Same-Sex Marriage Update

Soon · 12-24-2010, 04:50 PM

Joe Biden Just Scared a Lot of People

President Obama’s Fake Evolution on Gay Marriage Is Still Ongoing

iamkeri1 · 12-27-2010, 10:10 PM

Ms Tinkerbelly,

Do you know how long "they" plan to keep same sex marriage on hold in CA while waiting for further appeals? Also, am I mistaken, or wasn't the purpose of the last hearing to decide if any one/group had standing to file such an appeal? And wasn't it decided that no group existed with standing to file an appeal?

Thanks so much for being such a great ongoing source of information.

Hugs and smooches,
Keri

Corkey · 01-03-2011, 02:30 PM

http://nomexposed.org/2011/01/03/bre...night-tonight/

Keeping an eye out for this tonight.

Soon · 01-03-2011, 05:32 PM

Debate Watch: 100% Of RNC Chair Candidates Denounce Same-Sex Marriage

RNC Chairman Michael Steele is fighting for his job at today's debate, where every single candidate responded to NOM's question on marriage equality by invoking Jeebus, traditional values, and the sanctity of one man-one woman.

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Ms Tinkerbelly,

Do you know how long "they" plan to keep same sex marriage on hold in CA while waiting for further appeals? Also, am I mistaken, or wasn't the purpose of the last hearing to decide if any one/group had standing to file such an appeal? And wasn't it decided that no group existed with standing to file an appeal?

Thanks so much for being such a great ongoing source of information.

Hugs and smooches,
Keri

I believe we will have a decision from The 9th Circut this week, but for the life of me I can't find where I posted that before, or where I found it in the first place!

If the decision comes down that Prop 8 is out and we can marry in California again, I am not sure if the Federal Appeals Court or the SCOTUS will grant a stay until the case can be heard or passed on by the SCOTUS.

Sorry, clear as mud!

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 01:35 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules on the Prop 8 case
By Adam Bink

Update 5: Folks are asking about the timeline. There’s nothing on the timeline of a CA Supreme Court decision. There is this:

The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this
court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The
parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts
or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion.
The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Update 4: Here’s the meat of the ruling. I bolded the key parts:

“Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) for certification to California State Supreme Court. Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8”). Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below. (See order for full text) The Clerk is hereby directed to transmit forthwith to the Court the original and ten copies of this order and accompanying memorandum, as well as a certificate of service on the parties. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(d). The clerk shall also transmit the following along with this request: ten copies of the district court Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law / Order (704 F. Supp. 2d. 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010)); ten copies of the Permanent Injunction issued by the district court (docket entry 728 in No. C 09-2292-VRW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); a copy of the video recording of the oral argument heard in these appeals on December 6, 2010; the briefs of the parties and intervenors in this appeal; and the briefs amicus curiae filed by (1) the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and (2) Equality California in No. 10-16696. The Clerk shall provide additional record materials if so requested by the Supreme Court of California. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(c). The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7598921] (RP)”

On the issue of standing for Imperial Valley (h/t Karen Ocamb):

FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED; DISMISSED. The district court order denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED. Movants’ appeal of the district court order concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is DISMISSED for lack of standing. The deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is hereby EXTENDED until the deadline for such petitions in No. 10-16696, which will be 14 days after an opinion is filed in that appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case until the mandate issues in No. 10- 16696. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [7598965] (RP)

Update 3: The filing can be found here.

Update 2: Reading through the documents, the 9th Circuit has issued a question to the CA Supreme Court asking if proponents have standing. No decision on the merits yet. More soon.

Update: According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the 9th Circuit ruled that Imperial County is denied standing in the process.

The breaking news is that the 9th Circuit will rule any minute on the Prop 8 case. The filings are being uploaded and I’m sorting through. I will update this post from the top.

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 01:40 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Punts Prop 8 To State Supreme Court On "Standing"

Analysis and reactions shortly.

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 01:55 PM

My Opinion....

This is the moment...If the appllants (US) do not have standing, then the case will probably be thrown out and we will have to live with Prop 8 until the next election in 2012.

It is up to the California Supreme Court (which once ruled in our favor and allowed equal marriage) to decide the standing issue.

