Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

CA Supreme Court decides it will answer question from 9th Circuit regarding Prop 8 standing

Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

Just now, the California Supreme Court granted a request from the 9th Circuit to answer the question of whether proponents have standing under California law. As expected, they only said they decided whether to decide at all- and they decided they’d answer the question. Text:

The request, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is granted. For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, defendant-intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com (collectively “Proponents”) are deemed the petitioners in this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a)(6).) In order to facilitate expedited consideration and resolution of the issues presented, and to accommodate oral argument in this matter as early as September, 2011, the normal briefing schedule is shortened, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.68, as follows: The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4. A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18. Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011. Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011. The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

A full copy of the ruling can be found here.

In response, Courage Campaign sent out the following e-mail from one of our members in San Francisco- Shane Mayer- who I think well expresses the frustration from lots of same-sex couples who want to get married in their home state from whom we’ve heard. Another day, another court decision (or lack thereof), and more waiting. It’s turned into, in essence, a waiting period to get married for same-sex couples across the state. In Shane’s case,  his father was diagnosed with cancer last year. He’s okay, but what if he had to miss Shane and John’s wedding day while the courts dragged their feet?

If you’re part of a same-sex couple wanting to get married in California, or know someone who is, click here to tell your story. We at Courage Campaign are going to then work to get these stories out, so the public, and the courts, know who is waiting.

Update: A lot of folks have asked, will it really be until September or later until couples could marry? The answer is yes, according to Chris over at Metro Weekly. He points out if oral arguments are held “as early as” September, and then the 9th Circuit doesn’t get to rule on the case until October, that’s what we’re looking at. Which is why we’re collecting these stories of couples forced to wait.

Update 2: Over e-mail, I asked Shannon Minter of NCLR, whom many of you remember from the Q&A sessions (#1 and #2) he and his colleague Chris Stoll participated in here at P8TT, for his thoughts on today’s move. He replied:

For same-sex couples waiting to marry, and for all LGBT Californians waiting to be treated as equal citizens, the knowledge that they must endure further delay is incredibly painful and frustrating.  Prop 8 should never have been permitted on the ballot. The rights of a minority should never be put to a popular vote. Prop 8 was a toxic, anti-democratic measure that continues to wreak havoc in the lives of real people and families. The court should move as quickly as possible to move this case forward so that justice in California can be restored.

Update 3: A press release we at Courage Campaign issued a few hours ago. Rick’s reaction is exactly what many couples and LGBT individuals are feeling today.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WILL RULE ON PROPONENTS STANDING TO APPEAL PROP. 8 RULING

As LGBT families wait in limbo, Courage Campaign Chairman calls for expedited court ruling

Los Angeles: Earlier today, the California Supreme Court ruled that it would consider whether the proponents of California’s Proposition 8—a ban on same-sex marriage declared unconstitutional US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker last summer—have standing to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals.

Back in January, the 9th Circuit ruled that the standing question had to be resolved before they would consider the proponents’ appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling.
Experts note that if the California Supreme Court rules against the proponents, their appeal of the District Court decision will likely be dismissed, and same sex couples will once again have the freedom to wed under California law.
In Response to Today’s Developments, Courage Campaign Chairman and Founder Rick Jacobs issued the following Statement:
“Today’s California Supreme Court ruling does not change the fact that a federal court has ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, but it does mean that thousands of loving LGBT families remain in legal limbo—unable to exercise their constitutional right to access the security and recognition that only comes with marriage.

It is unfortunate that while many California families are able to marry at a time and place of their choosing, equally loving LGBT families must endure months and years of legal uncertainty.  They have waited long enough.

That is why we are asking the California Supreme Court to move expeditiously to resolve the standing question once and for all.  And we are confident that no matter what their decision, Judge Walker’s ruling will ultimately be upheld and the days of second class citizenship for thousands of California families will be relegated to the dustbin of history.”
Courage Campaign
Shane is a Courage Campaign member living in San Francisco. He and his fiance were disappointed and frustrated by today’s news and wanted to share their message below with you.
-Rick Jacobs
 

Dear Adam,

Today, the California Supreme Court didn’t even render a decision on the issue of standing in the Prop 8 case. They decided whether they were going to decide or not. The real decision could take months.

So I’m going public. I want the California Supreme Court to know just how many same-sex couples are waiting like me, so they step on the gas.

Are you part of a couple like me, or do you know a same-sex couple waiting to marry? If so, click here to tell your story. Our friends at Courage Campaign will get them out to the California Supreme Court and the media.

I’ve been engaged to my fiance John for some time now, and we keep waiting for the courts to stop kicking us around. Every time we get our hopes up over another court decision, they get shot down.

Look, my father got cancer this past year. We dodged a bullet and he’s fine, but what if he couldn’t see my wedding day because the 9th Circuit and the California Supreme Court are playing hot potato? Not to mention the couples who are going to get married in another state because it’s not legal in California.

It’s not fair to me, it’s not fair to John, and it’s not fair to the thousands of other couples like me. Click here to tell your story or that of someone you know.

Remember when Judge Walker’s decision came down and couples lined up to wed, only to see him put a stay on the decision? Remember when the 9th Circuit announced they would rule, only to kick the ball to the CA Supreme Court? 

They don’t see us out here. And I’m tired of waiting.

So let’s help them understand. Click here to tell your story, or the story of someone you know.

My mom and dad met, fell in love and got married on their schedule, not on a court’s. Share your story, so we can build a case for the California Supreme Court to step on it. We need California to see more weddings in the future, instead of more heartbreak. 

Thanks for all you do,

Shane

195 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. LCH  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:48 am

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

  • 2. LCH  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:48 am

    gotta check the box for it to work

  • 3. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:49 am

    That's right, bJason. Though the 9th Circuit seemed to indicate that their decision will likely rest entirely on what the CA Supreme Court has to say. Reading between the lines of the 9th Circuit order on this issue, they seem to be looking for any justification to decide on the merits. So if the CA court decides Proponents have a particularized interest or authority to stand in for the state, the 9th will almost certainly grant standing.

    No matter what decision is made on standing, we can probably count on one side or the other to appeal that to the US SC.

  • 4. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:51 am

    How many emails and posts did you guys have written in preparation? Or did you just have this one and then the others were kinda halfway written as a just in case?

  • 5. James A Tuttle  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:51 am

    I'm pretty tired of waiting myself. My Partner and I are also waiting to get married. The day the verdict from Walker came down we were ready to head down to the court. I guess it will be a few years from now though…it is all very frustrating. Were starting to look at DOMA as a more realistic option.

