Tags: same sex marriage

Ren

ProtectMarriage.com, once again, showing that they have no fugging idea about how law works

So, imagine you're a bigot.

You were allowed to defend Proposition 8 in court even though you weren't the defendants being sued. You did such a laughable job that the plaintiffs' attorneys walked all over you, the judge wrote a scathing (and hilarious) judgment against you, and you were made a national mockery to anyone who supports SSM, is interested in law, or has any sense.

You file for an appeal. What do you try?

You try to argue that the judge's decision only applies to the plaintiffs who brought the case forward.

Seriously, are these people retarded? Last I checked the constitution applied to everyone.

I'm cross-posting here and over on Dreamwidth at The Mad Ramblings. Feel free to comment in either place.
Ren

Oh. Holy. Crap.

Stay for Prop 8 lifted as of 8/18.

Furthermore, he laid down some points about why the proponents of Prop 8 might not even get an appeal...

To establish that they have standing to appeal the court’s decision under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, proponents must show that they have “suffered an injury in fact, which is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by the relief requested.” Didrickson v United States Dept of Interior, 982 F2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir 1992). Standing requires a showing of a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent. Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555, 560 (1992). If the state defendants choose not to appeal, proponents may have difficulty demonstrating Article III standing. Arizonans for Official English v Arizona, 520 US 43, 67 (1997).

As official proponents under California law, proponents organized the successful campaign for Proposition 8. Doc #708 at 58-59 (FF 13, 15). Nevertheless, California does not grant proponents the authority or the responsibility to enforce Proposition 8. In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates.” 33 Cal 4th 1055, 1080 (2004). Still less, it would appear, do private citizens possess authority regarding the issuance of marriage licenses or registration of marriages. While the court has ordered entry of a permanent injunction against proponents, that permanent injunction does not require proponents to refrain from anything, as they are not (and cannot be) responsible for the application or regulation of California marriage law. See Cal Health & Safety Code § 102180. The court provided proponents with an opportunity to identify a harm they would face “if an injunction against Proposition 8 is issued.” Doc #677 at 7. Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction. Doc #687 at 30.


Well then. *grin*