Proposition 8 Supporters Re-Open the Case

Prop8again

Proposition 8 supporters have filed a case in court claiming that the vote of the people which passed the law should stand.

From what I’ve read, I believe that what they are basically saying is that since the Supreme Court failed to rule on Proposition 8 by tossing the whole case out, that the law itself stands.

When the Supreme Court refuses to review a lower court ruling, that means that the lower court ruling is allowed to stand. I believe that the lower court ruling in question overturned Prop 8. However, the Supreme Court took the Prop 8 case under consideration, and then tossed it out by saying that the law’s defendants did not have standing.

Does that mean that the entire case was thrown out of court and has no merit? I think that is what the opponents of Prop 8 are saying in the case they have filed. 

It’s an interesting argument that, at least on its face, does seem to have merit. 

I have no idea where this will go. The whole thing might wind its way back to the Supreme Court again. The basic point for now is that the proponents of traditional marriage are not rolling over. That, in itself, is very good news. 

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I think the proponents are claiming something much less specific and much more general, and something you yourself have pointed out: That the democratic process, not the governor or the AG or the courts, should be the only ones allowed to make law.

  • Dave

    No one wants gay people to hide. That doesn’t have much to do with whether gay marriage is a good idea.

    How exactly can business owners who feel they can’t support gay marriage deal with that without “discriminating” or violating their conscience?

    When those 100 years from now read about the history of the country that was known as the United States of America, they’ll wonder how we managed to run ourselves off a cliff in such a short time. (and gay marriage is NOT the main cause of it, just a signpost along the road, i.e. “Bridge Out”)

    • Sus_1

      From what I read on Patheos and other sites, there are many Christians that want gays to hide.

      Business owners could create networks and refer gay people to another business that doesn’t mind doing business with gay people. That’s just one idea.

      I’m sorry you have such a gloomy outlook. It must be a miserable way to live.

      • FW Ken

        Your idea had been widely rejected by gays rights advocates. They have no interest in Co-existence.

        • Sus_1

          Don’t forget that there are many more gay people than there are “gay rights advocates”.

          • FW Ken

            But who is taking all of this to court? In fact a fair number of advocates are not personally gay. And not all gay people are all in for the gay rights agenda.

            • wayne

              ….and how many slaves sued their masters or the government to end their oppression?????

              • FW Ken

                Gays are not oppressed. Nor is being black like being gay. The first is an objective biological reality, the second is a subjective claim that they say is biological, but there no actual evidence for that. Anyway, Down Syndrome is biological, too.

      • Dave

        It’s not gloomy at all! I look forward to something better rising from the ashes of the rapidly self-destructing USA. My hope is in Jesus Christ, not a political system.

        As far as your idea, I believe that many would have a problem in conscience even cooperating with a referral to another business, beyond saying, “I’m sure that there are many other places who will be happy to take your business.”

        Besides, I am quite sure this compromise would not be acceptable to many of the gay rights activists.

  • Guest

    From what I understand, the California constitution states that a referendum which passed in a manner such as Prop 8 is to be enforced unless it is overruled by a federal appeals court or higher. Since SCOTUS stated that the supporters of Prop 8 had no standing, it VACATED the 9th Circuit Court’s decision, therefore Prop 8 is supposed to be upheld. The opposers to Prop 8 are the ones who lost but no one is treating it that way. Additionally, the case that was brought up in district court by the two same-sex couples were NOT class action suits, so the ruling that they are allowed to get “married” only applied to the two couples in the lawsuit, NOT for everyone in the state. The problem with liberals is that they don’t actually care what the law says, they just want to do what they want to do.

  • Ed S

    From what I understand, the California constitution states that a referendum which passed in a manner such as Prop 8 is to be enforced unless it is overruled by a federal appeals court or higher. Since SCOTUS stated that the supporters of Prop 8 had no standing, it VACATED the 9th Circuit Court’s decision, therefore Prop 8 is supposed to be upheld. The opposers to Prop 8 are the ones who lost but no one is treating it that way. Additionally, the case that was brought up in district court by the two same-sex couples were NOT class action suits, so the ruling that they are allowed to get “married” only applied to the two couples in the lawsuit, NOT for everyone in the state. The problem with liberals is that they don’t actually care what the law says, they just want to do what they want to do.

  • marcus816

    Sorry, this case is over. If the CA Supreme Court had any intention of appealing the Ninth District’s ruling they would have stopped the hundreds of marriages now being performed daily. Marriage equality is now the de facto law in CA. It will one day be the law of the land.

  • Mike Fry

    What actually happened was this: District Court tossed out Prop 8 ruling it was unconstitutional. NOM et al appealed to the 9th Circuit, which also deemed Prop 8 unconstitutional, but on narrower grounds. When SCOTUS determined the Prop 8 proponents did not have standing to have done the appeal to the 9th Circuit, that left the District Court in place with invalidated Prop 8 as unconstitutional. SO… Prop 8 is out and the proponents trying to revive it have already been told the the supreme court that they don’t have standing to try to do so.

    The standing issue is fascinating, too. In order to have standing to appeal, you must be able to prove harm or injury from a court decision. When asked by the Supremes how the Proponents were injured by the District Court decision they responded – in court – that they were not.

    • Dave

      “When asked by the Supremes how the Proponents were injured by the District Court decision they responded – in court – that they were not.”

      If true, that was extremely dumb of them.

      • Mike Fry

        Dumb, yes – especially since they knew the issue of standing was going to be brought up by the Court. It had actually been brought up at the 9th Circuit, which said they would leave the decision about standing to SCOTUS, because they knew however they decided, the decision would be appealed to SCOTUS.

        The only thing that would have been more “dumb” would have been for them to try to argue harm or damage before SCOTUS when they could not possibly prove any. THAT would have been extra, double-down dumb.

        They clearly had a losing case going in, and they certainly knew it. I get the impression they pressed forward without a case, hoping for some surprise to show up to bolster their arguments. What surprise could have possibly helped them, I am not sure. Magic fairy dust? That would have probably helped the other side! (c;

        • Dave

          It’s actually pretty easy to show harm, unless you mean DIRECT harm. After all, if someone were to complain against a law which allowed people to drive without insurance or voluntarily not pay their taxes before it went into effect, it would be impossible to describe any direct harm that had been done to any given complainant.

          They could show that children need both a mother and a father. They could show that it is using taxpayer money for no apparent gain. They could show that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. That’s just off the top of my head. There’s all sorts of things they could have said that were once considered so obvious as to be tautological.

          Now, the court may not have listened, but that’s not the same as not having anything to say.

  • wayne

    Just a correction in your article. The SCOTUS did NOT “throw the case out”. It threw out the APPEAL and remanded the case back to the US Court of Appeals which had sustained the trial court’s finding of unconstitutionality and the ninth circuit court of appeals thereby dissolved the stay order, allowing marriages to proceed. Thus, your observation of “merit” is quite generous.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X