  • 6. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Unfortunately, getting rid of DOMA won't guarantee the right to marry in any particular state.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:54 am

    And I'm REALLY, REALLY sorry you have to keep waiting. It's just plain WRONG!!

  • 8. bJason  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:54 am

    And if the 9th, in their ruling, doesn't spell out viable Article III standing wouldn't the SCOTUS be extremely likely to reverse or at least remand the decision? If so, why would the 9th take that chance?!!??

  • 9. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:54 am

    AAAAAANNDD.
    http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/11635

    Civil unions bill wins final approval; awaits governor's signature!!!!!

  • 10. John  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:55 am

    I understand that this is how the law works.

    But it still upsets me.

    I don't know if I'm more sad or mad.

    I agree, the standing issue is a huge question to answer for the courts. But, grrrrrrrr….

    In the meantime, people can't marry. Some will die, without their partner in life having the protections of marriage. Or the recognition that this person that died was part of someone's family. That's not right.

    Others (the T side of LGBT) will have to guess whether or not their marriage is valid, and hope a random court doesn't pick the wrong gender for them or anyone like them.

    I'm sad for the couples who have committed to each other, but have to wait yet longer to hear *if* they will be allowed to marry (after all, the courts, after all this waiting, might simply decide LGBT people aren't worthy of marriage). That's not right.

    The stay in this makes me even madder and sadder. Shouldn't the party that has won in the lower court, who is being actively harmed, be able to get on with their lives while the court is going through this? What's the harm if a few thousand more gay couples wed? There isn't any harm, and that's the kick to the teeth.

  • 11. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Sorry this is in Hawaii!

  • 12. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:57 am

    In some good news, the Hawaii legislature has passed the CU bill. It now goes to the governor for his signature: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12934691

  • 13. Ronnie  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:58 am

    double that…. : I ….Ronnie

  • 14. John  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:59 am

    sub'n

  • 15. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:00 am

    The three judges in the 9th Circuit panel will make whatever decision they think is right, based on their interpretation of the relevant law. That doesn't really tell us whether the U.S. Supreme Court Justices will agree with them. In general, SCOTUS has been reluctant to expand its definition of Article III standing.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:05 am

    I hear you, John! I agree that granting the stay pending appeal was a travesty. I never thought Proponents sufficiently justified the need. And, recall, the 9th Circuit granted it, but also expedited the appeal. Now this side trip through the California Supreme Court has defeated the purpose of the expedited schedule in the 9th Circuit.

  • 17. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:06 am

    How depressing, It's like we don't matter at all..this is not some game, we are not chess pieces for the courts to play with, put away, and play with again. It's disgusting!

  • 18. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:08 am

    NCLR's response to the decision: http://nclrights.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/nclr-re

  • 19. Bob  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Yeah for Hawaii!!!!! onward and upward,,, win the battles where we can,,,

    love the project to tell the stories of the people discriminated against while waiting for the courts decision,,,,

  • 20. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:10 am

    ….and if I just decided to decide to think about deciding to do my job at work, would I continue to have one. get to work courts!!!

  • 21. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Sadly, unlike most of us, the Court gets to decide which tasks it wants to take up.

  • 22. adambink  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Exactly, John. That's what drove Shane and us to tell their story. It's becoming immensely frustrating. We could be looking at another EIGHT MONTHS of waiting. It's like a waiting room for couples who have committed.

  • 23. nightshayde  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:17 am

    The closer in time to the 2012 election the verdict is expected, the more nervous I get. I want this done and settled & to have something less controversial in the dominant news cycle before the right-wing whackos come out of the woodwork to campaign on this issue. I really don't want the Fundie base riled up & showing up to the polls in record numbers. *sigh*

  • 24. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Eight months is optimistic.

  • 25. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Ya, just VERY frustrating. It's just putting off equality in CA for as long as it takes or doesn't take for them to decide to decide and then make a decision and then for the 9th to decide if that decision was a good decision and decide to take it or not. Isn't it obvious to everyone that they are dropping the ball, do we not deserve a quick response, what does it take to get on thier docket? It's just rude!

  • 26. chris from co  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:23 am

    September huh, well looks like this website should just keep the name for 2-3 more years nothing is moving forward for a while.
    The standing issue should be important but don't they have any book they can take the time to thumb thru for an answer to a simple question. Or maybe google it online. Hell, I would be happy to take a couple hours to get the rules for them I'm sure it's written down some where "do the proponents (that are left) have standing?" With all the amicus briefs they are asking for is the court hoping the propnents will find the right people to have standing? I am truley sorry for Californians today you deserved the answer quicker than this : (

  • 27. Sean Patrick Santos  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Yeah, "as early as September", plus decision time. It's been guaranteed to take over seven months and will probably be much longer. The appeal will almost definitely intrude on 2012 election season, and will likely hit SCOTUS well after that (*tries to settle blood pressure*).

  • 28. NOM WORLD  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:25 am

    …and on a side note, a senator is introducing legislation to force the California AG to defend ballot initiatives. If the law was so clear, then I'd expect this would be unnecessary and it's introduction appears to undercut any claims from the proponents.

  • 29. Kevyn & Felyx  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:27 am

    This sucks.

    Is HRC or AFER going to proceed with a USSC case in light of all this delay?

    BTW, what is the status of the MA DOMA cases?

    Still hoping for 2012.

  • 30. NOM WORLD  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Yeah, if the law was so crystal clear, I don't see how it can take 10+ moths to schedule hearings and make a decision (decisions from the CASC aren't even due until 90 days after whenever they set the hearing itself).

    I can totally see this court saying the people have a right to amend the constitution however they want, and anyone that can pay the legal bill can defend the junk that the people voted on.

  • 31. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:29 am

    It has to be written into law in some instances that churches don't have to perform any marriage they don't want to. That's what is considered helpful to get SSM legislation passed in some areas. We all know that it was already part of the law anyways.

  • 32. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:31 am

    The DOMA cases have a better shot at getting to the Supreme Court first now.

  • 33. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:31 am

    And then there's this:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2011/0

    I'm usually patient, but… this is *gettin' on my nerves* (to quote Sissy from "Sordid Lives"…

    I might have to watch that tonight to cheer myself up. Or maybe RuPaul from last night…

  • 34. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:31 am

    I agree. I don't like having this case looming large in the news right around the time of the 2012 election. But I don't see any way that can be avoided now.

