Prop. 8: Round V

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    "... just one more round!" - Rocky Balboa vs. Tommy Morrison, Rocky V

    And like that fight from the worst movie of the series, we have the next round of the Prop. 8 battle, with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals set to hand down its ruling on the matter today at 10am PST. Both the Sacramento Bee and NPR will be following the decision, as well as various other outlets, no doubt:

    http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolaler...ion-8-decision-to-be-released-on-tuesday.html

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...uesday-california-measure-banned-gay-marriage

    KQED's Forum will have a 30-minute segment talking about the ruling tomorrow, at 10:30am PST. Their stream is available on their site, as well as iTunes.

    Don't know about Prop. 8? Been stuck in that under-ice lake in Russia? Have absolutely no idea what we're talking about? See the previous bouts here and here.

    BL.
     
  2. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #2
    My god, someone shoot the god damn Californian politicians. They seem to be at the forefront of restricting rights and freedoms at the broadest level. California vs ESA ******** now this is still alive somehow.
     
  3. Rampant.A.I. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    #3
    Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4s: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    It's not so much our politicians as it is that CA has a big, red target painted on its back, being one of the more progressive US states. During the last Prop 8 fiasco, fundimentalist organizations were actually bussing in protestors from out of state as a publicity stunt.

    I'm not saying we dont have more than our share of knuckle-draggers in CA, but because CA is seen as a "liberal hotbed" it's often targeted for political statement-making through litigation, and used as sort of an in-joke and code word among right wingers.

    Case in point, remember how many times in the last presidential campaign was "San Francisco Politics" was as a euphemism for gay rights activists?
     
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    Honestly I want this to go to the supreme court but I can see it delaying dealing with it as it is to much of a hot bed issue.
     
  5. mgargan1 macrumors 65816

    mgargan1

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    #5
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    As sad as it is that we have to vote for equality, I hope that we're a tolerant enough society to practice what we preach.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    Breaking

    @WSJ: Breaking: Appeals court: California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.


    On to the Supreme Court.
     
  7. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #7
    Great, but expected news. Now let's see whether the Supreme Court takes it up.
     
  8. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
  9. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #9
    Good news! I wonder what kind of tripe Scalia will spew out for this one....
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10
    From the court's opinion:

    I think that's going to be a famous line some day.
     
  11. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11

    At the moment, I'm more interested in seeing what kind of tripe we get from Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum.
     
  12. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    Romney: I'm against the ruling. No, I'm for the ruling. Nevermind, I'm against the ruling.
    Gingrich: Marriage is only between one man and multiple women. This ruling destroys the sanctity of open marriages across the country.
    Paul: Blah blah blah, states rights, blah blah blah, gold standard. Why won't anyone pay any attention to me?
    Santorum: Now the gays and blah people will want to marry animals and plants and inanimate objects. And please stop Googling me.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Oh, it's such a bad day to be a bigot.

    Yay! Such good news!
     
  14. colourfastt macrumors 6502a

    colourfastt

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    #14
    Equality is a myth to protect the weak.
     
  15. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #15
    lolololol...... ;)


    I wish I was "endowed" by my Creator... :eek:

    ;)
     
  16. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #16
    It's certainly encouraging progress. Now the timing of a U.S. Supreme Court showdown in an election year should be sensational to say the least.
     
  17. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #17
    If they even take the case. It could be a non-event at the Supreme court level. This case was ruled on a very narrow scope (i.e. specifically Californian's unique situation with this case) so the SCOTUS might not even take up the case at all and just return it to the state leaving things as they are and allowing marriages to go forward (again). NJ and Washington could also soon join the equality bandwagon bringing the state total to 9 plus D.C. covering roughly 1/5 of the entire country's population (per CNN).

    The closed minded people in the NOM group are going to have their hands full with all of that. LOL
     
  18. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #18
    Some details:

    The stay on marriages remains in effect until seven days after either an appeal is denied or the appeal deadline expires, whichever is first. A part of the appeal will no doubt be an extension on the stay.

    The main unconstitutionality ruling was 2-1. Two additional findings, first that the Prop. 8 proponents do have standing to appeal on behalf of the state without the AG's support, and second upholding the ruling against throwing out Walker's ruling on the basis of his sexual orientation, were unanimous.

    The ruling was actually somewhat narrow, covering only California, despite the Court having authority over the western states. The broader question of whether any state may amend its Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages was explicitly not addressed. The court needed only to address whether the specific path California took to get there was constitutional, and found it was not.

    On the other hand, affirmation of Walker's ruling, and explicit support for his findings of fact, means that his ruling can be used as a reference for challenges to gay-bashing laws in other districts.

    Next, Prop 8. supporters may seek an en banc hearing before a broader panel of 9th Circuit judges. All 20+ 9th Circuit judges discuss and vote on this appeal, and if a majority votes in favor, then 11 judges are randomly selected to form the appeals panel, new briefs will be filed, and essentially we replay the whole appeal. Whether the whole circuit thinks that's an exercise worth pursuing is anyone's guess. Proponents can theoretically ask for an en banc hearing before the entire 9th Circuit, but of the few such requests ever made, none has been granted.

    Additionally, or if the en banc appeal is denied, proponents may appeal directly to the Supreme Court. At this point I'm inclined to guess that odds are somewhat poor that the SCOTUS will grant cert. This case now has a combination of strong rulings narrowly applied and contentious social issue in a progressive state that the court won't want to touch for as long as they can avoid it. In fact, I think the "California-only" provision is practically a graven invitation for the SCOTUS to deny cert. They'll wait and see what sorts of ripple effects the ruling has across the rest of the country.

    Remember, if you were watching paint dry, you'd've been done months ago. It's a good day, but yeesh, justice is anything but swift.
     
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #19
    Although if SCOTUS decides to hear this case, the actual arguments probably won't be heard until 2013 at the earliest, and a decision could be published as late as mid-2014. Of course that assumes there won't be an en banc hearing first. That can add almost a year to this whole thing.

    I really do wonder how eager SCOTUS will be to hear this case in the next few years. It's a risky bet for both sides of the political spectrum, hinging all on Kennedy. Reinhardt wrote a very careful ruling, limiting his decision only to California. The four reliable conservatives on the Court might decide to sit this case out and "contain" the issue rather than risk a large loss based only on their confidence in Kennedy. Similarly the four liberal justices might want to be cautious and not risk setting the issue back by a decade or more.
     
  20. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #20
    Ain't that the truth...:(

    This is still a banner day though...One more win for the good guys. :D
     
  21. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #21
    Disgusting. These radical judges will of course have their erroneous ruling appealed, that much you can count on.
     
  22. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #22
    And The opponents will lose, that much you can count on. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, you're the radical?
     
  23. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #23
    I'd respond fully, but I know that you won't come back into this thread to respond.

    Coward.
     
  24. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24
    Boo hoo hoo. A huge win over anti-constituionalists like you.
     
  25. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #25
    Dime must really hate America, since he clearly despises our constitution.
     

Share This Page