Legal Challenge to Prop 8 ban underway. Only 2 gay couples filed originally

The will of the people isn't completely dead in California yet. A challenge has emerged on legal grounds based on who filed against prop 8 in the first place which was only 2 couples in 2 counties.
The initiative’s sponsors contend, however, that the injunction applied only to the two couples who sued and that Proposition 8 should remain in effect in all other circumstances.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the sponsors’ campaign committee, Protect Marriage, said Friday, “The man-woman definition of marriage, as passed by the voters, is still a valid part of our state Constitution.”

Brown and Harris contend the injunction applies statewide, and Brown on June 28 ordered clerks in all 58 counties to resume issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The Proposition 8 sponsors have until 9 a.m. Monday to file a reply to the state’s brief. The state high court has no deadline for acting on the sponsors’ request for a stay.

The two couples who challenged Proposition 8 – Kris Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Burbank – married on June 28, after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay of Walker’s injunction.

In San Francisco alone, more than 600 other marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples since then, according to the state’s brief.

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the sponsors’ appeal on June 26, saying by a 5-4 vote that the initiative proponents, as a private group, had no standing to appeal Walker’s ruling after Brown and Harris declined to do so.

The U.S. high court also said the 9th Circuit therefore had no jurisdiction over the case, and nullified a decision in which the appeals court had upheld Walker’s ruling.

That action had the effect of leaving Walker’s decision and injunction in place, but with the two sides disputing how broadly they should apply.

An interesting legal conundrum SCOTUS put the state in by cowardly ducking ruling on the actual case and throwing it back to the state now the ruling has to be defined on how broadly the will of the people is denied their Constitutional right to vote.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...fornia-high-court-to-stop-same-sex-marriages/

 

So from what you're saying is they "cowardly" ducked the ruling...yet I have a feeling there was more cleverness than cowardice to the Ruling. I think they wrote the Opinion with so very very many references avering over and over again that states have the right to choose on gay marriage to send two messages to sharp attorneys for traditional marriage:

1. Gay marriage is not a civil right and

2. Prop 8 is still valid and all they have to do in CA is challenge it on standing of harm to the state's initiative system.

I'm sure a Justice or 9 has read the CA state constitution and seen the importance the voter and the initiative system has on law there.

Great thread by the way Tex!

 

No.

to everything you just claimed.

No.

 

Yes, yes to everything I just said. You cannot have a stale lower court ruling trump a fresh Supreme Court ruling on exactly diametrically-opposed poles of the same issue. If the Supreme Court said over and over that the definition of marriage is up to a state to decide, then you have no "gay civil marriage right" and you instead have a "state defining marriage right". Since it is within full legal constitutional power of a state to decide on marriage, then Prop 8 is legal, valid and the law of the land in that state. The only way it wouldn't be is not on some judge's ruling, but instead an active attack in the power and thrust of the initiative system there guaranteed in their constitution's Article II.

And that creates BIG legal problems that you'd better bet your bonnet are going to be challenged...and will not stop being challenged until the High Court clears up the mess.

 

Well you've lost round 1

source

 

"while reserving judgment on their claim that Prop. 8 remains valid and enforceable statewide"...

And there's the catch. They will not vocally deny the will of 7 million. And the cowards in those rigged courts will have to answer to the charge of damage to the intiative system.

 

Here's an update:

 

No.

Simply no to everything you posted.

 

The California Supreme Court refused Monday to stop gays from marrying while it considers a legal bid to revive Proposition 8.

The court rejected a request by ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure, to stop the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples while considering the group’s contention that a federal judge’s injunction against the marriage ban did not apply statewide.

The court is not expected to rule on the group’s petition until August, at the earliest.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided last month that ProtectMarriage lacked the legal right to appeal a 2010 injunction against Proposition 8 issued by a federal trial judge in San Francisco.

Gov. Jerry Brown said the injunction compelled him to order county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But ProtectMarriage insists the injunction applies only to two counties at most and that Brown erred when he ordered clerks to stop enforcing the marriage ban.

State Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, whose office represents Brown, has contended that ProtectMarriage is asking the state court to interfere with a federal court order in violation of the constitution.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-court-gay-marriage-20130715,0,4559972.story

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-...victory-and-the-first-weddings_b_3581924.html

Here's a backstage peek at history being made: The American Foundation for Equal Rights has released some amazing, never-before-seen footage of marriage returning to California. Embedded video crews captured the elation of the crowd as AFER's plaintiffs emerged victorious from the Supreme Court, and when marriages began just two days later.

Some don't-miss moments: HRC President Chad Griffin interrupting an MSNBC interview to deliver a phone call from President Obama; California Attorney General Kamala Harris congratulating plaintiffs Sandy and Kris; Paul and Jeff kissing in tearful awe after finishing their wedding ceremony; and the hundreds of Californians lining up to experience equality at last.

This is a moment in American history that people will study for a long, long time. And we're lucky enough to be watching it as it happens.

People in love getting married.

Makes me teary eyed.

 

Another update:

It appears those folks out there who are really, really, really scared of gay marriage are going to have to start facing their fears.

The California Supreme Court is reportedly refusing to, once again, block gay couples from getting married, which means you can keep sending out those save the dates.

Last week, Prop. 8 supporters -- in a last-ditch effort to keep gays from walking down the aisle together -- filed a petition, asking the Supreme Court to stop same-sex weddings that had resumed in California on June 28 -- two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't going to rule on California's Prop. 8, thus paving the way for gays to marry in California.

The motion claimed that Gov. Jerry Brown did not have the authority to direct county officials to stop enforcing Prop. 8 because the measure had not been deemed unconstitutional by an appellate court.

Apparently, the state Supreme Court doesn't agree.

In 2010, a federal judge ruled that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional; Prop. 8 supporters appealed that decision and an injunction on gay marriages in California were halted until June 2013. Since the gay couples who sued were living in Los Angeles and Alameda counties, Prop. 8 supporters say the measure should not apply statewide, but rather to those counties.

The court will now consider a second motion by Prop. 8's sponsors that declares the measure remains legally binding statewide.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2013/07/same-sex_marriage_foes_lose_ag.php

 

It's not just Prop 8's sponsors bringing the case. It is also registered voters who want their vote counted.

 

Meanwhile prop 8 is dead. Same sex couples have been marrying for the past 2 weeks and recognized by the federal government

 

No, the initiative system isn't "dead".

 

They never had the right to vote away other people's civil rights to begin with. Which is why prop 8'is dead

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. Prop 8 is dead

 

No, gay marraige isn't a civil right. States get to choose on gay marriage. And therefore, the initiative system/prop 8 is alive.

 

Meanwhile, prop 8 is dead. Same sex couples have been legally marrying for 2 weeks and recognized by the federal government

 

The "will of the people" regarding gay marriage involves mainly closeted gay Republicans. Why the hell does anyone else even care?

 

Hey, maybe you could use that as a closing argument against the pending case for the People's initiative system in California?...lol...

To defeat this, you have to think like a lawyer and that ain't gonna cut it "Jeff9K"..

 

The case is dismissed

 

The entire case or just the emergency injunction rahl?

 

The refusal of the Governor and Attorney General of the State of California to maintain a defense of Proposition 8 was a political move that violates the spirit of the law by preventing the dispute from being effectively appealed. The fix was in for the opponents of Proposition 8 at the trial court level by the way the trial court judge was selected. The skids were figuratively greased.

This is illegitimate from the trial court stage through Supreme Court remand. When the law goes without defense the rule of law has been abandoned and the political/judicial systems become untrustworthy.

The correct result obtained through unethical behavior fails the ends/means test. That's a form of moral decadence.

 

Well put, however we differ in a couple regards:

1. Gay marriage isn't the "right result". In the same number of years sodomy has been normalize through the channel of forced "legal" gay marriage in a couple states, the numbers of impressionable boys trying out sodomy, the new fad, are showing up with increasing hideous numbers of new HIV cases. and

2. Just because someone has their bootheel on your neck, doesn't mean you cannot use the same amount of force to grab their calf and break their ankle. The mistake people are making is thinking the rainbow wildfire cannot be resisted. It can. It can and it will. The red white and blue doesn't run from the rainbow flag...

 

Point one is a proven lie

Point two is another prediction. Given your track record of perfect failure regarding predictions on this issue, we can pretty much guarantee the exact opposite will happen

 

America doesn't run from a fight for equal rights... be it based on race or gender