The Ninth Circuit's Prop 8 Ruling: What To Expect Tomorrow?

Feb 6, 2012 Full story: www.towleroad.com 29

The Ninth Circuit will issue a much-anticipated opinion in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown, tomorrow... Today, I would like to preview the decision, answer some questions, and prepare us for the momentous events of tomorrow.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#1 Feb 6, 2012
Good article and analysis for teh lay reader.

Anyone know what time the decision is expected t be announced ?

And oh yeah,

GO Giants !

:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Feb 6, 2012
Around noon. Perhaps sooner.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#3 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
Good article and analysis for teh lay reader.
Anyone know what time the decision is expected t be announced ?
And oh yeah,
GO Giants !
:)
Press release from the Court said, "By 10:00 am" [local time]

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#4 Feb 7, 2012
Thoughts on his thoughts?? Is he likely to be right??

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#5 Feb 7, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
Thoughts on his thoughts?? Is he likely to be right??
Yes. This is probably how the 9th will handle the 3 main issues:
Standing----the 9th WILL grant standing because they don't want this coming back to them.....so, they will most likely take the cowards way here.

Vacating----the 9th WILL NOT vacate Judge Walker's ruling based solely on his sexual orientation or his long term relationship.

Merits------the 9th WILL uphold Judge Walker's ruling based on the 80 fact findings that Judge Walker mentioned.

Yes, the losing side will appeal.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#7 Feb 7, 2012
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
Press release from the Court said, "By 10:00 am" [local time]
It's now past 10 am local time in Cali and I haven't heard anything.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#8 Feb 7, 2012
OK. The released their decision and there seem sto be no surprises. What did they say about the en banc issue in their decision ?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#9 Feb 7, 2012
Here is the courts 133 page ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-3...

They relied heavily on Romer!!!
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#10 Feb 7, 2012
If this case is appealed to SCOTUS, I do not think they will choose to hear it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
If this case is appealed to SCOTUS, I do not think they will choose to hear it.
Having read the opinion, I'm going to agree with you. The Appeals Court has tailored everything so narrowly to California and California only, that there is absolutely nothing left that they'd want to review. The upside is that the right to marry returns to California, the downside is that Walker's ruling had it's balls clipped and the Perry case is now completely useless elsewhere.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Having read the opinion, I'm going to agree with you. The Appeals Court has tailored everything so narrowly to California and California only, that there is absolutely nothing left that they'd want to review. The upside is that the right to marry returns to California, the downside is that Walker's ruling had it's balls clipped and the Perry case is now completely useless elsewhere.
Gotta eat some of my words here. The opinion is very useful in those states that currently offer marriage, because it means that the zealots are now between a rock and a hard place when it comes to getting rid of it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Having read the opinion, I'm going to agree with you. The Appeals Court has tailored everything so narrowly to California and California only, that there is absolutely nothing left that they'd want to review. The upside is that the right to marry returns to California, the downside is that Walker's ruling had it's balls clipped and the Perry case is now completely useless elsewhere.
Not quite. They DID say that Prop h8 was a violation of Equal Protection.

Some serious hay can be made with that.

They also allowed Suspect Classification and Strict Scrutiny.

Huge.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#14 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Having read the opinion, I'm going to agree with you. The Appeals Court has tailored everything so narrowly to California and California only, that there is absolutely nothing left that they'd want to review. The upside is that the right to marry returns to California, the downside is that Walker's ruling had it's balls clipped and the Perry case is now completely useless elsewhere.
I disagree. Because the appeals court tailored everyting narrowly, SCOTUS will refuse to hear it. I think this is a good thing. With Cali in our column, this means more than ONE-FIFTH of the population of the U.S. will now live in states that allow gay marriage. This will give momentum to other states to pass laws allowing gay marriage also. There's going to be a tipping pont reached, where so many Americans live in state sthat permit gay marriage, with no ille affects to anyone or anything, that SCOTUS will NOT dare overturn these laws, throwing a large part of the U.S. into chaos.

I don't think this case is useless at all. In fact it seems to be turning out just as I hoped it would.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#15 Feb 7, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. They DID say that Prop h8 was a violation of Equal Protection.
Some serious hay can be made with that.
They also allowed Suspect Classification and Strict Scrutiny.
Huge.
I agree.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
I think I may vomit.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#17 Feb 7, 2012
snyper wrote:
Not quite. They DID say that Prop h8 was a violation of Equal Protection.
Some serious hay can be made with that.
They also allowed Suspect Classification and Strict Scrutiny.
Huge.
This opinion is good for the states that already have marriage, or will pass it in the future, not so good for challenges to other state amendments. They went out of their way to point out that they weren't recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex, only that once the right has been extended, it can't be taken away like they did.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#18 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
I disagree. Because the appeals court tailored everyting narrowly, SCOTUS will refuse to hear it. I think this is a good thing. With Cali in our column, this means more than ONE-FIFTH of the population of the U.S. will now live in states that allow gay marriage. This will give momentum to other states to pass laws allowing gay marriage also. There's going to be a tipping pont reached, where so many Americans live in state sthat permit gay marriage, with no ille affects to anyone or anything, that SCOTUS will NOT dare overturn these laws, throwing a large part of the U.S. into chaos.
I don't think this case is useless at all. In fact it seems to be turning out just as I hoped it would.
I agreed with you that the Supremes aren't going to want to touch this one now. The two issues which would have made this case of any interest to them, have been watered down so much that the best the proponents can hope for now is a polite rejection. They avoided any confrontation on the standing issue by making it California's problem and they made it real clear that they weren't extending a right to marry to include those of the same sex. The reason why I said this case has been made useless is because, while it will protect marriage where it already exists or in states which enact it in the future, it gives anyone who wishes to challenge any of the other state amendments nothing to work with. It's a great victory, no doubt about that, but it could have been better.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#19 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I agreed with you that the Supremes aren't going to want to touch this one now. The two issues which would have made this case of any interest to them, have been watered down so much that the best the proponents can hope for now is a polite rejection. They avoided any confrontation on the standing issue by making it California's problem and they made it real clear that they weren't extending a right to marry to include those of the same sex. The reason why I said this case has been made useless is because, while it will protect marriage where it already exists or in states which enact it in the future, it gives anyone who wishes to challenge any of the other state amendments nothing to work with. It's a great victory, no doubt about that, but it could have been better.
I disagree with you again. State amendments barring gay marriage may be struck down by a federal court because of Romer v. Evans.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Feb 7, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
I disagree with you again. State amendments barring gay marriage may be struck down by a federal court because of Romer v. Evans.
But not according to the ruling today. Based on the Court's reasoning, Romer applies only in instances where rights acknowledged to already exist are taken away. Romer and by extension Perry would apply only to those states which allow or will allow marriage as a matter of legal right under their state constitutions. Since the decision today refused to acknowledge a right to marry someone of the same sex guaranteed by the US Constitution, the other states which have passed amendments have not taken an existing right from us.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#21 Feb 7, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>But not according to the ruling today. Based on the Court's reasoning, Romer applies only in instances where rights acknowledged to already exist are taken away. Romer and by extension Perry would apply only to those states which allow or will allow marriage as a matter of legal right under their state constitutions. Since the decision today refused to acknowledge a right to marry someone of the same sex guaranteed by the US Constitution, the other states which have passed amendments have not taken an existing right from us.
Time is on our side and history has shown that while I agree with you that the courts may not apply Romer v. Evans today, they may do so tomorrow.

Remember that many people thought that Bowers v. Hardwicke was constituionally sound, logical, and common sense. Yet when Bowers v. Hardwicke was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, and was SPECIFICALLY REPUDIATED in that decision, neither the law nor the U.S. Constitution had changed in the intervening years.

A group of people looking at exactly the same text, 17 years apart, came to opposite conclusions. What changed ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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
Gay marriage among Idaho's top 2014 news 7 hr Christsharian Law 2
Judges Hear NSA Snooping Cases Dec 25 SmokingSalmon 2
US court reconsiders order to have YouTube remo... Dec 23 barefoot2626 46
Sea Shepherd 'in contempt of US court' Dec 19 Your Ex 1
Immigrants Closer to Driver's Licenses in Arizona Dec 19 Guess Who 1
Immigrants closer to driver's licenses in Arizona Dec 19 Guess Who 10
Young immigrants allowed to get driver's licenses Dec 18 OId Sailor 1
More from around the web