Ruling near on Calif. same-sex marria...

Ruling near on Calif. same-sex marriage ban

There are 18 comments on the The Miami Herald story from Feb 6, 2012, titled Ruling near on Calif. same-sex marriage ban. In it, The Miami Herald reports that:

A federal appeals court refused Thursday to unseal video recordings of a landmark trial on the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban but said it needed more time to decide if a lower court judge properly struck down the voter-approved ban.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Miami Herald.

Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#1 Feb 6, 2012
Judge Walker's ruling will be upheld. I think the court will lift the stay.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2 Feb 6, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
Judge Walker's ruling will be upheld. I think the court will lift the stay.
Yep. Tomorrow.

Since the Pro 8 proponents who now have standing wish to appeal, they must appeal on the same grounds which are Walker's so called conflict of interest. The Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case. End of game.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#3 Feb 6, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Tomorrow.
Since the Pro 8 proponents who now have standing wish to appeal, they must appeal on the same grounds which are Walker's so called conflict of interest. The Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case. End of game.
So when do you think that marriages of gay and lesbian people will be allowed to take place in Cali.

this will be a BIG step and important in our future fight before SCOTUS.

It's one thing for SCOTUS to rule when only a few small states are involved with only a small fraction of the population.

Right now the 6 states plus D.C. allowing gay marriage represent 35,090,117 people which is 11.3% of the U.S. population. The addition of Cali with it's population of 37,253,956 which is 12.1% of the U.S. population, more than DOUBLES the proportion of the U.S. population living in states which allow gay marriage to 23.4%, or MORE THAN ONE-FIFTH of the total U.S. population.

And that percentage will only grow the longer SCOTUS puts off a decision. I think these numbers are to our advantage, meaning TIME is on our side in this battle, and NOT on the side of our opponents. And I think they realize this. The longer SCOTUS puts off a decision, the better it is for us.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
So when do you think that marriages of gay and lesbian people will be allowed to take place in Cali.
this will be a BIG step and important in our future fight before SCOTUS.
It's one thing for SCOTUS to rule when only a few small states are involved with only a small fraction of the population.
Right now the 6 states plus D.C. allowing gay marriage represent 35,090,117 people which is 11.3% of the U.S. population. The addition of Cali with it's population of 37,253,956 which is 12.1% of the U.S. population, more than DOUBLES the proportion of the U.S. population living in states which allow gay marriage to 23.4%, or MORE THAN ONE-FIFTH of the total U.S. population.
And that percentage will only grow the longer SCOTUS puts off a decision. I think these numbers are to our advantage, meaning TIME is on our side in this battle, and NOT on the side of our opponents. And I think they realize this. The longer SCOTUS puts off a decision, the better it is for us.
After all of the legal challenges are completely settled.

Scalia has fired a shot across the bow so to speak. Going to this Supreme Court would be counter productive. He says it isn't a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#5 Feb 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
After all of the legal challenges are completely settled.
Scalia has fired a shot across the bow so to speak. Going to this Supreme Court would be counter productive. He says it isn't a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment.
Scalia is not, never has been, and never will be on our side. He's a Roman Catholic extremeist.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia is not, never has been, and never will be on our side. He's a Roman Catholic extremeist.
He and Thomas are Opus Dei members. There are other Catholics as well. The one thing they cannot do, is come up with any ruling that Judge Walker had a conflict of interest which is the only grounds for appeal left. What can the proponents appeal? They did not appeal constitution interpretation, which has been upheld anyway. They appealed two things.

1. To establish 'standing' which they got.

2. Judge Walker's conflict of interest, which they lost.

Can they appeal constitutional interpretation? They cannot because they did not bring that issue forward in their first appeal. The only one they can appeal is Judge Walker's conflict of interest.