I am a "the glass is half full" kind of person, but I have a really bad feeling about all of this.....

weatherboi · 01-04-2011, 02:20 PM

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...Antigay_Group/

01-03-2011, 02:30 PM	#3
Corkey Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Human Preferred Pronoun?: He Relationship Status: Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Where I want to be Posts: 8,155 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 47,491 Thanked 29,268 Times in 6,637 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	http://nomexposed.org/2011/01/03/bre...night-tonight/ Keeping an eye out for this tonight. __________________ "Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them". ~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)

01-03-2011, 05:32 PM	#4
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	JMG: Debate Watch: 100% Of RNC Chair Candidates Denounce Same-Sex Marriage RNC Chairman Michael Steele is fighting for his job at today's debate, where every single candidate responded to NOM's question on marriage equality by invoking Jeebus, traditional values, and the sanctity of one man-one woman.

01-04-2011, 01:35 PM	#6
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,901 Times in 5,017 Posts Rep Power: 0	Prop 8 Trial Tracker....here we go BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules on the Prop 8 case By Adam Bink Update 5: Folks are asking about the timeline. There’s nothing on the timeline of a CA Supreme Court decision. There is this: The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Update 4: Here’s the meat of the ruling. I bolded the key parts: “Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) for certification to California State Supreme Court. Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8”). Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below. (See order for full text) The Clerk is hereby directed to transmit forthwith to the Court the original and ten copies of this order and accompanying memorandum, as well as a certificate of service on the parties. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(d). The clerk shall also transmit the following along with this request: ten copies of the district court Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law / Order (704 F. Supp. 2d. 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010)); ten copies of the Permanent Injunction issued by the district court (docket entry 728 in No. C 09-2292-VRW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); a copy of the video recording of the oral argument heard in these appeals on December 6, 2010; the briefs of the parties and intervenors in this appeal; and the briefs amicus curiae filed by (1) the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and (2) Equality California in No. 10-16696. The Clerk shall provide additional record materials if so requested by the Supreme Court of California. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(c). The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7598921] (RP)” On the issue of standing for Imperial Valley (h/t Karen Ocamb): FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED; DISMISSED. The district court order denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED. Movants’ appeal of the district court order concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is DISMISSED for lack of standing. The deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is hereby EXTENDED until the deadline for such petitions in No. 10-16696, which will be 14 days after an opinion is filed in that appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case until the mandate issues in No. 10- 16696. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [7598965] (RP) Update 3: The filing can be found here. Update 2: Reading through the documents, the 9th Circuit has issued a question to the CA Supreme Court asking if proponents have standing. No decision on the merits yet. More soon. Update: According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the 9th Circuit ruled that Imperial County is denied standing in the process. The breaking news is that the 9th Circuit will rule any minute on the Prop 8 case. The filings are being uploaded and I’m sorting through. I will update this post from the top.

01-04-2011, 01:40 PM	#7
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,901 Times in 5,017 Posts Rep Power: 0	Joemygod BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Punts Prop 8 To State Supreme Court On "Standing" Analysis and reactions shortly.

01-04-2011, 02:20 PM	#9
weatherboi Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Owned boy Preferred Pronoun?: Hey boy!!! Relationship Status: counting freckles slowly under Her direction!!! Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: i have 2 sets of geographic coordinates!!! Posts: 6,097 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 26,797 Thanked 12,549 Times in 2,993 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	No more chic fil a!!!! http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...Antigay_Group/

12-24-2010, 04:50 PM	#1
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,094 Times in 3,386 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	Joe Biden Just Scared a Lot of People President Obama’s Fake Evolution on Gay Marriage Is Still Ongoing

12-27-2010, 10:10 PM	#2
iamkeri1 Member How Do You Identify?: femme woman Preferred Pronoun?: she Relationship Status: solo Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 905 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 302 Thanked 2,153 Times in 659 Posts Rep Power: 16642920	Ms Tinkerbelly, Do you know how long "they" plan to keep same sex marriage on hold in CA while waiting for further appeals? Also, am I mistaken, or wasn't the purpose of the last hearing to decide if any one/group had standing to file such an appeal? And wasn't it decided that no group existed with standing to file an appeal? Thanks so much for being such a great ongoing source of information. Hugs and smooches, Keri

01-04-2011, 01:55 PM	#8
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,901 Times in 5,017 Posts Rep Power: 0	My Opinion.... This is the moment...If the appllants (US) do not have standing, then the case will probably be thrown out and we will have to live with Prop 8 until the next election in 2012. It is up to the California Supreme Court (which once ruled in our favor and allowed equal marriage) to decide the standing issue. I am a "the glass is half full" kind of person, but I have a really bad feeling about all of this.....