And if the court does not think the prop 8 supporters have standing, then the case could be decided long before the elections.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I do not believe Arnie and Brown are right in not pursuing this to the SCOTUS. Scalia himself has stated, at the time sodomy laws were overturned, that once gay sex between consenting adults became legal, that gay marriage would have to be found to be constitutional - his main reason for dissenting in the Texas sodomy case that overturned all sodomy laws. The last thing in the world the anti-gay crowd wants is this issue before the Supreme Court - which is why they have put all their effort into these ridiculous elections that only prove that the majority of people are bigots, just like they did when interracial marriage was an issue. As yet, not one person has been able to articulate any kind of argument putting forth the compelling reason The State has to interfere in a legal contract between two consenting adults where no one is harmed, which is all marriage really is. Until one anti-gay person can come up with one solid reason as to why The State has a right to interfere in a valid contract when it has no compelling interest to do so, under our systems of laws, gay marriage is Constitutional.

Only in the state of California.

I think I read somewhere that the Judge did not reference Baker v Nelson in his decision. I perused his lenghty decision and did note references to Griswold and Loving in his opinion. In 1972 the MN Sup Court in Baker ruled that the state law did not violate the US Constitution and in the process reviewed these precedents and found them as lacking precedent:

....On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".
http://tripatlas.com/Baker_v._Nelson

Case then goes to the US Supreme Court, which issues a 1 sentence order and dismisses the case "for want of a federal question". Baker then, as settled law, goes on to be cited as precedent in federal cases over the years.

I wonder why Judge Walker did not address Baker in his decision? Isn't he making a "federal question" of this issue and in doing so going against settled law? Yet he makes no mention of Baker? Maybe that's why the Ninth Circuit put the brakes on it.
Maybe they see problems with it and want a remand to dress it up for it's trip to Washington. Or maybe they want to take the time to mention Baker in the deliberation process? Who knows? I will leave that up to the lawyers.

And
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Iowa
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Maine
Massachusetts
Vermont

Iowa was kind of a surprise. But as a friend said that growing up on a farm you find out that some are just born that way.

__________________
Happy Benzing
Darryl, Hill
2005 SL55 AMG Kleemanized
1984 500 SEC
1967 W113 California Coupe
[SIGPIC]
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/myphotos

In a unanimous decision, the court found that the proponents os Prop 8 have the requisite standing to appeal. The ruling protects the system by not allowing the action or inaction of the state to determine the legal course of the legal challenge.

Now that what he said is very cool! And original. I like that.

__________________


Selling used Mercedes parts on Ebay...always changing...
cdplayer51 take a look!
____________

I think that ruling and it's justification (which I heard summarized on NPR) were well-reasoned. Particularly because the 9th is probably on the side of gay marriage (my own thought, not NPR). They did their job removing impediments to a clean case down the road.

Yeah, you sure wouldn't want the will of the people to prevail. All good liberals know that the US Govt. knows what's best for the citizenry, not the citizenry itself.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

The will of the people used to endorse slavery, prohibition, laws against interracial marriage, and other things. At the present time, nearly an equal number of Americans support same sex marriage as oppose it. The increase in support has dramatically increased in recent years

In some areas, didn't the will of the people include lynch mobs, witch burnings, etc, etc? Wanna go for that? Or, I know it is a crazy idea, go with what the constitution says. Radical for sure but how about that?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

That would be an inconvenient truth that does not fit in with Larry's hatred of gays. He seems to see nothing wring with denying equal rights so long as it agrees with his POV.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I believe a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already heard the Constitutional arguments. They had applied to the CA Supreme Court for their interpretation on the party standing, so the Appeals Court decision could come rather quickly.