Leave a Comment Sagesse
Courage’s Rick Jacobs: Meg Whitman won’t be able to defend Prop 8
August 21, 2010
By Eden James
As many of you know, there’s been a lot of talk about how the Prop 8 case would be impacted if Meg Whitman is elected Governor of California come November.
Yesterday, the Sacramento Bee got Whitman on the record: If she became Governor, she would attempt to defend Proposition 8 in court, unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger, who joined Attorney General Jerry Brown in refusing to defend what they see as an unconstitutional law:
When asked by The Bee, however, during a campaign stop Friday whether she’d defend Proposition 8, she said, “The issue right now is, as I understand it, is ‘Will Proposition 8 have the appropriate support to actually make an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals?’
“And I think the governor, the attorney general today has to defend the constitution and has to enable the judicial process to go along and has to enable an appeal to go through,” she continued. “So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court.”
Brown spokesman Sterling Clifford accused Whitman of failing to grasp the constitutional issues at play in the Proposition 8 decision.
“I’m not sure she really understands the law,” Clifford said. “That’s a complicated legal question that someone who’s shown herself unfamiliar with government matters most of her life clearly has no grasp of.”
However, the Bee broke a new story today, after interviewing Courage’s Rick Jacobs about whether Whitman would actually even be able to defend the law, given the timing of her potential inauguration:
Courage Campaign director Rick Jacobs noted that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already scheduled a hearing for the week of Dec. 6 to determine whether the initiative’s sponsor, the advocacy group Protect Marriage, has legal standing to defend the voter-passed measure.
…
If elected, Whitman would take the oath of office on Jan. 3, although it remains unclear whether she could join the lawsuit as a defendant after the December hearing.
“She wouldn’t be governor yet,” Jacobs said. “The appeals court will decide before there would be a change of governor and attorney general.”
It appears Meg Whitman’s stance is a moot issue, but she probably doesn’t care, as her goal is to motivate the religious right in November. How else to explain why she is now further to the right on marriage equality than Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck?
Filed under: Right-wing,Trial analysis
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
107 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 21, 2010 at 9:02 am
And to be honest, with the trouble Meg Whitman has been in due to how she mismanaged ebay and PayPal, does California really want her as governor? I think not. And I know they don't really want Carly Fiorina.
2.
Steven | August 21, 2010 at 9:02 am
Thank you for pointing this out……….
3.
Linda | August 21, 2010 at 9:06 am
Okay, did anyone else read the quote by Whitman and think, 'huh???'
4.
Linda | August 21, 2010 at 9:08 am
subbing….
5.
Mark | August 21, 2010 at 9:14 am
She is not very bright…declaring she would defend a proposition that has been ruled unconstitutional…Brown for governor now more than ever…
6.
Straight Grandmother | August 21, 2010 at 9:19 am
Good topic. I notice Rick Jacobs has been in the news quite a bit. GREAT!!!!! It always seems to me that the MSM sems to just automatically got to the HRC, and I am not a big fan. I am glad Rick is getting press and recognized as a GLBT leader. I can't remember exactly where he has been in the Mainstream press, others if you remember please remind me. Wait I remember one, NPR.
The Federal Courts and constituitional issues are about to get very interesting. If the DI's get standing and we win on appeal AND the DI's appeal to the Supreme Court, at that time the new Governor I would imagine the new Governor could step in on the side of the DI's and defend in front of the Supreme Court. Now I know that is a lot of "what ifs" so I guess we will jsut ahve to wait and see.
7.
Straight Grandmother | August 21, 2010 at 9:20 am
Obviously playing to her base.
8.
Bolt | August 21, 2010 at 9:20 am
She could really level this playing field in the California governors race, and change her mind; thus, do the right thing, and call proposition 8 what it is, unconstitutional. That would be a bold leader like thing to do, but I would still vote for Gerry.
I'm not a politician, INAP, but I can see the repubs eventually snatching the equality issue from the jaws of the democrats, and shed their bigot image. While I disagree with their rotten attitudes, this would reflect a refreshing, genuine change.
9.
Michael | August 21, 2010 at 9:28 am
Militant anti-gay activist and pro-corporationist Whitman, just like other radical anti-gay activists, has one goal in mind for us–to impose her "religious beliefs" on everyone else. If she is elected, she will do whatever it takes to use Big Government to interfere in the private lives and loves and personal medical decisions of everyone in California.
10.
Sagesse | August 21, 2010 at 9:28 am
Just goes to show why LGBT rights will be decided in the courts. Whitman can say anything in a political campaign… no requirement that she actually be able to deliver.
11.
Straight Grandmother | August 21, 2010 at 9:31 am
The very last sentence in the story referenced Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck, so I clicked on the hyperlink and Glen Beck says he is fine with Gender Neutral Marraige. WOW! I'm kind of surprised by that. Then the Ann Coulter Link was a story about Homocon and I didn't see a reference to Gender Neutral Marriage in the article.
Homocon, which takes place in September in New York, couldn't they have come up with a better name than Homocon? Studies show that the words gay and lesbian are more acceptable to hetrosexuals than the word homosexual. So why name a conference Homocon? I have to go look up what Ann Coulter said about Gender Neutral Marraige.
