Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Doubts Gay Marriage Ban’s Backers Can Appeal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:50 AM
Original message
Judge Doubts Gay Marriage Ban’s Backers Can Appeal
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 08:51 AM by 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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. All they got is hate, and you can't appeal on the basis of hate apparently...KNR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellenfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. i don't see how they could have any legal standing. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Actually the Prop 8 defenders do not and did not ever have standing
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 01:57 PM by FreeState
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))


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. It might help if you.....
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 11:22 AM by DeSwiss
...prefaced statements like that with: "In my opinion"

- Just sayin.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Enjoy your stay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. +1! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Try again
Both sides need to have "standing" :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #33
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. see post #34
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 04:07 PM by fascisthunter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
38. I thought they intervened in the trial? Standing will be an issue in this case
Edited on Sat Aug-14-10 06:58 AM by No Elephants
if the state does not appeal. However, I have no guess as to how it will turn out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. Some just thrive on hatred and they use religion as a banner under which to
practice hatred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savalez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dickthegrouch Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. But But But He should have recused himself!
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 09:20 AM by dickthegrouch
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Only an androgynous, nonsexual judge is impartial!
Know any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. Thats what we need, an alien from an androgynous world, lol. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
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:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
10. They have fear, too, though it's all slight of hand. Nothing to see here.
Happy karma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
12. Ha! Checkmate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. Here comes the Judge.
He really slammed the gavel down on the discrimination dint he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoraceX Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
strategery blunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
39. Let's have a vote to bring slavery back
If the will of the people want it , why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dickthegrouch Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Oh Yeah Baby! I Was Laughing To Myself This Morning
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 02:14 PM by Binka
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Second Stone Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
31. Judge Walker underestimates the mendacity
of the conservative majority of the USSC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
35. stick a fork in the right wing hate crusade...
poor poor fearful bigots.... what will they ever do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC