to the right. I'll take my chances with Justice Kennedy. Anyone with more than one brain cell knows that equal marriage rights are inevitable; Justice Kennedy will not want his legacy to be the fifth Justice who voted for what would become this century's Dred Scott.