  • 35. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:32 am

    And are we to go back to proceeding on a proposition to amend the state constitution to allow gay marriage, we were going after 2010, then "2012 looked better" what is the new stradegy, I'm ready to collect signatures again. This court thing is taking wayyyyy too long.

  • 36. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:33 am

    And on to my "stress" mantra:

    32.09, 32.09, 32.09, 32.09, 32.09, 32.09, 32.09, 32.09, 32.09…

  • 37. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:34 am

    I honestly think the case against DOMA is far easier to make among the conservatives. They'll still cry bloody murder, but the fact is that DOMA repeal wouldn't introduce marriage equality to a single state.

  • 38. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Sadly, those cases won't have anything to say about whether Californian ss couples can marry. They might, however, serve as indicators as to how the Court will view some of the broad questions surrounding this issue. Maybe we'll get lucky and the Court will finally decide these equal protection cases should be evaluated under heightened scrutiny. (a girl can hope)

  • 39. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Future U.S. History Students: "It's Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage"

  • 40. Steven  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:36 am

    I read this from LA TIMES..

    Both conservative and liberal groups are expected to urge the California court to rule that backers of ballot measures have authority, or “standing,” to defend them. Such a ruling would pave the way for a 9th Circuit decision on Proposition 8’s constitutionality, which likely would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and have national impact.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/cal

    Whoever wrote that is totally wrong

  • 41. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:37 am

    "It might have a lot to do with my background, coming up in the South, coming up through the churches," Currie, the son of a North Carolina sharecropper, said in an interview. "That has much to do with it as anything."

    It might?! It either does or it doesn't!

  • 42. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:38 am

    I love that Onion article. It says what we've already been saying for a while now!

  • 43. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

    I LOVE YOU!!!
    LOL

  • 44. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:49 am

    LOL watched that this last weekend! :Do you all think I'm pretty?" "I never heard of no boll weevils on a rooster you make in bible camp"

  • 45. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:54 am

    and…seperation of church n state…

  • 46. Richard Figueroa  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:55 am

    So, who can tell me where I can get married and have a husband?! I feel like NASA will get to Mars before I can get married!

    I'm so angry! I feel like my life is not worth living! It's like I have no say in how I want to live my life and all these ignorant a**holes who voted for Prop 8 are laughing in my face.

  • 47. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:05 am

    But the Russians already landed on Mars!

  • 48. Jon  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:06 am

    I was told there would be no math in this course.

  • 49. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:08 am

    WOOT!

  • 50. Jon  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:10 am

    I'm sorry.

    As a straight guy, I got to get married when, where, and how I liked. I am sorry you are being denied the same right.

    I hope the court gets this thing done.

  • 51. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:10 am

    Math is everywhere.

  • 52. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Oh how grateful I am for that =)

  • 53. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Hawaii is GREAT news! Trying not to be depressed about CA. Was planning a trip to CA next month with outside chance getting married. Will plan to be there in December to perhaps optimistically get married then…..tx for your extra attention today Kathleen on this perplexing issue!

  • 54. Dave  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Why didn't the court just answer the question without hearing any arguments. Would have been much faster and better. There is no need for them to listen to arguments to answer this.

  • 55. Ray in MA  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:16 am

    and after such an aggravaitng day in California, we need some humor from Hawaii (and Oklahoma?!?!?)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rolxQPogXqU&pl

  • 56. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:17 am

    I'm just glad Juanita drove the get-away car! Noleta and LaVonda were *drunk*, remember????

  • 57. NOM WORLD  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:21 am

    No, it doesn't "have to be written into law" that churches can deny marriage to whoever they want. It often is written into other laws in order to get politicians to support them.

  • 58. Ray in MA  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:22 am

    AGGRAVATED, but I guess we all should remain civil.

  • 59. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:22 am

    I am aggravated by state officials REFUSED to appeal… (caps are mine)

    That makes it sound like they didn't do something that they HAD to do…. which wasn't the case. I think it was then AG Brown that said the resources of the state – time, money, etc – would be better spent on other things and they would "accept" the district court's ruling.

  • 60. Richard Figueroa  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Thank you very much for your comment and your support!

  • 61. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:23 am

    What difference does what the opponnents or proponents have to say on whether the LAW allows for standing…do they know the law better than the Supreme Court Judges or are the judges just being lazy?

  • 62. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:23 am

    From Chris Stoll, NCLR Senior Staff Attorney

    NCLR Overview of Today’s CA Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8 https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-national-cente

  • 63. Ray in MA  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Let this be a lesson… a web site can maintain it's name "Trial Tracker" for 1 – 2 – 3 years because a voter initiative should never have happened.

  • 64. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Bet it wouldn't if they were voting on HIS marriage!

    But yeah, "it might" my ass!

  • 65. Alan E.  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:25 am

    sorry I meant that the be facetious. damn internets.

  • 66. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:26 am

    What a joke. As "early as September" for a hearing? I surely don't call that "expedited. The CASC in my opinion are all running scared of retention.

  • 67. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:28 am

    It is the way cases like these are decided. Both sides advocate in front of the Court in support of their position on the issue. In appellate courts (like the CA Supreme Court) this is done by writing briefs in support of their respective positions on the matter, citing relevant law where applicable, and participating in oral arguments. This is the way our justice system works.

  • 68. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Exactly, and neglecting the constitution in the process.

  • 69. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:30 am

    hahahahha right? LOL

  • 70. Maggie4NoH8  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Didn't I read somewhere, that the ballot initiative can have language written into that gives the proponents clear "standing" to pursue/defend in state court (and in this case they didn't obviously)?

    If so, would that "automatically" grant Art III standing?

  • 71. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:36 am

    I know it seems like forever, but yes, it is expedited. They've shortened the time usually allowed for submission of briefs, with the final brief due May 9. The Justices then need time to read and consider these briefs before hearing oral arguments. As you can see from the "Oral Argument and Petition Conference Calendar" link below, there are no oral arguments scheduled in S.F. during the month of June, July or Aug. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/

  • 72. Steven  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Alex,

    They are speeding up this case as fast as they can.. They have rules to follow, and give all parties proper time to respond with briefs, and then have oral arguments……

  • 73. Sagesse  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Kathleen, I read the 9th Circuit slightly differently. They've been reversed on standing before. I think they're trying to leave no stone unturned to get whatever clarity they can on standing in initiative cases. If the CASC suggests proponents have standing, the 9th circuit can run with it… not guarantee SCOTUS will agree. The fact that this case is about marriage equality is beside the point. The 9th wants to push standing as far as it can first; the law will benefit if the uncertainty can be reduced.

