Prop8 Passed On

So my question is can Brown force a real decision on this by installing some other representative of proposition 8.
 
Back to Walker's decision! I hear some haters are trying to say his decision just applies to the two couples in the case... I sure hope that doesn't happen.
 
So, if Brown does not challenge the ruling of Walker and refuses to enforce Prop 8, it would seem a local or county official might be able to, as it is questionable whether Walker's decision applies only to the plaintiffs or statewide, and create standing. Anybody, have an opinion or information on that? Can only the Governor or AG enforce prop 8?
 
tekkychick said:
Back to Walker's decision! I hear some haters are trying to say his decision just applies to the two couples in the case... I sure hope that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

I don't see how, because that would lead to multiple cases all with the same outcome. It would be insane to say all same sex couples who want to get married in California would have to file a lawsuit, that they would clearly win, based on precedent, just to get married.

Nope the ruling is much brauder than those two, its the enrire class of people.
 
Professor Baxter said:
So, if Brown does not challenge the ruling of Walker and refuses to enforce Prop 8, it would seem a local or county official might be able to, as it is questionable whether Walker's decision applies only to the plaintiffs or statewide, and create standing. Anybody, have an opinion or information on that? Can only the Governor or AG enforce prop 8?
Click to expand...

Its prob too late for someone new to step in, but the only possibility I can see if is California gets a new anti-marriage AG.
 
Jarod said:
Its prob too late for someone new to step in, but the only possibility I can see if is California gets a new anti-marriage AG.
Click to expand...

? I don't think the time table has any impact.

As I look at this further, I can't see how any litigant could find standing beyond state courts, other than the state of California or some other official with power to enforce Proposition 8. Someone could still bring suit against the state for failing to enforce Proposition 8, arguing that Walker's ruling only impacts the plaintiffs and that the state should still enforce the law. But that would seem to only give them standing within state courts and any ruling would still be limited to California.
 
Professor Baxter said:
? I don't think the time table has any impact.

As I look at this further, I can't see how any litigant could find standing beyond state courts, other than the state of California or some other official with power to enforce Proposition 8. Someone could still bring suit against the state for failing to enforce Proposition 8, arguing that Walker's ruling only impacts the plaintiffs and that the state should still enforce the law. But that would seem to only give them standing within state courts and any ruling would still be limited to California.
Click to expand...

I wonder if there's a time limit in appealing Walker's decision to the federal district court; I think there is, but don't know. If not, then if we ever got an anti-gay-marriage AG in California, they might be able to re-appeal.

but at this point, who would do that? Would be a waste of money, and California is much more supportive of marriage equality now than it was when Prop 8 passed.
 
tekkychick said:
I wonder if there's a time limit in appealing Walker's decision to the federal district court; I think there is, but don't know. If not, then if we ever got an anti-gay-marriage AG in California, they might be able to re-appeal.

but at this point, who would do that? Would be a waste of money, and California is much more supportive of marriage equality now than it was when Prop 8 passed.
Click to expand...

They would not need to appeal. They could just decide that his ruling only applies to the plaintiffs or some other limited group and start enforcing Prop 8. Then someone would have to file suit against them. It would create a whole new case with new litigants, which is why Jarod's claim about timing seemed odd to me.
 
Professor Baxter said:
They would not need to appeal. They could just decide that his ruling only applies to the plaintiffs or some other limited group and start enforcing Prop 8. Then someone would have to file suit against them. It would create a whole new case with new litigants, which is why Jarod's claim about timing seemed odd to me.
Click to expand...

I just can't see that happening, but I've been blindsided before.
 
Some municipality or county, depending on how they do it in California, could decline a marriage licence and that would require a lawsuit, but I doubt that will happen. The State Government is very gay marriage friendly.
 
Jarod said:
Some municipality or county, depending on how they do it in California, could decline a marriage licence and that would require a lawsuit, but I doubt that will happen. The State Government is very gay marriage friendly.
Click to expand...

But certain parts of the state are quite conservative. I guess, it really does not matter. Soon enough someone is going to challenge a state law banning same sex marriage using the DOMA ruling and SCOTUS will face the issue again.
 
Noooo, remember, the cons said it was only relevant to the two specific plaintiffs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top