Appeals court hints at narrow Prop. 8 ruling

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(12-06) 15:43 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal appeals court hearing the Proposition 8 case appeared to back away today from considering whether gays and lesbians have the right to wed under the U.S. Constitution and hinted at a narrower ruling that would allow same-sex marriages only in California.

The court seemed uncertain, however, about whether the sponsors of the 2008 initiative banning same-sex marriage in California have the right to appeal a federal judge's ruling that declared the measure unconstitutional. One member of the three-judge panel suggested asking the state Supreme Court for help on the meaning of California law.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard 2 1/2 hours of arguments from supporters and opponents of Prop. 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The panel seemed intent on framing the case narrowly before it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court in the next year or two.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/06/BATJ1GMLER.DTL

---

A good opinion article about this case: "Ninth Circuit Judges May Not Rule on Prop 8 As Expected" by Paul Hogarth on beyondchron.org

[MNBrewer]

1. How would THAT work?

Federal judges, using the Federal Constitution (or Federal Law?), to overturn the state law, but not have it apply outside of CA?

[GodlessBiker]

3. Perhaps that once people have the right to marry it was unconstitutional to take that away from them...

What other states would that rationale apply to?

[MNBrewer]

4. All those that have marriage equality

[GodlessBiker]

5. Yes, I think it would be limited to those states within the 9th Circuit...

But I don't think using that rationale would open up marriage equality to those who don't already have it.

[MNBrewer]

7. well, some other district court would make a ruling and then it would have to go to the Supreme

It's headed there, for sure.

[elleng]

2. Heard much of the argument; Boies argued the 'standing' part.

'With Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris having won their races for Governor and Attorney General, respectively, the State of California will not appeal the lower court decision – leaving only the right-wing Prop 8 advocates to contest it. And because there are questions about whether they have standing to sue, their appeal may go nowhere.'

[JDPriestly]

6. Is that the standing issue as you understand it?

[MNBrewer]

8. Article on standing

<http://www.slate.com/id/2276917/>

[elleng]

9. No, that is not the standing issue; that's the 'politics' of it.

But I defer to Walter Dellinger as to its importance!

[johnnypneumatic]

10. The federal appeals court wants to cave and cower

let's clarify that first sentence:
"The federal appeals court want to back away today from saying gays and lesbians have the right to wed under the U.S. Constitution, and instead want a narrower ruling that would allow same-sex marriages only in California."
that way, maybe republicans won't be so mad at them...and true justice can be delayed another ten years

[elleng]

11. Story says 'back away today from considering.'

You may want to 'clarify.' Some want to understand somethings about the oral argument, and the way our legal system works.

'The court seemed uncertain, however, about whether the sponsors of the 2008 initiative banning same-sex marriage in California have the right to appeal.'