  • 74. Peterplumber  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:38 am

    ♂♂

  • 75. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:39 am

    I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not sure whether or not this is a settled question of law. I'd have to research case law.

  • 76. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Thank you. Just kinda appears like a delay tactic to me, but I get it.

  • 77. Jenny  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:40 am

    I feel so awful for all of you in Cal waiting for some actual progress. As a straight Ohioian I usually feel like an outsider looking in, but even from so far away I feel the frustration. I knew today's "ruling" was only going to be a discussion, but to see the headline, "CASC decides it will answer question from 9th Circuit" and that it could be "as EARLY as" September feels like a huge let down. I wasn't expecting big progress today but the lack of it still got me down. It seems like a never-ending process. But I want you all in CA waiting and waiting to know that even though I can't begin to imagine what you're going through, I feel the disappointment, frustration, even anger with you and hope that you can finally see equality soon. Hang in there! I really believe it's only a matter of time- just wish it would hurry up. Anyway, those are my thoughts right now that I just wanted to share with everyone here.

  • 78. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:40 am

    As I have stated that is my opinion…..4 months is pretty crazy that they need in order to figure this question out.

  • 79. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:41 am

    I'm not sure how our views differ.

  • 80. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:42 am

    PLUS there is no guarantee that the oral arguments will be held in September….

  • 81. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Totally Nice!! :-)

  • 82. Steven  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:43 am

    ok, they have other cases to deal with also…….. that's why wheel of Justice turns SLOWLY

  • 83. Steven  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:43 am

    MOST likely it will or earlier

  • 84. NOM WORLD  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:44 am

    I'm not sure if it's more sad that California voters denied gays and lesbians are denied the right to marry in 2008 or that they denied the right for blacks to rent property in 1967.

  • 85. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Looking at their calendar, I don't see how it can be sooner unless they schedule a special session for oral arguments.

  • 86. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Yes, California has plenty of examples of "let the people vote" run amok.

  • 87. Steven  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:48 am

    June????????

    They usually schedule oral arguments a month before they hear them..

  • 88. Dave  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:53 am

    If the court wanted could it have issued a ruling without hearing arguments, or would tghe violate someones rights?

  • 89. Josh  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:01 am

    I'm so sick of this shit. I guess if a real decision is ever made I'll hear about it on mainstream media, or maybe not. Who knows; I'm just so tired of it all. :-s

  • 90. Richard Cortijo  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:02 am

    I do not understand why so long to decide whether or not to decide?

  • 91. Josh  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Yea, if it works like Iowa's stupid system the CA judges don't want to get voted out too. What a pathetic system.

  • 92. Brandon Broehl-Phife  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:06 am

    I am one of those couples in San Francisco who has had a ceremony for friends and family but is ready to make the official step.
    I know I am beating a dead horse here, but I want a change to smack it around at this point.

    Our check and balances system is broken. Legislation gets passed and goes into effect almost immediately however it can takes years for the judicial branch to review and decide on these cases in question. I know I can't change this nor any amount of ranting and raving at 7th and mission will rush this process but its disheartening.

    You can substitute "black/african american" for "gay" in any of these attacks and you'll realize this issue has already been decided. I feel the church needs a target to attack, a target to fear, and a target to collect your monies. In a happy-go-lucky perfect world why would the church need a tithe? Its just unfortunate the homosexual community just so happens to be that target.

    People are hurting and people are suffering everyday this goes on. While this should have never been an issue, it is. I just had hoped for an expedited expedite on an issue that affects thousands in California and potentially the entire nation.

    I'll step off my soapbox at this point.

    My heart goes out to all those in my same situation. We'll manage to hang in there because, sadly, we always do.

  • 93. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:06 am

    They'd have to schedule in L.A. I don't know off-hand what determines where they schedule oral arguments.

  • 94. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:09 am

    They could have, but the more typical procedure is full briefing and arguments. This is an important decision, all aside from its implications for Prop 8. The question of how much authority initiative proponents have to stand in for state officials could have a profound impact on the courts in this initiative-happy state.

  • 95. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:14 am

    To get an idea of how much the Court deals with, look at just the cases that were discussed in today's conference, see "Supreme Court conference actions taken February 16, 2011" at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/

    There have only been 4 other conferences prior to this one from the time the question was certified to the Supreme Court.

  • 96. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:17 am

    You are absolutely correct. I am so, so sorry that you and everyone else in this position has to deal with this. I, too, am sick of this country treating lgbt people as second class citizens.

  • 97. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:18 am

    And I know my being sorry does nothing to mitigate the injustice, but I am, all the same.

  • 98. Elliott  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:29 am

    I agree with you completely. My dentist says that I needed a night guard to stop me from grinding my teeth so much during my sleep. Today was the first time in a long time that i noticed I was doing it awake, ever since this news. So frustrating and I am ANGRY that we have to wait and have untold harms perpetrated on the members of our community while this winds its way through the courts. I might need a new guard after tonight.

  • 99. nightshayde  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:30 am

    Why, oh why, oh why do I read comments on yahoo news stories (just now the Hawaii Civil Unions story) when I clearly KNOW better?

    Whywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhy?

  • 100. Elliott  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Agree, expecially with the "victory" NOM had in having the the judges in Iowa voted out. Much as I would love to have faith in an unbiased, apolitical judiciary, that faith has been shaken too easily lately.

  • 101. Rich  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Kathleen, thank you for your legal guidance and support through all of this. I want you to know that I use your input to help my American Studies students come to understand the wheels of justice and the time it takes to effect judicial determination. Your calm demeanor and obvious internal strength gives me the strength to take it all in stride because I know, that in the end, justice will prevail and the rights of all gay citizens will be recognized and affirmed. As I say to my students: no matter the cause, if you truly believe that an injustice has occurred, never give up, never back down and keep the issue alive, front and center in the face of all Americans. We just finished our Civil Rights unit. The kids were absolutely amazed that African Americans, young and older alike, could face raw bigotry, danger, even death in their communities and nationally, yet, hold their heads high, rein in their anger and "keep their eyes on the prize". We can do no less. Let's stick together; let's not back down; let's not be silent. Our own prize awaits us just down the road. Disappointed we may be; stronger we must be.

  • 102. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Very kind of you to say, Rich. but you give me way too much credit. I haven't had my life put on hold while waiting to marry the person I love. Those of you here who are in that situation are the ones exhibiting real courage and determination and my heart aches for you.

  • 103. DC Hart  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Has anyone received reaction for B&O? I am wondering if they could now go back to Walker with a motion to lift the stay,

  • 104. Steven  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:47 am

    DC hart

    9th Circuit stayed Walker's decision.

