Favorite stupid sign from the H8ers seen in photos today: "A Moral Wrong Can't Be A Civil Right".

Ummm, since when?

It cracks me up that it's seeming to be Conservatives' best bet to simply give up on California, and allow the case to die here - without going on to an appeals court.

Cases affirmed on appeal carry roughly a billion times the precedent weight of a lower court decision. If the Ninth Circuit affirms, even though the case is tied to California in myriad ways, the precedent could be used to challenge gay marriage bans across the nation.

Worse yet, the conservo-fundies are not even sure the Supremes could be counted on to reverse Judge Walker's rulings, now that they've had to chance to examine them and have discovered their impenetrable awesomeness.


In some conservative quarters, it's already looking like giving up California for the sake of being able to carry on bigotry in 44 other states would be a wise strategic retreat. Seeing as there's an easy way out ... in fact, perhaps an automatic way out (it's looking less and less like anyone with standing will make an appeal) - restoring equal marriage to California may be what Conservatives are hoping for.


That's delicious irony. I think I'll enjoy the taste for a few days


... but hope that the Ninth Circuit finds some way to take the case anyway.

And I believe they will. Now that we're on a roll, it would be a shame to stop here. It's a roll of the dice I'd be willing to take ... the stakes are too high not to try. Marriage in California for gays is marriage in name only - without the federal rights that accompany straight marriage.

So while I was giddy for a while today at the thought of gay marriages starting up again, I think it would be best if the Ninth Circuit ignored the law and allowed the H8ers to appeal.

Just realized that hopefully, all that money the Mormons and other H8ers spent was completely in vain. :D

One side effect if there is no appeal is that another Prop 8 could be passed and they just hope the next judge, not particularly bound by Judge Walker's decision, comes to a different conclusion

Sorry, Alex, that's not the way it works. California is indeed bound by Judge Walker's decision.

Measures don't get on the ballot by themselves. The attorney general has to approve measures, and it costs around $3 million dollars to get the necessary signatures. Technically, you are correct that a new measure would have to be enjoined by a new judge - but since that would now be done in a heartbeat, I doubt anyone's going to throw around the money needed, nor would an attorney general be likely to go along.


What I'm wondering is whether the language of prop 8 (marriage in California is between a man and a woman) remains in the Constitution, while Walker's order "merely" prevents enforcement of it.

Another curiosity is that Judge Walker's stay merely delays the Clerk from entering judgment. The decision remains, and nothing prevents the state from voluntarily obeying it. They are not forced to, but they may stop enforcing prop 8 right now if they want to, and would in no way be violating the law.


Interesting technicalities that ... as a law junkie ... I'm following with deep curiosity.






Edited to add: Apparently Alabama kept their state constitutional ban on interracial marriage on the books for 33 years after the U.S. Supreme Court rules such laws unconstitutional. Even then, the repeal got only 60% of the votes. (Perhaps the other 40% were hoping slavery would come back in vogue at some point.)

Not everybody. I didn't like it either ;)

Yes, that is true. I'm not saying what will happen but what could happen by leaving this settled at the District court level. And regardless of how likely it is that it would happen, it could happen.

If, by whatever means, California once again banned gay marriage it would be a new legal issue and you might get a judge that says "Judge Walker already handled this one" or you might get a judge that says "Judge Walker's a wanker and babbled nonsense."

But I agree it is unlikely to happen any time soon. Though isn't it the Secretary of State that has to approve ballot initiatives, not the Attorney General? If elected, I don't see Damon Dunn (or Steve Cooley if it is the Attorney General) throwing themselves in front of a train to prevent another version of Prop 8 getting on the ballot.

From what I understand (and perhaps I'm a little rusty), it is indeed the Secretary of State that approves ballot measures, but the Attorney General reviews them for the barest baseline violation of constitutionality (the Secretary of State having so such authority). This is usually a technicality, as I don't think even the most egregious ballot measures have been denied by the Attorney General ... but one which repeats a state constitutional amendment already ruled by a federal court to violate the U.S. constitution would, I assume, finally trigger the AG to act.