Anti-Gay Marriage Advocates Will Be Allowed To Defend Prop 8

Actually a good thing

Politics • November 2011 • Views: 1,086

The court has ruled that the groups claiming standing to support Prop 8 do in fact have it, and will be allowed to argue their case in court.

This is actually a good thing. In the cases so far, they have failed, utterly, to show any harm to traditional marriage from gay marriage. Utterly. It has been a disaster for them, and I’m not even sure why they’re continuing with it. I guess they are betting the conservatives on the Supreme Court will agree with their bigotry, but I don’t think their argument will be legally sound enough to sway even the most conservative members of the court.

Gay Marriage SCOTUS

Recent Pages by Obdicut (Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)):
My proposal for gun rights Statistics Saturdays (most of the time): Normal Distributions Sociological Sundays: Something Old, Something New, It All Blew Statistics Saturdays: Data types, Averages, and Common Lies Statistics Saturdays: Sampling

Jump to bottom

5 comments

calochortus Thu, Nov 17, 2011 12:36:59pm

Much as I don't like Prop. 8, I do think it is reasonable to let someone defend it. The ruling presumably also applies to other cases where the government does not choose to defend one side of an argument.

aagcobb Thu, Nov 17, 2011 1:04:20pm

I think their argument will sway Thomas, Scalia and Alito. The question is whether it sways Roberts and Kennedy.

Simply Sarah Thu, Nov 17, 2011 1:11:15pm

Scalia made his feelings rather clear in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, which Thomas joined. Alito likely would have joined as well, if he had been on the court then. I honestly don't have much hope for Roberts.

That likely leaves five available votes to strike down Prop 8. And, to be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable relying on any of them for this particular issue. Not nearly confident that all five would agree, even though the case seems extremely strong for the anti-Prop 8 side.

And even if they do strike Prop 8, it's not entirely clear how wide a ruling they'd make. They could very easily limit it very specifically to Prop 8, even to the point of not ruling out another, similar referendum in California being upheld at a later date.

Obdicut Thu, Nov 17, 2011 1:44:15pm

re: #3 Simply Sarah

The case isn't about the referendum, which is handy. It's about the actual subject of it, the actual effects. I'm not a law-talking-guy, but some of my gay activist friends would rather this happen than a ruling of no standing.

Simply Sarah Thu, Nov 17, 2011 1:47:49pm

re: #4 Obdicut

The case isn't about the referendum, which is handy. It's about the actual subject of it, the actual effects. I'm not a law-talking-guy, but some of my gay activist friends would rather this happen than a ruling of no standing.

Oh, I agree this is the best outcome, since a ruling otherwise would have been a legal mess and could lead to some really negative repercussions at a later date. And it's best to get a ruling on the merits at this point, really.

Judge Walker indeed made a pretty broad ruling. However, the Supreme Court could certainly narrow it down significantly and make a ruling similar to Romer, which would stop Prop 8 but wouldn't technically rule out trying again.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!