  • 105. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:47 am

    I haven't hear any reaction from them yet. If I'm well enough tomorrow to leave the house, I'm planning to attend an event at UCLA where Boies is on the panel. I'm hoping there will be an opportunity to ask questions. btw, it's not Walker's stay that is in place; it's one issued by the 9th Circuit.

  • 106. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Oops. Event at UCLA is next week, not tomorrow. I guess that's good news; maybe I'll be feeling better by then. :)

  • 107. Rhie  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:53 am

    I second this post.

  • 108. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:03 am

    !!

  • 109. nightshayde  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Honestly, I was surprised (happily so) by the number of positive comments — but some of the negatives are just so painfully negative.

    Why must some people be so damn hateful? =(

  • 110. Sean Patrick Santos  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:21 am

    My understanding is that this is somewhat of an unprecedented situation in California, in that appeals are usually backed by the AG or governor and not purely by non-state-officials. If this had been a completely simple matter of following precedent, I think that they could have delivered a judgment just based on letters or briefs without oral arguments.

  • 111. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:25 am

    If any of the government defendants had appealed Walker's decision, we wouldn't be asking questions about standing at all, and the case wouldn't have made this side trip into the CA Supreme Court.

  • 112. JonT  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:29 am

    I triple that, and raise you 400 quatloos wrth of equality please.

    More waiting. Sigh.

  • 113. Peterplumber  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:31 am

    So, Kathleen, should we be worried?

    I know I am coming in late. I had a very busy afternoon/evening at work.

  • 114. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Lambda Legal Calls On California Supreme Court to Confirm Prop 8 Proponents Cannot Press Appeal http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/ca_20110216_pr

  • 115. Ray in MA  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:48 am

    HIghlight:

    "Empowering initiative proponents with a special, new exception to these rules would be mistaken in any circumstances but the error is especially stark in this case."

    …If the California Supreme Court rules that initiative proponents do indeed lack standing, as we believe is proper, we hope it brings a prompt end to the barrier facing lesbian and gay couples, who only wish to love and care for each other with their government’s equal blessing in civil marriage.”

  • 116. Sagesse  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:50 am

    From the Lambda Legal letter

    "Initiative proponents also cannot step into the shoes of the attorney general, the governor or other state officials. The reason for this is basic: the governor and attorney general are elected by the people to represent all the people, not just one point of view on one issue, out of countless, competing concerns. Most importantly, state officials swear an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions, including their abiding promises of equal protection and due process for everyone. Initiative proponents take no such oath, and have no such duties."

  • 117. JonT  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:56 am

    You know:

    1. You'd think someone who has had to deal with bigotry in his life could understand how wrong it is to turn around and willingly inflict it.

    and

    2. You'd think he could keep his (incorrect) religious beliefs from determining his views on what rights others should be allowed to have.

    But hey, WTF do I know about growing up as the son of a sharecropper and going to church.

    /rolling eyes

  • 118. JonT  |  February 16, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Heheh :)

    That was funny. Probably going to be true someday as well. I can still recall seeing old movies/videos with 'Blacks not served here." in restaurant windows, and "Whites Only" drinking fountains and thinking "WTF?" I could not comprehend that kind of thinking.

    So that Onion article might not be too far off the mark in the end! :)

  • 119. JonT  |  February 16, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Motion carried. Let it be so.

  • 120. JonT  |  February 16, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    'I feel the church needs a target to attack, a target to fear, and a target to collect your monies.'

    Yes, some religious organizations, political parties (and sometimes entire nations) work this way. It's easier to guide fleece the people when you can point to some imminent horrible threat.

  • 121. JonT  |  February 16, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    +1
    :)

  • 122. John  |  February 16, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Of course there is a bit of a difference between the *official* proponents and some random supporter. But that said, and as much as I would love to see a US Supreme Court ruling on this, I know one thing that will help equality is to increase the number of married gay couples. So I hope that we find out in Set/Oct/Nov/Dec that they don't have standing.

    I am ashamed of living in a country that needs only do so little to make things right but refuses to do even that. How hard is it to say "TWO PEOPLE" when talking about marriage? From the sounds of the right wing religious nuts, you'd think that people were being asked to sacrifice their kids or something.

  • 123. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    I don't think the topic of Marriage Equality has been singled out in any way by the CA Supreme Court as something they want to delay chiming in on…it's just the way our legal system works. There are other cases that got there first.

    Decisions are looked at from many angles, with time built in for all sides to submit briefs, respnd, etc. Then there needs to be time for the judges' deputies or assistants to do initial research for comparison…they have to look up and study all the cases both sides (and all the amicus people) will site…then the judges have to study and digest all that and embark on their own research.

    It's the opposite of a snap decision. It is a reasoned, (hopefully) painstakenly thought-out one. These decisions aren't made on the toss of a coin, or based on emotion. The judges and their advisors are in the profession of making LEGAL decisions, and a part of that is comparing precedents, etc.

    The legal system is frustrating, has always been frustrating, and will continue to be frustrating. Perhaps we might all reread Bleak House and its case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the mean time, to appreciate that we have made at least some progress in this area.

  • 124. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    It would be interesting to set how this case unfolds against how Loving v. Virginia played out.

    We seem to have some special side trips here, though.

  • 125. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    I mean time-wise.

  • 126. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    [b]"What a pathetic system."[/b]

    Well, if any of us see it as a really gross outrage, we can go to law school, then try to devise a new system.

    Any takers? Or is this a case of "Who Will Bell the Cat"?

  • 127. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Thank you, Jenny : )

  • 128. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    The Lovings' case dragged on for years, through several federal and state courts. The ACLU filed the first motion to vacate their conviction in Nov, 1963, and their case was finally argued to the U.S. Supreme in April, 1967, and decided that June. You can read the facts at Wikipedia.

  • 129. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Oooh! What is it?? I'm in L.A., too!

  • 130. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    It's at UCLA, a week from tomorrow. PLEASE let me know if you decide to go. I'd love to meet you there. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/progra

  • 131. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    But there would be math ! ! !

    : o

  • 132. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    I WILL GO ! ! !

    Weeeeee!

    Now, there's an RSVP button over there, that leads to an email link. Is it free? It says "Reception Will Follow". COOKIES????

    Did you RSVP for 2 seats already? Or should I? SO MANY QUESTIONS!

    I am now exhausted from using so many caps/CAPS.

  • 133. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    It's free. Go ahead and RSVP. Robert works at UCLA, so he will likely attend as well.

