Thursday, August 12, 2010

Analysis of today's ruling by Judge Walker

I continue to check in with the Courage Campaign's "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" for some of the best and most timely coverage and analysis of this unfolding marriage equality saga. Here's the latest from them:

Judge Walker decided to deny the motion to stay his decision overturning Prop 8. But at the same time he also issued a temporary stay until August 18th to allow the Ninth Circuit time to decide whether or not it wants to stay the case pending the appeal. This is not surprising, and it is done out of respect for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Walker is simply making the call that is his (that a stay should be denied) but giving the Ninth Circuit some breathing room to make the call on its own. If the Ninth Circuit does not issue a stay by August 18th, Judge Walker’s decision will take effect and marriages may resume in California. Until then, however, we remain in a holding pattern.

Meanwhile the NCLR (National Center for Lesbian Rights) also has an analysis piece posted, which includes:
Why is the ruling today important?

Even though Judge Walker did not immediately let same-sex couples in California marry, the ruling provides important insight into the merits of the issues that the Ninth Circuit will consider on appeal. For example, in his ruling today, Judge Walker casts serious doubt on whether the proponents of Prop 8 even have “standing” to pursue an appeal because they do not speak for the state of California, and the official representatives of the state agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Standing refers to whether a particular person has a legal right to bring an appeal. In his ruling today, Judge Walker said: “As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal.”
So we shall see what we shall see. So much for the "lazy" part of the Lazy, Hazy, Crazy Days of Summer, eh?

1 comment:

Mark Andrews said...

Typo alert! "Lesgian?" Is it now GLLBT? Oopsy!