Thursday, August 12, 2010

CA Wednesday=Ring Day?

The Dark Side has six days to prove to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they deserve a stay on resumption of same-sex marriage in California while they try to overturn the ruling against Prop 8. Chief Justice Vaughn R. Walker has given them until 5 p.m. Pacific time to complete their best pitch to the appeals level of federal court.

For best coverage, see the San Francisco Chronicle and the 11-page stay order.

The effort will be led by the Alliance Defense Fund, which so lamely lost the trial at the federal level. Its site has no immediate comment. Nor does the pro-Prop 8 umbrella group of anti-gay, anti-SSM sorts, Protect Marriage. The article did run a few-days-old quote, "Douglas Napier, an attorney who defended Prop. 8, said that contrary to (Equality California executive director Geoff) Kors' contention, he is confident his side will win on appeal."

On Kors' site, he states:
Today we are overjoyed, not only for all of the committed couples who are finally able marry as well as for their family and friends, but also because a fundamental constitutional freedom has been restored. This case has definitively proven that extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples causes no harm and is in line with our country’s core values of equality and liberty. Today is a monumental step forward for our entire nation.

There is no doubt that this decision was due, in part, to Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown asking the court to lift the stay. To ensure the State of California maintains its position against this discriminatory measure throughout the appellate process, Equality California will intensify its efforts to elect a pro-equality governor and attorney general.

The stay order states the strictures for winning a stay against resuming SSM. Walker cites for factors the Ninth's justices will consider:
  1. whether proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits;
  2. whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
  3. whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and
  4. whether the stay is in the public interest.
Given the pro-Prop 8's inability to show any harm from SSM, it doesn't look good for them.

Friday Followup: Leonard Link has a nice expansion on the order. It describes how the pro-Prop 8 groups should have no standing in an appeal if the state (AG, governor or other defendants) choose not to appeal. Moreover, it raises new to me, that a county with strong Prop 8 yes votes wants to sue, kind of after the fact of the trial.

Tags: , , , , ,

No comments:

UpTweet