[CA Conservative]

So the court that made the Prop 8 ruling was a Federal Court?

Yes, but the fact that SCOTUS vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit means that the ruling of the District Court applies only to the parties to the case, and only in that District. Since California has several Federal Court districts, that would seem to imply that the ruling only impacts a portion of the state.

There is also the question of whether there should be any finding of unconstitutionality at all. Since the state declined to defend the law, the most the plaintiffs should have accomplished is a default judgment on their specific claim. That is why Walker allowed the supporters of Prop. 8 to defend the law in his court - he wanted to have a trial so he could declare the whole law unconstitutional, not just grant a default judgment to the plaintiffs. But if the supporters of the law did not have standing to defend the law at the 9th Circuit, they also did not have standing at the trial court, and the whole decision by Walker should be vacated and replaced with a default judgment.

[Tau Food]

Yes, but the fact that SCOTUS vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit means that the ruling of the District Court applies only to the parties to the case, and only in that District. Since California has several Federal Court districts, that would seem to imply that the ruling only impacts a portion of the state.

According to the Supreme Court's opinion:

"After a 12-day bench trial, the District Court declared Proposition 8 uncon- stitutional, permanently enjoining the California officials named as defendants from enforcing the law, and 'directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision' shall not enforce it. Perry v. Schwarzenegger"

The judgment is binding on all of the officials named as defendants, from the Governor on down, in all parts of the state.

Only an Act of God will prevent homosexual marriage in California.

Trust God.

[fifedom]

Yes, but the fact that SCOTUS vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit means that the ruling of the District Court applies only to the parties to the case, and only in that District. Since California has several Federal Court districts, that would seem to imply that the ruling only impacts a portion of the state

There is also the question of whether there should be any finding of unconstitutionality at all. Since the state declined to defend the law, the most the plaintiffs should have accomplished is a default judgment on their specific claim. That is why Walker allowed the supporters of Prop. 8 to defend the law in his court - he wanted to have a trial so he could declare the whole law unconstitutional, not just grant a default judgment to the plaintiffs. But if the supporters of the law did not have standing to defend the law at the 9th Circuit, they also did not have standing at the trial court, and the whole decision by Walker should be vacated and replaced with a default judgment.

This is also my understanding. Walker's ruling only applies to the specific homo's suing and maybe to the places where they live.

Still, I have heard that Moonbeam is going to order county clerks to issue marriage licenses. The Prop 8 group is still around and doing great work so they will probably sue Moonbeam and the clerks(You can still contribute to them. I contribute regularly)

Most likely the clerks in the homosexual areas like Frisco and LA will issue licenses at least until the case is heard so we will probably have a bunch of licenses issued like when the d*mned CA supremes allowed this before Prop 8 passed.

From the polls, redefining 'marriage' will probably pass easily in CA nowadays but it would be good to be able to spoil the celebrations of the media.

[campaignPete R-CT]

the supporters of the law were not involved in Walker’s federal trial court

the case was
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, then Perry v. Brown

in the appeals court it became
Hollingsworth v. Perry

[BuckeyeTexan]

Since the state declined to defend the law, the most the plaintiffs should have accomplished is a default judgment on their specific claim. That is why Walker allowed the supporters of Prop. 8 to defend the law in his court -

That is incorrect. The case Judge Walker tried was Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The State of CA was the defendant in that case not the Prop 8 propronents. The Prop 8 proponents didn't become involved until they appealed Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

[BuckeyeTexan]

See #76. The Prop 8 proponents became involved much earlier at the CA Supreme Court.