Posted on 06/27/2013 8:59:31 AM PDT by ColdOne
Case before US district court, plaintiffs where the homosexuals wanting gay marriage and the case before SCOTUS the plaintiffs were those that favored prop 8?
The plaintiffs were on differing sides of the fence regarding district court case and SCOTUS case.
Yes.
Also, if we're back to the District Court then the title of this article must be wrong because the District Court ruled agaisnt Prop 8. So since District Court's decision hasn't been overruled, then Prop 8 is (at least currently) not good law, right?
Now my question is: California has the power of recall --- will they use it against Jerry Brown and California's Attorney General?
Since there is only one way under the constitution to eliminate the conflict, it seems that they should be able to sue the California officials and force them to appeal, and thus get an appellate decision.
The decision would be the same, since presumably the Ninth circuit would be the appellate court. But at that point the California constitution would no longer be in conflict.
Once an appellate decision was rendered, however, the proponents would have no further recourse since they don’t have standing with SCOTUS and California Officials won’t appeal to SCOTUS.
They need someway to get California Officials to take that last step. Maybe NSA records could help.
But I agree, the District court had no business overturning Prop 8 and that’s what SCOTUS needs to rule on. So we know which judges to impeach or how to define an amendment.
It's wasn't like he knew someone who was gay, or even had a family member who was gay. He himself was gay who did NOT disclose that he was gay until after he heard the case.
"Discussing his sexuality after retiring from the bench, Walker said he did not consider recusing himself from the Perry case because he thinks using characteristics like sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender as the grounds for recusal is "a very slippery slope."[8] On April 25, 2011, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in district court to vacate Walker's decision, citing Walker's own post-trial statement that he has been in a long-term relationship with another man. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status, and unless Walker "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner", he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case"."
CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS (a pdf)
C. Administrative Responsibilities 4 (1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities 6 impartially,* on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, free of conflict of 7 interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity** “Impartial,” “impartiality,” and “impartially” mean absence of bias or prejudice in favor 24 of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open 25 mind in considering issues that may come before a judge.
Yes, Prop 8 is unconstitutional according to the District Court. The author is incorrect. See LL's explanation to NVA about why above.
Scratch the last part of the post (the CA Code, as that wouldn’t apply to the district judge, I dont’ think).
In particular:
Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.
This would mean, it would seem, that (for example) a church in CA (who is not "the state") could refuse to marry a gay couple. It would seem that only CA state officials (such as judges) may not refuse.
I agree. But that would be true anyway-- California law says that divorced people may remarry, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic church has to marry them.
I agree. But that would be true anyway-- California law says that divorced people may remarry, but that doesn't mean that the Catholic church has to marry them.
==========================================
Right. You know that is coming next. Now, a gay couple will try to get married by a church (priest, pastor, etc) in CA...and when refused, will file a lawsuit. I wouldn't doubt if they shopped it to another gay judge as well.
Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.So, the State would open Pandora's Box if it tried to force churches to recognize a same-sex marriage. (i.e. perform a marriage ceremony) They don't force churches to recognize the subsequent marriages of previously divorced individuals or inter-faith couples.
I’ve only skimmed it, and could see his bias as well.
I can't name one California public official in recent decades who has willfully refused to obey the order of any federal court. Even President Nixon was afraid to go that far.
BTW, as I recall, Meg Whitman lost because she refused to clean her own house like most women.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues order clearing way for same-sex marriage to resume in California - @NBCLA Story metadata: Submitted 14 mins ago from twitter.com/NBCLA by partnerA bit quicker than a month.See Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Order Clearing Way For Same-Sex Marriage to Resume in CA
I expected that they would wait for the "mandate" (the Supreme Court's official order to the 9th Circuit to vacate its decision), which would have taken about 25 days. Apparently, the California AG asked them to vacate the stay immediately, and they did.
waiting wouldn’t be fashionable. /Eastwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.