Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..
There seems to be some confusion about how the Prop 8 case progressed to SCOTUS. Here's how it did so.

In Stauss v. Horton, the Supreme Court of CA ruled that Prop 8 was a legitimate amendment to the CA Constitution, that existing CA domestic-partnership laws remained in effect, that same-sex marriages which occurred before the passage of Prop 8 were still valid, and that Prop 8 carved out a narrow exception for equal access to the term "marriage." Strauss v. Horton was the combination of three lawsuits filed by same-sex couples and various CA cities against the State of CA and some of its officials. ProtectMarriage.com, who sponsored Prop 8, was granted permission under CA law to participate in the defense of the case alongside the State of CA.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger later Perry v. Brown, the same-sex couples appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA, which is in the federal court system. Judge Walker held a bench trial and ruled that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision was stayed pending appeal.

In Perry v. Brown, the Prop 8 proponents (defendant-intervenors) appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit asked the Supreme Court of CA to decide whether or not the Prop 8 defendant-intervenors could defend the State's interests in the State's refusal to do so. The CA Supreme Court ruled that they did have legal standing to defend it. The 9th Cicrcuit upheld the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA (Judge Walker) that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 proponents appealed to the SCOTUS. They ruled that the Prop 8 intervenors did not have legal standing to appeal the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. SCOTUS remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.

76 posted on 06/28/2013 9:25:55 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan

However the case got to SC and the SC decision the other day, PEOPLE’S WILL had been thwarted.


77 posted on 06/28/2013 9:30:19 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Does this mean the governor’s demand clerks (statewide) start issuing licenses for them to marry was an unlawful act by the governor? Would be great to see moonbeam in jail.


81 posted on 06/28/2013 9:33:58 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

So is Walker’s stay still in effect or does his ruling against Prop 8 take effect? And if stayed, the the moment the 9th doe what they were told - dismiss - then Walker is free to lift his stay (if it doesn’t automatically expire on its own).


82 posted on 06/28/2013 9:36:27 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson