I could research it but I have a feeling we have folks here that are up to date with this.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided Imperial County has no standing to bring an appeal, and we're waiting to find out whether the Protect Marriage folks can appeal or not. Once we know whether or not the PM folks can appeal, then we'll hear from the 9th Circuit folks whether or not Judge Walker's decision (that denying SSM is unconstitutional) is good or bad. Then there will be more appeals to the US Supreme Court. There aren't any pending calendared hearings yet.

For the details:

The 9th Circuit asked California's Supreme Court to answer whether or not people who sponsor ballot propositions (like the ProtectMarriage folks) have the ability to bring lawsuits in defense of their propositions under California's constitution. (There's a case in Arizona where proposition supporters were unable to bring a federal appeal, and that decision was 9-0 from the U.S. Supreme Court.)

California's constitution has stronger language and protection for its citizens, so it may be different than Arizona. There is no case law addressing the issue right now.

California's Supreme Court could -

1 - Say proposition supporters in California are different than those in Arizona and that state law would allow them to appeal.

2 - Say proposition supporters in California are the same as those in Arizona, and they cannot appeal.

3 - Tell the Federal 9th Circuit to use its best judgment and decide its own.

There's no deadline or timeline for California's Supreme Court to address the situation. Attorneys from both sides have written letters to California's top court for and against arguments granting standing.

If California's court says ProtectMarriage folks cannot appeal under California law, the Federal court would probably deny the appeal of the Schwarzenegger case (saying nobody who brought the suit had a right to do it). If that happens, the original decision would stand and SSM would be legal in California again. No other states would be bound by the decision, but folks suing in other jurisdictions could point out Walker's decision.

If California's court says the PM folks can appeal under state law, then the 9th District Court would have to decide whether federal law lets them appeal as well. If the PM folks are granted standing to appeal, then the 9th Circuit will rule on the merits of the case - whether denying SSM is against the US Constitution.

If California's court declines to address the issue, the 9th Circuit will decide on its own both the standing and the merits cases.

Before the 9th circuit makes any decisions about the merits of the case, everyone has to agree that the issue of standing is settled. So if the standing issue is appealed, the merits issue won't be taken up until all standing appeals are exhausted. (Courts don't want to spend time writing decisions on cases they aren't legally able to hear.)

Any decision made by the 9th Circuit would apply to all the states in the 9th Circuit.

After the 9th Circuit's decision comes down, it will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court which could accept the case or not.

Thanks

"Anti Prop 8 attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies have sent a letter to the California Supreme Court asking them not to make any decision on standing, but to send the matter back to the 9th Disctrict Federal Court."

http://prideinutah.com/?p=8654

I want this case to go to the Supreme Court, but I also want it to take some time getting there. I think time is on the side of gay marriage. Attitudes toward gay marriage are changing fast so the longer it takes the better the chances that the judgment will stand. I hate the idea that I want this process to go slow, but I am well aware that social change takes time and sometimes it is best to be patient.

That said, I also would not view a ruling that nobody has the standing to appeal, meaning to would not go to the Supreme Court, as any sort of setback. If nobody can appeal then gay marriage would be legal in the most populated state in the Union, thus more clout. This would be a slower safer way to proceed. Allowing California to have gay marriage would more than triple the percentage of USA population living in states that allow gay marriage.