They are done, even if they try, the game is over.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#7 Feb 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
He and Thomas are Opus Dei members. There are other Catholics as well. The one thing they cannot do, is come up with any ruling that Judge Walker had a conflict of interest which is the only grounds for appeal left. What can the proponents appeal? They did not appeal constitution interpretation, which has been upheld anyway. They appealed two things.
1. To establish 'standing' which they got.
2. Judge Walker's conflict of interest, which they lost.
Can they appeal constitutional interpretation? They cannot because they did not bring that issue forward in their first appeal. The only one they can appeal is Judge Walker's conflict of interest.
They are done, even if they try, the game is over.
I know they are members of Opus dei, and believe me, as an openly gay male, and church-going Protestant, I am one of the most vehemently anti-Catholic persons you would ever meet.

But Scalia has equivocated on the issue, at times publicly saying that gay marriage simply is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, and at another time(s) publicly saying that if a particular decision stands, then he sees no constitutional bar to gay marriage. He does have a Libertarian streak, that seems to be largely tempered by his reactionary Catholicism.

Although I have been a big fan of Scalia's the past 25 years, I wrote him off long ago as being any help to our quest for full equality.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
I know they are members of Opus dei, and believe me, as an openly gay male, and church-going Protestant, I am one of the most vehemently anti-Catholic persons you would ever meet.
But Scalia has equivocated on the issue, at times publicly saying that gay marriage simply is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, and at another time(s) publicly saying that if a particular decision stands, then he sees no constitutional bar to gay marriage. He does have a Libertarian streak, that seems to be largely tempered by his reactionary Catholicism.
Although I have been a big fan of Scalia's the past 25 years, I wrote him off long ago as being any help to our quest for full equality.
I agree with you. Hey, have you read McDonald V. The City of Chicago? This ruling really rocks the civil rights aspects, especially J. Thomas and Alito's opinions. Well worth the read. In many ways they have painted themselves into a corner. If the court's balance changes by one member, and this thing comes up in ten years, this ruling will hit them square in the ass.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#9 Feb 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you. Hey, have you read McDonald V. The City of Chicago? This ruling really rocks the civil rights aspects, especially J. Thomas and Alito's opinions. Well worth the read. In many ways they have painted themselves into a corner. If the court's balance changes by one member, and this thing comes up in ten years, this ruling will hit them square in the ass.
I haven't actually read the decision, although I am well aware of it as I am, and always have been, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

I'm a Constitutional strict constructionist, a Libertarian, and have been totally out for over 30 years.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't actually read the decision, although I am well aware of it as I am, and always have been, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
I'm a Constitutional strict constructionist, a Libertarian, and have been totally out for over 30 years.
Here is a little more background.

http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/

<The Ninth Circuit has a poor batting average in Supreme Court appeals, and this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who is notoriously liberal. Those facts are likely to inspire optimism among conservative commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. They shouldn’t. Reinhardt’s decision was expertly crafted to appeal to his former Ninth Circuit peer Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose view of the matter is all but certain to prove decisive.>

<Although we still think that is Justice Kennedy’s inclination, we hereby walk back our prediction a bit. The court will not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in this case, but it will strike down Proposition 8 and thereby reimpose same-sex marriage in California. Reinhard’s decision lays out a way in which Justice Kennedy can do so–and indeed makes it very difficult for Kennedy to uphold Proposition 8.>

So, long story short. There will be considerable back and forth action.

< Many legal observers believe it is unlikely the court would allow an en banc hearing. The losing party could then appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.>

Even though SCOTUS is not supposed to act according to political pressure, if there are a great deal of people in favor of allowing marriage equality according to the polls, they will likely settle for striking down Prop 8 on the basis of Romer. OTOH, they could just refuse to hear the case and let the 9th Circuit Court rulling stand.

