Gay marriage: all eyes on 9th Circuit panel

[cal04]

A moderate judge is considered pivotal in the appeal of a judge's ruling against the state's ban.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-20101206,0,7205214.story

When a federal appeals court meets in San Francisco on Monday for arguments on Proposition 8, legal analysts will be closely watching Judge Michael Hawkins, a moderate Democratic appointee whose vote is expected to be critical in the same-sex marriage case.

The randomly chosen three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also includes Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a California liberal appointed by President Carter, and Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative from Idaho appointed by President George W. Bush.

"It's a very favorable panel for the challengers to Proposition 8," said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and expert on the 9th Circuit.

(snip)
Some of the nation's top lawyers will be making the arguments. Representing the challengers to Proposition 8, David Boies will argue that opponents of gay marriage lack authority to appeal, and Theodore Olson will handle the constitutional issues. Charles Cooper, a Washington-based lawyer, will represent ProtectMarriage.com, the sponsors of Proposition 8. All three have strong track records.


(two-hour session will begin at 10 a.m. and is scheduled to be broadcast live on CSPAN.)
1:00 pm EST Approx. 2 hr. U.S. Court of Appeals | Ninth Circuit LIVE Perry v. Schwarzenegger Oral Arguments Michael Hawkins; Stephen Reinhardt; N. Smith
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Perryv

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. Gay marriage will eventually be legal in all 50 states.

Due to the FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.

Also, the 14th Amendment equal protection and due process clauses.

I don't know why legal talking heads never mention the full faith and credit clause. It means that each state respects the laws of the other states.

For example, you get married in one state, and move to another state, your marriage is still valid because its legality was recognized by the second state you lived in.


I do not understand why they never mention that. :banghead:

This is why a judge in Dallas granted a gay couple a divorce recently, who had a valid gay marriage in another state. And Greg Abbott, the Texas AG, had total shitfits over it.

[ruggerson]

3. that's a different legal question

that has to do with DOMA, one part of which specifically allows states to not recognnize same sex marriages performed in other states.

[TheWraith]

5. It's because the full faith and credit clause says Congress can decide how that's administered.

And therefore, so the argument goes, DOMA says that no state has to recognize a gay marriage performed by another state.

It's stupid, and frankly the entire FF&C clause should be administered vigorously, but due to the way it's written it's a much weaker legal case than the equal protection clause, which has no such loopholes.

[ruggerson]

2. There is no way that "protect marriage" has standing

Schwarzenegger and Brown were the only entities that could legally appeal.

And they didn't.

[TheWraith]

6. Not the way California law is structured.

If you were talking federal law, you'd be right: there, only the DOJ is capable of appealing, which is why they have the "duty to defend." But CA law allows for others to step in and be the appellant, which takes the Gov and AG off the hook, allowing them to choose whether to recuse themselves.

In any event, we should be glad that they were ruled as having standing, so that the case can get taken up higher.

[ruggerson]

11. They haven't been given standing

The panel has not rulled on that yet.

[napi21]

4. I have a lot of confidence inBoyce & Olson, but RW judges

don't make decisions based on ratioal, they make their decisions on ideaology. I'm not gay but I'm hoping I'm wrong on that one judge and wish everyone in the gay community a favorable outcome on this case.

[cal04]

7. Prop 8 Fight Reaches Next Judicial Rung

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12317637
(snip)
In the first hour, a three-judge panel will consider if the group that put Proposition 8 on the ballot two years ago is eligible to appeal the lower court decision since its members are not responsible for enforcing the state's marriage laws.

Outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to challenge the ruling.

In the second hour, the panel will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.




Cspan link
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Perryv

[xchrom]

8. recommend

[melm00se]

9. My liberterian moment of the day

Exactly why is the government in the marriage business (other than the obvious revenue for localities) anyways?

It seems to me that this opens up the door for the government to meddle in, what should be, an entirely private arrangement between 2 people.

[donco6]

10. And when it's appealed again, what will the apologists say, then?

One wonders what tack they can take and still remain disguised.