The W8ing is Excruti8ing
When Judge Vaughn Walker gave gay couples the go-ahead to get married in California, lifting a stay pending the appeal of his Prop 8 ruling his logic was sound and he patiently, meticulously walked us through it.
He asked whether proponents of Prop 8 were likely to succeed on appeal, which is key in granting a stay. He reminded the petitioners of Prop 8 proponents' miserable performance at trial, where they "had a full opportunity to provide evidence in support oftheir position and nevertheless failed to present even one crediblewitness on the government interest in Proposition 8."
He suggested that proponents of the ban, without a state defendant, didn't meet the legal standards to appeal their case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nor could proponents of the stay demonstrate, according to Walker, that they themselves would be harmed by lifting it.
Proponents, of course, are not the state. Proponents also point to harmresulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity ofmarriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’appeal is resolved. Proponents have not, however,alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse. Proponentsadmit that the harms they identify would be inflicted on “affectedcouples and * * * the State.”Even with its "oh, snap!" moments, Walker's 11-page ruling was measured and thoughtful, and respectful to all parties involved. It was the very picture of judicial restraint.
The fact that the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Vaughn without explanation shows the fickleness — or fecklessness — of the law in such matters. And the Supreme Court is certainly not immune to knee-jerk decisions based on fuzzy reasoning, backed up by paranoid ramblings.
Although both sides would like to see this case go all the way to the highest court in the land, if it does, on the merits of the pathetic case proponents of Prop 8 presented to Walker, and the weak argument for appeal, it will actually be a travesty of justice, and the outcome can only be tragic.
The Supreme Court generally only takes cases where there is a difference in the rulings on a part of law between the different circuits (or if they think that the pre-existing ruling of their own are ripe for reconsideration). I think what will happen here is that whatever the Appeals Court rules for this circuit, the Supreme Court will let it stand and see how a similar case works out in another circuit. If it's a different result, you'll see them have to take that appeal to resolve the difference. If circuit appeals courts all start ruling in the same way, the Supremes won't touch it. They don't want to go near this one unless it's unavoidable.
Reply to this
Personally, this whole drama is disgusting. I live in Massachusetts, which as far as I can tell, has not brought down the sky by allowing gay and lesbian couples to have a legally recognized marriage. What we have had, instead, is what we should have. No pomp, no circumstance, just marriages. Just the same as we've always had. The ONLY difference is the gender-specific wording in the ceremony. That is it.
To the same-sex couples of California who have been riding this roller coaster for some years now, my heart breaks for you. I truly wish I could put the smack to the idiots who see your marriage desire as a threat to their own lives. If only...
Of course, the idea that this might make it to the Supremes is intriguing, and it would be rather revelatory about how the law is interpreted today. Do our justices today have the cojones to stand up for what's right? Oh wait...we saw them in action in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission...
Ugh...
Reply to this