We shall see. It will be up to one year I suppose.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#11 Feb 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a little more background.
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/
<The Ninth Circuit has a poor batting average in Supreme Court appeals, and this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who is notoriously liberal. Those facts are likely to inspire optimism among conservative commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. They shouldn’t. Reinhardt’s decision was expertly crafted to appeal to his former Ninth Circuit peer Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose view of the matter is all but certain to prove decisive.>
<Although we still think that is Justice Kennedy’s inclination, we hereby walk back our prediction a bit. The court will not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in this case, but it will strike down Proposition 8 and thereby reimpose same-sex marriage in California. Reinhard’s decision lays out a way in which Justice Kennedy can do so–and indeed makes it very difficult for Kennedy to uphold Proposition 8.>
So, long story short. There will be considerable back and forth action.
< Many legal observers believe it is unlikely the court would allow an en banc hearing. The losing party could then appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.>
Even though SCOTUS is not supposed to act according to political pressure, if there are a great deal of people in favor of allowing marriage equality according to the polls, they will likely settle for striking down Prop 8 on the basis of Romer. OTOH, they could just refuse to hear the case and let the 9th Circuit Court rulling stand.
We shall see. It will be up to one year I suppose.
If appealed to them, SCOTUS will vote not to hear this case. There is no federal question.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#13 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
If appealed to them, SCOTUS will vote not to hear this case. There is no federal question.
Possibly. OTOH, they can decide that they wish to review the finding, in which case it has been worded to go along with J. Kenedy's ruling in Romer v. Evans. Should they decide, it would be to simply strike down prop 8 which would allow same sex marriage to be upheld in California. They do not have to consider marriage as a fundamental right but rather the issue of denying equality which had previously been established prior to prop 8. I know this is hair splitting but this is what the court does.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#14 Feb 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly. OTOH, they can decide that they wish to review the finding, in which case it has been worded to go along with J. Kenedy's ruling in Romer v. Evans. Should they decide, it would be to simply strike down prop 8 which would allow same sex marriage to be upheld in California. They do not have to consider marriage as a fundamental right but rather the issue of denying equality which had previously been established prior to prop 8. I know this is hair splitting but this is what the court does.
Listen to conservative lawyer, and former Solicitor General for Pres. Bush, Ted Olson:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/46304...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15 Feb 8, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to conservative lawyer, and former Solicitor General for Pres. Bush, Ted Olson:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/46304...
Thank you. Every American who believes in freedom and personal rights should listen to what Ted Olson has to say. Some of the points he addressed were that marriage between two individuals is very much a conservative American ideal which goes to the heart of our Constitution that all men are created equal. He said this issue transcends party lines. The only thing people are asking for is their fundamental right to marry the person they love and to have that relationship respected and treated equally under the law.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#16 Feb 8, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. Every American who believes in freedom and personal rights should listen to what Ted Olson has to say. Some of the points he addressed were that marriage between two individuals is very much a conservative American ideal which goes to the heart of our Constitution that all men are created equal. He said this issue transcends party lines. The only thing people are asking for is their fundamental right to marry the person they love and to have that relationship respected and treated equally under the law.
EXACTLY right !

:)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17 Feb 8, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
EXACTLY right !
:)
We should spread this link around. Great talking points!!!
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#18 Feb 8, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
We should spread this link around. Great talking points!!!
I'm glad you looked at it. Spread it around if you wish.

I wish that Ted Olson would actively work to convince his conservative friends to his side of the argument.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19 Feb 8, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you looked at it. Spread it around if you wish.
I wish that Ted Olson would actively work to convince his conservative friends to his side of the argument.
I believe that's what he says he is doing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... Tue Truth 170
News Federal appeals court upholds Google trademark May 17 CodeTalker 1
News Clint Eastwood backs gay marriage in Supreme Co... (Mar '13) May 16 Norwegian Supremacy 73
News 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to weigh Dona... May 16 Well Well 7
News Appeals court set to hear arguments on Trump's ... May 8 Retribution 10
News Court: Employers can pay women less based on pa... Apr 28 anonymous 3
News Court denies mustang appeal sought by Nevada co... Apr 27 okimar 3
More from around the web