    Write to me at "prop8tt at gmail dot com" and I'll send you my cell phone number.

  • 134. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 16, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Wait a minute! The earliest oral argument on this will be heard is SEPTEMBER!?! Do these people not realize how many lives are at stake here!?! What were they thinking!?!?

  • 135. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    And click the box!

  • 136. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 2:43 pm

  • 137. bJason  |  February 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    It sucks that they are taking up this question. However, it is HUGE with respect to CA law. I think. I predict hundreds of Amici (?) weighing in on the issue of initiative proponent’s rights in general.
    The crappy thing is that, regardless of their answer, the 9th Circuit will still have to decide if proponents have Federal Article III standing. What CaSC has to say about it will be informative, at best – IIRC (IANAL).

  • 138. Carpool Cookie  |  February 16, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Yay! Okay, I RSVP-ed for 2 sears, in case anyone else wants to join us.

    Will email you when I get a confirmation back : )

    Glad you mentioned this…it will be fun and informative.

  • 139. Kathleen  |  February 16, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    I never got a return confirmation. I even called the Williams Institute, who said the History Dept is handling it and would try to get them to send confirmation; still nothing. So if you hear, let me know.

  • 140. Rhie  |  February 16, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    I wonder what we would have seen if there was a trial tracker…

  • 141. Sapphocrat  |  February 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    I. Cannot. Take. Any. More.

    I never thought I was a quitter, but they've finally beaten me, folks. The overt haters are one thing, but the nonchalant indifference of the courts to the very real, human issues in this…

    What did these judges do for fun as children — pull the legs off spiders just to watch them suffer a slow, painful death? Fry ants under a magnifying glass in the sun just to watch them squirm as they burned alive?

    I don't give a damn what's on their docket. They are killing us, slowly and painfully. They don't care about the PEOPLE involved. They don't care a damn whether Shane's father ever sees his son's wedding, and they don't care how many of us will get sick and die before we can take our vows.

    And — get this — I am already legally MARRIED. Our third LEGAL anniversary is this August. But this hurts no less than if we were the ones waiting. Maybe it hurts even more, because I don't want to have "special rights" above the rest of my "family." Our wedding was, and our marriage is, so special… How can anyone else be denied what we have — and have merely by the sheer luck of timing?

    Call me a quitter, call me weak, call me whatever you want, but the truth is simple: There are more of them who hate us than there are of us — and all our family and friends combined. And they will not stop, ever. Even if we've won at some point, they will just continue to beat us back, beat us down, until they destroy whatever gains (we think) we've made — and until they destroy us, once and for all.

    Look at Roe v. Wade (the same culture war in their tiny minds, if not in ours): Forty years later, forty years after we thought that was all settled, they're beating back freedom, liberty, privacy, and choice, all over again.

    We may win in the short run, but in the long run, there are just too many of them who hate us. They will NEVER stop. NEVER.

    I'm sorry. Today's news was just too much. I just can't take one more blow. I have to turn off, tune out, drop out. I want to get the hell out of this stupid, backwards state (MY home state, where I was born and where I grew up, which the hate-filled carpetbaggers have invaded and destroyed), find a place out in the middle of nowhere for my wife and me, build an impossibly high wall around it, take a sledgehammer to my modem and then to my television, and never hear another piece of news again. Any news.

    They've beaten me. Not because I was ever weak, but because I never signed up for war — this war or any other. I'm not a warrior. I'm a lover, not a hater.

    A person can only take so much. And I can't take any more.

    I'm sorry I have nothing good to say. I'm sorry to bring anyone down. But this is the only place — the only place — I felt I could spill my guts without repercussion. Please forgive me if I did the wrong thing.

    I just feel so helpless. And so anguished, to my core. And so hated. So very, very hated.

  • 142. Prop H8 Standing: CASC De&hellip  |  February 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    [...] real-world implications of this unnecessary — and downright cruel — further delay. Read what Shane has to say: Look, my father got cancer this past year. We dodged a bullet and he’s fine, but what if he [...]

  • 143. Kevyn & Felyx  |  February 16, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    It doesn't Equal up and we are Math as Hell!

  • 144. Felyx  |  February 16, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    It is trying to have to wait so long for this case to clear but I do see the silver lining. In the next two years we are going to see more and more victories and with the way that the anti-gay people are pushing votes, there is bound to be a victory at the ballot box!

    If and when this or another case reaches the USSC there will be far too much support for a decision to be made lightly! There is even a not so slim chance that Congress may decide to repeal DOMA in the next 4 years as well!

    I have hope,
    Felyx

  • 145. Gew  |  February 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    You can be damn sure that if was the judges marriages up for scrutiny, they'd have had this over and done with quite some time ago.

  • 146. Question: Sheryl CrowR&hellip  |  February 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    [...] CA Supreme Court decides it will answer question from 9th Circuit … [...]

  • 147. Felyx  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    The DOMA case is just as important to binational couples though…. it will allow citizens of marrying states to sponsor partners.

    Eyes on the Prize!
    (Which BTW, is why NOM will ultimately fail. We are fighting for our own well-being while anti-gay bigots are fighting for ideas. History and common wisdom consistently show that issues are won by those to whom it is more personal. Kinda like home-field advantage. Only there is no territory to lose but only gains for us to win!)

  • 148. AB  |  February 16, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    So is AFER going to ask for the stay to be lifted? Certainly they have good ground to do so. Should we all write to the AFER to ask them to do so?

  • 149. Franck  |  February 16, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    More waiting. Guh. Just how many counters do I have to set up? Seen from where I am, everything's become a sadistic waiting game! It'd be nice to finally get into realizing my dreams instead of waiting for the mere permission to pursue the first and most important one…

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1336 days, as of today.

  • 150. Kalbo  |  February 16, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    I'm with you, Franck :,(

  • 151. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    !

  • 152. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    !!!

  • 153. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    ! plus :*( for Franck & Kalbo

  • 154. Rick  |  February 16, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    In light of this new delay (fast as it may be for the courts, but painfully slow for those impacted), is there any way to appeal the 9th Circuit's stay?

    Also, if one or more states allowed same-sex couples from other states to marry in its state (Nevada comes to mind for same-sex marriage), wouldn't that make DOMA the primary focus rather than marriage equality on a state-by-state basis?

  • 155. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    This reminder of "Loving" gives me hope. With the trend of more and more persons realizing LGBT persons are people too, eventually the federal government WILL step in and declare "enough is enough"

  • 156. AnonyGrl  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Does this mean I am going to have to hang around here with you noodleheads for another YEAR?

