9th Circuit to rule on Prop 8 Overturn Tuesday

[Guest EXPAT]

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/breaking-ninth-circuit-prop-8.html

It was announced today that the 9th circuit is going to announce its ruling on the overturn of Prop 8 around 10AM Pacific time Tuesday, Feb. 7. I'm assuming they will support the overturn of Prop 8. The question will be what direction they will give California immediately. I suspect the haters will appeal once again to the US Supreme Court which may set up a number of states to either support or repeal same sex marriage.

This ruling is expected to address three issues:

(1) whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-time partner with whom he was not married;

(2) whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to appeal Walker’s decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the state defendants chose to do so; and

(3) whether, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians’ due process and equal protection rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. [from Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly]

[Guest EXPAT]

Reminder of some of the better NOH8 pictures.

[TampaYankee]

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/breaking-ninth-circuit-prop-8.html

It was announced today that the 9th circuit is going to announce its ruling on the overturn of Prop 8 around 10AM Pacific time Tuesday, Feb. 7. I'm assuming they will support the overturn of Prop 8. The question will be what direction they will give California immediately. I suspect the haters will appeal once again to the US Supreme Court which may set up a number of states to either support or repeal same sex marriage.

This ruling is expected to address three issues:

(1) whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-time partner with whom he was not married;

(2) whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to appeal Walker’s decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the state defendants chose to do so; and

(3) whether, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians’ due process and equal protection rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. [from Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly]

Ummm... this is going to make somebodies unhappy, no matter what the decision is.

[Guest EXPAT]

And if they rule to support the overturn of Prop 8, there is no doubt that it will end up in the Supreme Court. So that will delay things even further which of course will bring more and more firestorm. But we'll see what the 9th circuit says today. . .

[Guest EXPAT]

BREAKING NEWS:

9th Circuit agrees that the Voter Approved Ban

on Gay Marriage is

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Prop 8 supporters vow to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

[Guest EXPAT]

For you legal types out there, here is the full text of the 9th Circuit ruling:

http://documents.latimes.com/proposition-8-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/

The court said gay marriages cannot resume in the state until the deadline passes for Proposition 8 sponsors to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. If such an appeal is filed, gay marriages will remain on hold until it's resolved.

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

[Guest EXPAT]

Just as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state of California, was unconstitutional, one of TV's most famous fictional gay couples appealed to the better angels of their Twitter followers.

Both Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Eric Stonestreet, who play partners Mitch and Cam on ABC's Emmy-winning sitcom "Modern Family," posted a photo on their WhoSay accounts asking "How could you not want to see us tie the knot?"

After Tuesday's ruling, it looks like no matter who doesn't want to see them get hitched, there's nothing they can do to stop it. Wedding episode, anyone?

Photo from public domain twitter retweeted:

[Guest EXPAT]

I love this already published cartoon in light of today's ruling:

[Guest EXPAT]

What a shock. . .Romney denounces Prop 8 ruling. . .

"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

That statement alone ignores the Constitution as it IS written and says he will appoint justices who shares his own politics and prejudices. hmmm

[Lucky]

From the NYTimes:

The decision, though, was narrowly cast. The judges specifically avoided drawing any grand constitutional right to marriage, unlike the decision by Mr. Walker. Instead, they decided it on narrow grounds, referring to California law and its handling of the rights of domestic partnerships, in a way that might make it difficult to extend the logic of the ruling to other states.

From Lucky:

And, for all of the hoopla that Judge Walker did not have to disclose that he was gay and in a long term relationship, I say hooey. That could easily come back to bite us on the butt when some other judge declines to disclose something we would like to know before we submitted the case to him. And just as a practical matter, Judge Walker is a coward, riding his Republican ties to a federal bench while denying his gay self. Don't forget, he is the reason why the Gay Games are not called the Gay Olympics.

[TotallyOz]

My understanding of the ruling makes it likely that the SCOTUS will NOT take this case. It almost reads so narrow that it should be a done deal. But, you never know who is fucking Scalia up the ass in order to get their agenda pushed through.

[Guest epigonos]

There really shouldn’t be any great surprise in today’s decision of the Ninth Court of Appeals. It is, after all, the most liberal appeals court in the nation. Furthermore it is a decision than can be easily reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Traditionally federal courts have been loath to become involved in state issues (marriage being just such an issue) that have been decided by a vote of the people. Many legal scholars advised against litigating the Proposition 8 case from the very inception.

Many have believed that a Texas case in which two men married in Massachusetts and seeking a divorce in Texas were denied because Texas doesn’t recognize same sex marriages has more merit. The refusal of Texas to recognize the Massachusetts marriage brings into question the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article IV Section I of the U.S. Constitution states” Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State”. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from following this clause when dealing with same sex marriage. Nothing in the Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the power to overrule ANY part of the Constitution. The conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who consider themselves strict constructionists, are going to face a major dilemma trying to uphold Texas’ right to deny the validity of a marriage granted in Massachusetts but rejected in Texas. If Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia find a way to side with Texas there will be a Constitutional firestorm in this country the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime.

[Guest EXPAT]

There really shouldn’t be any great surprise in today’s decision of the Ninth Court of Appeals. It is, after all, the most liberal appeals court in the nation. Furthermore it is a decision than can be easily reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Traditionally federal courts have been loath to become involved in state issues (marriage being just such an issue) that have been decided by a vote of the people. Many legal scholars advised against litigating the Proposition 8 case from the very inception.

Many have believed that a Texas case in which two men married in Massachusetts and seeking a divorce in Texas were denied because Texas doesn’t recognize same sex marriages has more merit. The refusal of Texas to recognize the Massachusetts marriage brings into question the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article IV Section I of the U.S. Constitution states” Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State”. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from following this clause when dealing with same sex marriage. Nothing in the Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the power to overrule ANY part of the Constitution. The conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who consider themselves strict constructionists, are going to face a major dilemma trying to uphold Texas’ right to deny the validity of a marriage granted in Massachusetts but rejected in Texas. If Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia find a way to side with Texas there will be a Constitutional firestorm in this country the likes of which I have never seen in my lifetime.

I think you might be right regarding Texas. But don't you think that the Republican "establishment" now wants this to pass? It seems that way to me. It only seems that the far right wing are still hung up on it. . .

[Guest EXPAT]

Bill O'Reilly of course thinks this 9th circuit decision is judicial activism. Of course he does. As others have said, why don't you pursue an anti-divorce amendment if you think marriage is so important. . .

Watch his thoughts here (suggest you be close to a spittoon):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/bill-oreilly-prop-8-judicial-activism_n_1262368.html

[JKane]

I do worry about the 9th circuit getting overturned more because it's the 9th than legal reasons. I'm thinking the best outcome would be for the Supremes to refuse to hear it...

[JKane]

Daddy linked two articles with a similar opinion: the decision was fairly well crafted and may well not be taken up be the Supreme Court.