I gues Glen Beck and Ted Olson have at least one thing in common.
12.
Dpeck | August 21, 2010 at 9:41 am
Although Meg Whitman has plenty of things that could work against her (like the fact that she has zero political experience and has rarely even bothered to vote and she's an intolerant right-wing hater) she has a hell of a lot of money. And she has hired the best of the best PR firms to bombard Californians non-stop with a lot of vicious anti-Jerry Brown political ads. The concern is that if you say something loud enough and long enough people will start to believe it.
She is a serious threat to our rights. And not just marriage rights. It is extremely important that we stop her from getting into office.
I think I'll be doing some volunteering for Jerry Brown.
13.
JPM | August 21, 2010 at 9:52 am
Any chance that if she wins the election she could successfully petition the court to delay hearing the case until the new Governor of California could weigh in?
14.
Carpool Cookie | August 21, 2010 at 9:54 am
Right. She says she wants the governor to "defend the constitution"……yet Prop H8 has been deemed unconstitutional.
When you analyze what a lot of politicians say, it doesn't make much sense. They're just kind of vamping for time (musically speaking).
15.
Straight Grandmother | August 21, 2010 at 9:59 am
The best new about the situation is that the Court of Appeals told the DIs that they have to talk about standng right away with thier first brief. I wonder if after reading the brief that they could jsut turn them down for standing. Not what I would like to see because I would like this to go to the Supreme Court.
16.
Alex | August 21, 2010 at 10:00 am
I seriously doubt that, technically she wouldn't be governor yet and how no authority to do that.
17.
Cat | August 21, 2010 at 10:01 am
It would indeed be very wise not to dismiss her. She's saying a lot of things that she can't actually do (a governor isn't really that powerful, see Arnold's struggle), but right now it's all about getting votes. Nothing else counts. And apart from the money, it's not like she's stupid…
18.
Dave | August 21, 2010 at 10:02 am
Beck is Libertarian — he thinks that government should stay out of people's business. I think his reasoning is that government shouldnt make rules banning it.
19.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 21, 2010 at 10:03 am
Straight Grandmother, if you want to know about Ann Coulter, two books I would recommend that explain it all are Brainless by Joe Maguire, and Soulless by Susan Estrich.
And one of Ann's quotes on the dust cover of <i.Soulless sums Ann up quite well.
"A word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can." She said this in 2006.
After reading these books, I find it even harder to believe that a gay conference would have even <i.thought about asking Ann Coulter to be on their list, must less actually go through with asking her. And I really have to wonder about her reasons for accepting.
Or is Ann Coulter planning to use this as her coming out party?
20.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 21, 2010 at 10:05 am
Can you give them my information? Even if all I can do is make phone calls from here in Nc, or send out emails as to why it is important to elect Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris, I will do what I can.
21.
Kathleen | August 21, 2010 at 10:13 am
away from home. just subbing.
22.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 10:22 am
I couldn't agree more, Richard. Neither will ever get any votes out of this household.
23.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 10:24 am
Richard, here is the volunteer sign-up site for Jerry Brown for Governor, if you are so inclined: http://action.jerrybrown.org/t/4559/content.jsp?c…
Thanks for your efforts!
24.
Dpeck | August 21, 2010 at 10:28 am
Hi Richard,
Wonderful! I don't have your information (sorry, I'm not 'facebooked' yet) but please contact his campaign here: http://www.jerrybrown.org . Click on CONTACT for phone & email info, or ACTION for info on how to get involved. I notice that 'phone banking' is one of the options for volunteer activities.
And anyone else reading this – please feel free to do the same!
25.
Kate | August 21, 2010 at 10:37 am
There are even rainbow buttons/bumper stickers on the Jerry Brown site!
26.
PamC | August 21, 2010 at 10:41 am
I hope California gets its share of good news in the coming months…everyone fighting for equality deserves this & more!
27.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 21, 2010 at 11:01 am
Thank you, Ann.
28.
Steven | August 21, 2010 at 11:08 am
We need to understand if 9th Circuit rules that Protectmarriage.com has no standing to appeal. and the DEADLINE DATE to appeal would be in sept or October. Whiteman/ Cooley can't come in like February and say we want to appeal AFTER THE 9TH Circuit heard the case………. if 9th Circuit says Protectmarriage.com has standing W/C can't still appeal because the DEADLINE DATE and 9th already heard the case…. if its a chance 9th Circuit gave "extended deadline" they must APPEAL on the 9th Circuit and Walker's decisions plus, they need to follow the protectmarriage.com's arguments and can't produce new evidence…..
29.
Steven | August 21, 2010 at 11:10 am
I meant LACK OF evidence by Protectmarriage.com ha ha
30.