    It does?

    YAY!!!! I love you guys.

    But I HATE that this wait is happening. Come on California! It's not that hard!

  • 157. AnonyGrl  |  February 16, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    I've always taken a sort of odd hope from the fact that the case was called Loving.

    Because that case, like the ones we face now, while based on law, are really about loving.

    And love wins, in the end, every single time.

  • 158. New  |  February 17, 2011 at 12:35 am

    I wonder if there were as many interracial families at that time wainting to be legal as there are gay families nowadays.

  • 159. Ann S.  |  February 17, 2011 at 12:45 am

    §

  • 160. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 17, 2011 at 12:52 am

    lol – I am a noodlehead – YAY

    I agree the timeline is terrible for those waiting in the line to get married. And cry for those who may never live to see their special day. But we will win…one step at a time. They really are trying to leave no stone unturned here – make sure every duck is lined up – so when everyone can marry the gender of their choice in California – no one can touch it.

    Signed – new noodlehead with a horse left on my front steps!

  • 161. bJason  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:11 am

    A good analysis at Towleroad.com: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/california-supre

  • 162. New  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:27 am

    Shouldn't the Perry's side have their voice in allowing for appeal at the 9th Circuit?
    I mean, Perry as the plaintiff should have legal standing to decide and allow if even Bozo is willing to averturn J. Walker's decision.
    Then Olsom and Boies shoul tell the court: We don't agree the defense have legal standing in this case, but since the reasonable doubt, the plaintiffs will allow them to appeal and move on.
    How's that?

  • 163. chris from co  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:31 am

    You know I was just thinking about Hawaii and their civil unions bill, it doesn't go into effect tomorrow it won't be till Jan 1, 2012. Further out than September. One difference is we know the out come of the civil unions bill and not the prop8 case, but in a sence when the courts rule it will go into effect immediately not 11 months from the decision. Maybe if I just keep this in mind it won't be so bad to wait till september. Just looking for the silver lining.

  • 164. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:37 am

    I think the only answer they are talking about that might wait until september 2011 is the California Supreme Court saying if proponents have standing, then it goes back to the 9th – then another schedule is made from the 9th district (someone can correct me if I am wrong.) I don't think Californiaq will have an answer in 2011. But anything is possible

  • 165. Mark M (Seattle)  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:58 am

    I know exactly how you feel :-(
    Big hugs to you and your wife from my husband and myself

  • 166. New  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Couldn't Olson and Boies ask the 9th Circuit to grant legal standind to the defense, so they could move the case forward if the plaintffs just agreed with that?

  • 167. Ann S.  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:09 am

    But we don't want them to have standing, not only for this case but because it would set a bad precedent for future challenges to bad propositions.

  • 168. Kathleen  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:16 am

    This from law.com has some good information http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=120

  • 169. up&Adam  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:32 am

    Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered: Since this is the CA Supreme Court, does it mean that the oral arguments will not be televised and that the gang at Prop8TrialTracker will have to live-blog again?

  • 170. Carpool Cookie  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:34 am

    Yes. I did not mean to soun callous or unfeeling toward those who are waiting to marry, or in pain because, or feeling anger that, their rights were taken away. It IS deeply, deeply frustrating that "the right thing" doesn't happen immediately.

    I think a good thing (if there is a good thing) about each decision being weighed so thoroughly is that when it does go our way, it proves how there's nothing behind the Christianists' whining that some agenda is being "pushed through" by a few activists, or (supposed) "activist judges".

    So I apologize for not making clear that I am upset, too, and that I do feel for all of us who are upset by having to wait.

  • 171. Kathleen  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:37 am

    Plaintiffs won in district court. They don't want to appeal the decision; they're happy with it. It is the losers (Proponents) who want to appeal Walker's decision. As to Plaintiffs (through Olson/Boies) just agreeing to letting Proponents appeal, a party in the suit can't decide who has standing in a federal case; that's something a federal judge needs to decide.

  • 172. Kathleen  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:43 am

    I so wish I had something to say that would help you feel better, but I know there is nothing some person in a blog comment can say that could begin to ease the genuine pain you're understandably feeling when faced with this degree of institutionalized discrimination and the apparent lack of concern shown by your own government. (((((Hugs)))))

  • 173. AnonyGrl  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:45 am

    I often feel the same way, and then I realize that while I KNOW that people can be hateful, it is sometimes worth it to jump in and TELL them so. I try, in those comments, to occasionally inject a bit of sense, clarification, whatever.

    I never see it working, but I know that the possibility is there that it will. Just part of keeping up the good fight, I guess.

  • 174. New  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:48 am

    I'm not saying they (the plaintiffs) in their best interest, should or should not want it. And I don't know if they would want this or not. I would like to know if they COULD do it legally speaking.
    It seemed to me Olson and Boies had expectations and desired this case to move forward to the highest courts.
    IMHO, I don't think it would set bad precedent becouse it wouldn't mean the defense really have legal standing. It would mean that the plaintffs allowed them to approach with their appeal no matter what their standing status.

  • 175. Carpool Cookie  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:49 am

    Kathleen:

    Got reply @ 8:30 am. / "There is no charge, just the 10.00 you will pay for parking. I have you down for 2 seats! Thank you! "

    So if you can't get confirmation, you can use my other ticket. I'll email you the organizer's name from the message, so you can find them on the UCLA staff directory and call directly.

    Should we plan to jump out of a cake or something at the reception, to be sure to catch Mr. Boies' attention…or just let it play out? (Another plan could be to wear dark robes and powdered wigs, and carry big scrolls.)

  • 176. AnonyGrl  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:49 am

    That is the argument they use… "Think of the children…"

    I keep thinking that it will be a glorious day when every child can come home from school and say "Mommy? Can two men get married to each other?" and Mommy answers "Certainly, dear. Would you like an apple or a pear for your snack?"

  • 177. Kathleen  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:52 am

    The California Supreme Court has broadcast oral arguments in the past. For example, oral arguments for the case challenging Prop 8 in 2009, they broadcast them on The California Channel, a public access station. I can't remember if other stations carried it as well, but the California Channel is available online.

    Hopefully, they'll do the same for this case.

  • 178. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:56 am

    I wonder how many news and independent organizations are going to request to have their cameras in the room.

  • 179. Carpool Cookie  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Blauuugh. I know it's utterly depressing. I hate seeing the face of hate (and rapacious ignorange) so much I can't watch Faux News for even 5 minutes without wanting to shatter the TV screen.

