10 am…9th Circuit…Prop. H8

A countdown of sorts… cue up the rending of garments and freak outs.  (Linques will be added as they arise)

The 9th Circuit is ruling in Perry v. Brown on three things:

(1) Was it proper for District Judge Vaughn Walker to not recuse himself from the case because he is gay?

(2) If the answer to #1 is yes, do the proponents of the ballot measure have standing in federal court to appeal the decision since the Governator and Moonbeam won’t defend it?

(3) If the answer to #2 is yes, does Prop. 8 violate the 14th Amendment due process and equal protection rights of gays?

My prediction after the jump.

(1) Yes; (2) Yes; (3) Yes.  The panel could try to wimp out on procedural grounds on #2 and say the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, but that was partially a question of state law, so last year they asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on their interpretation of state law. CSC said yes, the Prop. 8 proponents have standing.  Federal court standing is different, and there’s caselaw that they could cite to let them punt on the big decision and say that the proponents didn’t have the right to appeal and therefore Walker’s decision stands, but my bet is that these three will want to get to the meat of the case.

My other prediction:  I don’t anticipate a balls-out, sweeping decision striking down Prop. H8 and proclaiming that all bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. There’s one somewhat conservative judge on the panel and a sweeping decision striking all bans down would result in a 2-1 decision and put it on the fast track to SCOTUS, where they love to bench-slap the 9th Circuit.  I anticipate a more narrow decision – a unanimous love letter from the panel to swing vote Justice Kennedy – that applies only to California and says that once the state supreme court articulated this fundamental right for gays to marry back in the spring of ’08, the state/voters cannot just take away the right to marry without a good reason.  This would track the reasoning of  Romer v. Evans, written by Kennedy, a decision that struck down a Colorado state amendment that would have prevented any government entity from enacting anti-discrimination laws that applied to gays. There may be some references to Lawrence v. Texas, the decision that overturned a ban on gay sodomy, also written by Justice Kennedy, with additional citations to Justice O’Connor’s concurrence that said rather than focus on the disputed act that is being outlawed (in that case sodomy, but the logic applies to marriage) it was a violation of equal protection to target a particular group (in that case, gays who engage in sodomy but not straights, but again, her logic applies to gays who want to marry).

Check back here for more linques.  Prognosticate away in the comments.

[9th Circ.: Perry v. Brown]
[AFER Livestream]

Marriage equals sodomy? I did not know t hat.

2-1 opinion! Justice prevails!

Decision here

@Benedick: In that the logic used on the sodomy case would be equally applicable to marriage, I’m not saying they’re the same thing.

9th Circuit website is crashing.

Opinion is 128 pages. The first seven pages are pretty damn awesome.

It’s gonna be fun times at my church on Sunday, where they’d rather cower in fear of teh gayz and their “agenda” than, oh I dunno, help teh poorz.

@matador1015: Time for a new church, maybe? Mine will be singing praise to Baby Jesus this Sunday because of this news, for example.

NOM is already fundraising off this.

Just fished a book entitled The Hare with Amber Eyes about a European banking dynasty. In the very good account it gives of anti-Semitism in France and Austria post WW1 and pre WWII, what’s striking is how close the language is to the anti-Muslim and -gay speech current today.

@SanFranLefty: You reading online or a pdf? <– as in like, paper.

@flippin eck: You have two choices of churches around here: Conservative and Way More Conservative. There are liberal congregations, but they’re few and far between.

While this is great news, I shudder to think what will happen when this gets before the criminally insane, sadistic psychopaths on the Suepreem KKKort.

Pleez forgive my ignorance, but didn’t Judge Walker find Prop 8 unconstitutional utilizing strict scrutiny and substantive due process? Did the 9th Circuit find it unconstitutional for a different reason, 14th Amendment, etc?

I guess I’ve misunderstood the appeals process, because I thought that the Court could only uphold or reverse his decision based on they way that he decided it, but it sounds like they’ve introduced a seperate line of legal reasoning. That freaks me out even more, ’cause it seems like they can just pick and choose until they get whichever decision they want, without addressing any of the points that Walker so eloquently explained in his ruling.

@¡Andrew!: [I]t seems like they can just pick and choose until they get whichever decision they want…

Sometimes it bees like that in civil rights cases.

On page 10 of your bidness — really good stuff!

@¡Andrew!: Get your Scalia and Thomas voodoo dolls out.

@¡Andrew!: Yep. And very carefully done, in my view, to make the actual holding of the case, as opposed to the broad language in the first few pages, very narrow legally so as to maximize its chances of surviving in the Supremes. The opinion does NOT say, for example, that every gay/lesbian person everywhere has the right to marry his/her partner.


Lol, not in my house… I mean, I wish… but, no.

Homophobes should support gay marriage. In their fevered minds they are afraid of promiscuous gay men roaming the streets looking for straight men to mount, so getting more men hitched and off the streets will lessen their paranoia.

At least it sounds good on paper.

We wear assless chaps and hunt for straight men in packs.

/satisfied customers/

I’m crying from laughing so hard.

Abortionplex Yelp Reviews

anna m. Brooklyn, NY – Not only can I just show up for a quickie clean up but they do abort-your-own animals now as well! Thou I think they just used a regular Dyson on my doggie, I mean, they are nice and expensive and all but putting red tape in the shape of a cross over a vacuum doesn’t make it a surgical instrument. Still did the job, and a fine one at that.

Would recommend and will return. +

edit: am certain they recycle the fetuses. from in-store or whatever you bring in.
Was this review useful?

@¡Andrew!: “Cervix with a smile!”

Better save that page before Yelp zaps it…

ADD: Looks like it’s been up since May 2011.

The segment on the meaning of marriage — Jumbotron proposals at events of Sport, Groucho Marx’s aside on the “institution,” Marilyn Monroe in re similar — was some of the clearest, punchiest legal writing this side of Richard Posner.

@chicago bureau: I just read that passage out loud to Mr. SFL. I was cracking up, he was kind of like, “Huh, you attorneys have weird ideas of what’s funny.”

(Pages 37 through 39 for the rest of you).

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment