this is the newest news i could find on it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/17/2984912.htm?section=world

"A US appeals court has ruled that same-sex couples cannot marry in California while the court considers whether the state's ban on gay marriage is lawful."

anybody know if there is any newer news?

November, I think, was the month they were to hand down the decision. I doubt very much that any one in the U.S. is going to be able to miss the announcement once it happens.

There are two issues, one, do the people asking for the appeal have the legal standing to do so, and two, did Judge Walker make an error that would invalidate the ruling.

Judge walker is to make a final ruling in December of this year.

Timothy

logically, realistically, politically, humanely, constitutionally, we can really only expect one outcome right? that the ban on same-sex marriage will be lifted...

what will happen if it isnt though i wonder....?

>
> what will happen if it isnt though i wonder....?

The battle will go on and eventually we will have gay marriage throughout the USA, it will just take longer and waste more time and effort.

Exactly! Prop 8 will head to the Supreme Court and probably be struck down, but it will take years.

Meanwhile, California will probably repeal it on its own before that happens.

Gay marriage is inevitable for 3 reasons:

1) Gays are fighting for their lives, so every defeat is just a set back. Homophobes can live with gay marriage but gays can't live without it.

2) Younger voters overwhelmingly favor gay marriage, so as the fogies die off, the balance tips.

3) Meanwhile, voters across the board are realizing that gay marriage is no big deal. The results in places like Canada and Mass are that people see no difference after gay marriage than before, so why bother to fight it?

... I make it a point to never trust a god or a government.

What will happen if it doesn't get overturned? ... The battle is still far from over. I'll continue to fight until it is.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2010 04:40PM by Timothy.

A federal court has ruled the law unconstitutional, that is the current status of the law.

That said, the US courts have a process to check to see if the ruling by a court was correct or not. That process is the appeals process. If nobody appeals the ruling then the ruling is the law of the land. It is quite typical that the implementation of the ruling is put on hold while the appeals process happens, but it is only a hold on the implementations of the ruling it does not overturn the ruling. The ruling is only overturned if there is an error found during the appeals process.

If the ruling is not appealed, then the law stands. There is a very interesting twist in regards to prop 8. The people named in the suite are not appealing the ruling, but the people that are trying to appeal may not have the legal right (standing) to appeal so there may not be any actual appeal. The appeals court has put the implementation of the ruling on hold while it figures out if an appeal can actually go forward.

So, Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional but the implementation of that ruling has been put on hold pending the appeals process.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2010 04:50PM by dr5.

The US justice department is not involved with prop 8 and is not involved with the appeal.

The proponents of Prop 8 are appealing.

There are legal questions regarding their legal standing to actually do so.

I personally think that Inyo County and not the proponents of Prop 8 may be the entity that has the standing to appeal the ruling.

Why Inyo?

That question could mean a couple of things. Why bring up Inyo County in this context? Because it has joined the appeal to overturn the verdict.

Why would Inyo have standing? A couple of possible reasons

One: Inyo is a subdivision of the State of California that is expected to implement prop 8 as a representative of the State of California. The counties issue state marriage licenses on behalf of California. Since the county is the subdivision that is considered the state representative in issuing marriage licenses, they might very well be able to argue that they have standing as representatives of the state in regards to marriage and marriage licenses, thus representatives of one of the litigants named in the lawsuit. The other people trying to appeal can claim no such association.

And two: According to This LA times article (along with many other sources saying the same thing) "Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts federal courts to deciding 'cases' and 'controversies.' The Supreme Court long has held that in order to meet this requirement, a person or group pursuing legal action must have standing, a status conferred only on those who have suffered a direct, concrete injury. An ideological objection to a government action, no matter how strongly felt, is insufficient for standing." Inyo could argue that the increased number of licenses would cause them additional financial burdens, thus would suffer direct, concrete injury. The other people trying to appeal this case can not claim any such association with the state nor can they claim the sort of financial harm Inyo county can.

If the appeals court wants to hear this case, then they may well accept this sort of reasoning. If they appeals court does not want to hear this case then they will be rejected.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Inyo could argue that the increased number of licenses would
> cause them additional financial burdens, thus would suffer
> direct, concrete injury.

talk about a ridiculous argument against human rights! (if they chose to use that argument)

So.Ut. Ex/PostMormon association will have an attorney discuss the current state and arguments before 9th Circuit Court.

November 7th 2 PM at the St. George Holiday Inn.

and everybody is extolling why we should get out and vote and that it makes a difference that we have as a shining example Prop 8. It's a great example of why voting is worthless.

Voting is extremely important. Just don't go whining that you didn't get to take away the Constitutional rights of a group of people just because the majority of people didn't think they deserved those Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Puuuuhhhleeeassse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2010 01:07AM by tiff.

It was a wonderful and impressive display of insight and forward thinking that the founding fathers realized that the legislators and the public could pass laws that took away rights of the minority and framed a constitution that protected those rights from the type of mob rule you, cynbicalso seem to want. Too bad you are so unAmerican you can not even support the Constitution of the United States.

"cynicalso" can take cold comfort in knowing that it was ignorant quasi-literates like himself that the Founding Fathers wanted to keep out of the voting booth when they organized this nation.