    The courts really are not displaying hate, though. Unfortunately, it is how our legal system works…and in the long run, that system is a lot better than what other countries have.

    When I feel descimated, I try to remember what a really learned friend of mine once told me. He said "Everyone expects progress and happiness to build upward in a straight line. But life isn't like that. It is the good, the bad, and the ugly…all in equal measure."

    So the bumps in the road come with the territory of simply living on Earth. It doesn't mean we shouldn't fight when we see wrongs done, but there will always be injustice that has to be grappled with. And there are also wonderful victories. We just don't get everything at once. Remember that we made amazing progress in 2010, and that this year will ultimately be remarkable, too.

    But I'm so sorry you're wounded. Wish there was something I could do…

  • 180. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 17, 2011 at 3:01 am

    Or even better will be when the children don't even have to ask anymore because they will know other children who have two dads or two moms, and the parents are all legally married according to our civil, secular laws.

  • 181. New  |  February 17, 2011 at 3:15 am

    @ Kathleen
    So you're saying that [IF] Olson & Boies requested to the 9th Circuit to resume and continue the trial from here, without knowing for sure the proponent's standing status, the request would be denied?

    Sorry Kathleen, your [reply] button isn't showing

  • 182. Kathleen  |  February 17, 2011 at 3:30 am

    No reply button because the format here only permits a certain level of replies (3?) and we've reached that limit in this thread.

    Yes, the opposing party can't just "allow" another party to have standing. The judge(s) have to make that determination based on current law. You may recall that when the 9th Circuit first set the schedule for briefing, they asked Proponents to particularly explain how they could have standing in light of Arizonans for Official English, a U.S. Supreme Court case in which Justice Ginsburg said:

    <blockquote cite=" ">Grave doubts exist as to the standing of petitioners … to pursue appellate review under Article III's case or controversy requirement. Standing to defend on appeal in the place of an original defendant demands that the litigant possess "a direct stake in the outcome." … Petitioners' primary argument–that, as initiative proponents, they have a quasi legislative interest in defending the measure they successfully sponsored–is dubious because they are not elected state legislators, authorized by state law to represent the State's interests, see Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 82. Furthermore, this Court has never identified initiative proponents as Article III qualified defenders.

    So, even if Plaintiffs argued that they wanted Proponents to have standing, the judges still have to abide by federal law and only grant standing to those parties who meet the qualifications.

  • 183. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 17, 2011 at 3:55 am

    And that explains another reason Andy Pugno was trying so hard to win election to the California Legislature (I know my terminology may be wrong, but I grew up with legislature)! As one of the D-I's, if he were elected, he would then be able to step in and help the Proponents have Article III standing.
    Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
    But I guess Andy did not count on everybody seeing through his snake oil veneer!

  • 184. Dwight  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:02 am

    I still find your site the best for news on this subject.

    I hope the gay community knows there are a lot of us patriotic heterosexuals out here pulling for you.

    This is the land of the free, where every person is treated equally in the eyes of the law, an ideal that we as a nation strive for, but never quite achieve.

    This is another step along that path.

    I don’t happen to be gay, I don’t happen to have very many gay friends, but that does not change the fact that your struggle here is on the side of right. ( read as side of correct, not right wing LOL )

    best of luck from me, and you will again have my vote if this comes up again.

  • 185. Mark  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:03 am

    In 1964, Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot that amended the California state constitution. The initiative passed by a 65% majority vote (Prop. 8 only passed by a 52% vote). Proposition 14 was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in 1966 because it violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution. It was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1967 as the wording of Proposition 14 violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Does this sound familiar? I, too, am losing my patience. But given the timeline for Proposition 14, it sounds as if we are on the same schedule as 44 years ago. As I have heard in the past, the wheels of justice turn slowly.

  • 186. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:27 am

    Thanks, Dwight! Please feel free to chime in here at any time. You may not have very many face to face friends who are gay, or you may not realize that you have, but you are now part of the P8TT family, and therefore you have found a whole host of LGBT friends here. Pull up a chair and have some cookies, challah, and MILK.

  • 187. Eric  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:39 am

    If the will of the People intended for Prop 8 proponents to have standing in Federal court, they would have included language granting standing in the initiative language.

    Perhaps having only 14 words wasn't the most legally sound way to write an initiative.

  • 188. New  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:43 am

    Thank you for your anwers.

  • 189. allen  |  February 17, 2011 at 5:22 am

    I definitely understand where you're coming from as me and my partner are currently waiting on California.

    For what it's worth, your marriage is not in vein. It gives my partner and I hope that we will have the same opportunity again and I am very proud of the 18,000 couples. Your presence here and in CA is helpful for the cause and you may be contributing to equality in more ways than you realize. I believe too that it will be harder and harder for people to justify their prejudice when they see and hear from the people they aim to divorce. Thank you.

  • 190. John  |  February 17, 2011 at 5:50 am

    I have one question about the Courage project: Could this project actually affect the court dates? Is the court going to actually change timing based on, essentially, a petition with information about the participants? Surely the court already knows this issue affects a lot of people.

    I'm not trying to detract from the work – I sincerely appreciate and support what Courage does (this site for instance is an amazing resource). I'm just wondering if this project could achieve its' goal.

  • 191. Designer Jim O  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    As long as the definition of who has the right to 'marriage' remains unclear, ALL marriages should be prohibited/postponed pending a final ruling.

    Perhaps that would speed things along.

  • 192. Eric  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    The Supreme Court of California did offer two remedies in In re Marriages, either marriage for everyone or benefits for no one. Prop 8 said nothing about benefits, so…

    Were I a party to In re Marriages, I would go back to the Supreme Court and ask for the remaining remedy, marriage can confer no benefits.

  • 193. Paul  |  February 20, 2011 at 6:07 am

    Just an FYI. In CA, almost all of the state marriage rights are given to registered domestic partners.

    I'm not saying this is the same as marriage. It isn't and separate is not equal, however, if you are looking for protections for your partner you might want to consider a domestic partnership until marriage inevitably becomes available.

    Even if this lawsuit goes well and marriage is again allowed for same sex couples in CA it still won't provide the federal marriage benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy.

  • 194. Breaking: Olson and Boies&hellip  |  February 23, 2011 at 10:22 am

    [...] I posted here at the time, a six-month delay (with, I’m told, likely another few months until an actual [...]

  • 195. TV: Courage Campaign memb&hellip  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    [...] may remember that two Wednesdays ago, Shane Mayer penned an e-mail to Courage Campaign members asking you to share stories of same-sex couples who want to get [...]

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!