Gay judge's California same-sex marriage ruling upheld - Yahoo! News Even if they're going to fight the new ruling (exactly when do the anti-gay marriage groups get in trouble for constantly fighting multiple judges rulings? >_>), for now, the reversal still stands. XD I'm actually curious what -would- happen if it reached the National Supreme Court. Anyone know what stances the justices take on Gay Marriage?
I didn't read it all so this question might be stupid, but what exactly does this mean in a tl;dr perspective? Are same-sex marriages legal currently or are we waiting for some kind of confirmation?
well, the court repeal of prop 8 is still stayed until the california supreme court hearing on the matter. so prop 8 still stands until the supreme court once more overturns it, and it might be stayed if 'Bigots United' appeals it to the supreme court.
No they aren't. All this does is that Vaughn Walker's original upturn of the ban is still legal. If he had ruled that it wasn't, I THINK that it would've meant what is going through the 9th Circuit of Appeals could've gotten thrown out because the original upturn would've been made invalid. BAsically all this means is that the upturn of the ban is still valid but because said ruling was stayed and is currently in the 9th Circuit, still no gay marriages in Cali. Sorry if that's confusing. ---------- Post added 14th Jun 2011 at 10:30 PM ---------- You mean if BU appeals it to the USA Supreme Court? Cuz you just said "if the supreme court once more overturns it and then BU appeals it to the supreme court" Do you mean Cali court and THEN SCOTUS?
basically as this trial was about was attempts by the anti-equality crowd to have the entire ruling invalidated because the judge was gay... which the anti-equality crowd acknowledge and said was not a issue before the original trial itself, so they are going back on their own claims that they dont view his being gay as a issue.
No I got that. I'm saying your previous post I'm saying are you talking about the Prop 8 case going through two Supreme Courts or you saying Prop 8 to Cali SC and then also this ruling about Walker going to Cali SC too.
The case is really complicated, and the asshats at Protect Marriage keep coming up with new delaying tactics to try and stall it. The latest thing was just a red herring that by all accounts had no chance of success. If the judge were to find that Judge Walker should have recused himself, then virtually every judge would have to recuse him or herself when any issues that could have any relationship to them came up... if, say, they were white, black, gay, straight, Jewish, disabled, etc. So now that the latest red herring has been shot down, there's still a pending issue before the California supremes as to whether the asshats at Protect Marriage can insert themselves to defend Prop 8 when the defendants (the State of California, represented by the governor and the attorney general) have already said they will not contest the ruling. So the appeals court at the appellate level has to decide if they have the right to insert themselves. If the asshats get turned down, then, as I understand it, the case essentially ends there (assuming the asshats don't find another red herring to delay things), and gay marriage is again legal in California. If the asshats are allowed to stand in for the State, then the case goes back to the appeals court, who will decide on it. Regardless of what the appeals court decides, whomever loses will appeal to the California Supreme Court, and when the outcome of that is determined, whomever loses will appeal to the Supremes. So... the upside is, if the bigoted assholes from Protect Marriage don't have standing to defend the case, then California marriage is legal, and the precedent is binding only in California. If they do have standing, then the ruling will go all the way to the US Supremes, and the resulting decision, pro or con, will be binding on the entire US and all states within it.
Maybe it would be a good thing if it goes to the supreme court and gay marriage becomes legal in the whole USA.
There like Chip said are pros and cons. Those in the US Supreme Court could very well side with the asshats. Doubtful but it could happen. Though I bet anything what will happen is then NOM and Protect Marriage and such I bet anything will try and do what they did with Iowa. They'll try and get the ones who ruled against Prop 8 in SCOTUS voted out. Though I could be completely wrong because aren't the SCOTUS judges not elected by the people but appointed by the government or something?
Or a bad thing if the conservative justices rule that gay marriage can't exist because the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have approved. And I wouldn't put it past some of the conservative justices to rule that. I doubt that opinion would be a majority, but even as a minority it could be damaging. And I seriously doubt that we'd have a Loving v Virginia-like ruling with the present court.
the Supremes are appointed for life. They cannot be removed except by impeachment, and I think that's so rare that it's either never happened or has happened once or twice in the history of the US. They're appointed for life specifically to ensure that they are free to make important but unpopular decisions without fear of retribution. We do have several people on the Supremes who are just wingnuts. Clarence Thomas is a terrible jurist and should never have been appointed, but Bush Sr. needed an African-American conservative to replace Thurgood Marshall (it would have been appalling to replace one of the most brilliant minds on the Supreme Court, who happened to be black, with a dumbass white guy), and there aren't too many African-American conservatives, so he sort of had to take what he could get... so he ended up with a dumbass African-American who, in his years on the court, has never been known for his intellect or the thoughtfulness of any of his decisions. And then there are a couple of others who are thoughtful jurists, but just complete zeros as far as considering the Constitution as a document designed by the framers to be a living document that adapts to the changing nature of our country. But... there are enough on the Supremes that most parties think there's a really good chance they won't be able to find a plausible argument to continue to deny that gay people have the right to marry; even some of the more conservative members of the Supremes have ruled in favor of the rights of gays and lesbians in the past 5 or 10 years.
Ahh well I'm praying this whole thing is sorted out in the next ten years frankly. I know it's a long shot...but it would frankly be amazing if it could happen. If something happened that caused the entire USA to have to accept gay marriage, that would just be...so nice.
Well, there is the possibility that if the issue of standing is rejected for protectmarriage, they can go to the US supreme court to ask them to grant them standing. Protectmarriage did go straight to Scotus to prevent the trial from being broadcast.
