California's gay marriage ban struck down as unconstitutional

[Joseph]

Maybe Reagan nominated him on grounds of stylishness.

It was George HW Bush.

[Boris Godunov]

It was George HW Bush.

Reagan nominated him first, he just didn't get the appointment until Bush.

[Boris Godunov]

How is it a civil right guaranteed by the constitution?

Loving v. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

Not woman, though, so that means, in order of superiority:

man-man marriage
man-woman marriage
woman-woman marriage

[Edan]

A judge will either be heterosexual or homosexual, the accusations of bias could go either way.

Clearly, only bisexuals and asexuals should become judges.

[Lonestar]

How is it a civil right guaranteed by the constitution?

Ya Know, believe it or not the Constitution doesn't have to explictly state the right exists for the right to exist. The Constitution even SAYS that(9th Amendment mang).

As it stands the judge opt to say that the equal protection clause in the 14th covers same sex marriages.

[Guynemer]

Which gives the wingtards another excuse to try to repeal the 14th Amendment. Strange days, friends.

[N35t0r]

You believe that the state should redefine marriage, which is giving the state much more power then the recognition of marriage as an institution older than the state.

But you have no problem in recognising a form of marriage as defined by your church, which redefined a previously existing marriage, which had been in existance for far longer than your church has.

[Boris Godunov]

Hmm, interesting twist:

Both Gov. Schwarzenegger and CA Attorney General Jerry Brown have said they think the ability for the state to grant marriage licenses should go into effect immediately. Since they are the defendants in the lawsuit, it's safe to say they won't be filing an appeal.

So the appeal would have to be filed by the intervenors, meaning the proponents of Prop 8 who took up the cause of defending the initiative in court when the state of California decided not to defend it. In that case, there's a serious question as to whether or not the proponents actually have standing to file the appeal. The Supreme Court even vacated a decision (Yniguez v. Arizona) that was heard by the 9th Circuit based on an appeal by ballot initiative supporters rather than the state.

So if the 9th Circuit doesn't hear the appeal because the Prop 8 supporters don't have standing, then that's it. Case closed, game over, etc.

[Darius871]

Oh, and Solomwi is correct that the trial judge was very meticulous in this decision.

Don't you mean the trial judge's clerk(s)?

[Guynemer]

What does that have to do with anything?

[Darius871]

What does that have to do with anything?

I wasn't making a serious argument about the validity of the opinion; it just sounds silly to anyone familiar with the process* to suggest that a trial judge meticulously researched and drafted... well, much of anything. It was probably more along the lines of "hey David, Judah, and Ariel, write me up a draft that justifies my conclusion."




* - Yes, I know Imran's a lawyer. That only makes it more perplexing.

[Solomwi]

I wasn't making a serious argument about the validity of the opinion; it just sounds silly to anyone familiar with the process* to suggest that a trial judge meticulously researched and drafted... well, much of anything. It was probably more along the lines of "hey David, Judah, and Ariel, write me up a draft that justifies my conclusion."




* - Yes, I know Imran's a lawyer. That only makes it more perplexing.

While I wouldn't be surprised if the judge had more of a hand in the finished product here than he normally would, given the political circumstances, you're right, but it's a convenient shorthand that avoids an irrelevant detour, especially in mixed company.

[Solomwi]

Hmm, interesting twist:

Both Gov. Schwarzenegger and CA Attorney General Jerry Brown have said they think the ability for the state to grant marriage licenses should go into effect immediately. Since they are the defendants in the lawsuit, it's safe to say they won't be filing an appeal.

So the appeal would have to be filed by the intervenors, meaning the proponents of Prop 8 who took up the cause of defending the initiative in court when the state of California decided not to defend it. In that case, there's a serious question as to whether or not the proponents actually have standing to file the appeal. The Supreme Court even vacated a decision (Yniguez v. Arizona) that was heard by the 9th Circuit based on an appeal by ballot initiative supporters rather than the state.

So if the 9th Circuit doesn't hear the appeal because the Prop 8 supporters don't have standing, then that's it. Case closed, game over, etc.

Note that SCOTUS never actually addressed the question of the proponents' appellate standing in Yniguez, aside from stating that it was in doubt and later stating that it was arguable, because the fact that the plaintiff had moved on work-wise made the case moot.

Nevertheless, this Court need not definitively resolve the standing of AOE and Park to proceed as they did, but assumes such standing arguendo in order to analyze the question of mootness occasioned by originating plaintiff Yniguez's departure from state employment.

If the proponents are found to be without standing, that's only game over for the moment. As soon as a case pops up elsewhere and goes the other direction, SCOTUS will be presented with a circuit split and chance to review. It's too late and I'm too lazy to give it much thought or research right now, but it may also be important that the Prop 8 proponents actually defended the case at trial, where the Yniguez proponents did not.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ya Know, believe it or not the Constitution doesn't have to explictly state the right exists for the right to exist. The Constitution even SAYS that(9th Amendment mang).

As it stands the judge opt to say that the equal protection clause in the 14th covers same sex marriages.

How could this possibly be justified under original intent?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who the Hell says that original intent is the only, or even the best way, to do Constitutional interpretation?

And as for clerks vs. judges. It really doesn't matter.