Tracy | August 21, 2010 at 11:19 am
An interesting post: in response to an article regarding "'Burn Quran Day' an outrage to Muslims" http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/20/ahmed.quran… PatriotGrl said this:
"It is a travesty that this plan of the Pastor in the above article may be overshadowed by other imminent national concerns. His plan is symbolic of a national fervor that is rising against the innocent American Muslim community. Think of it as a high school pep rally – remember when you stood up and yelled and clapped just for the rush of being part of something larger? That is the tactic being used here, and the "something larger" should be based upon our identity as Americans, not the identity we derive from our religion. American Muslims, like all Americans, are also suffering. They don't deserve to be blamed for the actions of a few extremist Muslims, any more than the Christian faith deserves to be blamed for the actions of extremists who murder homosexuals or doctors who perform abortions. We are Americans. And we represent something precious.
To all those who believe we as a nation are at war with a religion, or with a gender, or with a sexual orientation, I have this to say: Your individual civil rights give you the right to leave this country and form your own; when you compose your constitution, you may deny rights to muslims/women/homosexuals/hispanics/alcoholics (insert unpopular characteristic here) as you see fit. Please, invite like-minded individuals to rescind their American citizenship and immigrate to your new nation. I have a feeling that you will find yourselves mired in the third world, fighting against other theocracies that view you as "infidels". But in the spirit of the "great" David Blankenhorn, this nation will be more American on the day you leave than it was on the day before.
So says any faithful American citizen, regardless of religion, color, or sexual orientation."
In all honesty, I think this sums it up nicely.
31.
AndrewPDX | August 21, 2010 at 11:35 am
scribin'… will read a bit later
32.
Lee | August 21, 2010 at 11:35 am
Here, here.
33.
Lee | August 21, 2010 at 11:36 am
Erm, "Hear, hear!" I meant. XD
34.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 11:44 am
Hear, hear, no votes from here, here!
35.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 11:47 am
Meg Whitman or Steve Cooley might be able to really do harm if the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS should, for whatever reason, decide to send the case back to district court for re-trial. I have no idea what the odds are of that, but it can happen in the case of a prejudicial error at the trial level.
I don't know if the office of the Governor or AG could then decide to vigorously defend Prop 8, but my guess would be that they could.
36.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 11:48 am
You all may find this radio program (KQED's Forum) on Prop 8 to be worthwhile listening:
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201008170900
37.
Bolt | August 21, 2010 at 11:51 am
This seems more rational, but IANAL.
38.
Bolt | August 21, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I agree with everything, but speaking with this crowd is like spitting in the opposing wind, so I give them histrionics instead. Open mouth, jaw on floor. Sometimes I'll throw in a total body twitch like a CNS shutdown.
How can we send a positive message to the Muslim community to let them know that they're just like everyone else, and we have their back? That would make them feel better.
The contrasts in our two worlds are striking. The Muslims have the strongest legal protections from discrimination, but they're on the receiving end of negative political energy. We're always on the receiving end of negative political energy, but our legal protections from discrimination are germinating, yet still vulnerable.
39.
Ray in MA | August 21, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Don't just rely on your NO VOTE.
Get your A$$ out there and make sure she does not win.
40.
Bolt | August 21, 2010 at 12:41 pm
LIstening now, and have too much to say, but the last comment bothers me. According to Amar, if the 9th upholds Walker's ruling, the SCOTUS will step in. If the 9th turns over Walker's ruling, the SCOTUS won't want anything to do with it.
Why not? Are we not worth it?
41.
Alex | August 21, 2010 at 1:10 pm
No because our justices are old and set in their ways. They think status quo is higher than the superme law of the land.
42.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Believe me, I intend to.
43.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 1:22 pm
It could actually be a good thing if they won't take it, I have to say.
44.
Alex | August 21, 2010 at 1:43 pm
From what i heard is that if Prop 8 supporters don't have standing the trial will be reversed?
45.
Ann S. | August 21, 2010 at 1:46 pm
@Alex, it would depend on why they reversed it. They could reverse it and order for the other side, they could reverse it and order a new trial. Or we could win, of course.
There would have to be a fatal flaw in the trial that could only be fixed by holding a new trial.
Not my area of law, so I am not the final word on this subject.
46.
Santa Barbara Mom | August 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Don from Texas posted this earlier in the week:
There are three requirements to determine if a party has standing to appeal the lower court’s ruling:
There are three standing requirements:
1. Injury: The proponents (in this case) must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
The proponents also must show that there is a very good likelihood that they will prevail if the appeal is granted.
In any case, the Defendant-Intervenors must show they have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.
If they cannot convince the 9th Circuit that they meet the requirements outlined above, the 9th Circuit will not accept the Proponents’ appeal and Walker’s ruling will stand, effective only in California.
The Proponents can appeal the 9th Circuit’s denial of their standing to the U. S. Supreme Court, which may or may not grant certiorari (accept their case.)
47.
Eden James | August 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Whitman is referring to the California state constitution — asserting that she has an obligation to enforce the California Supreme Court ruling last year that Prop 8 was constitutional in that regard. Schwarzenegger is asserting that Prop 8 is not constitutional at the federal level, so he doesn't want to defend it. Whitman's stance is more political than principled, not surprisingly, of course.
48.
Gery Weisschadel | August 21, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Nobody with any degree of functioning conscience could, should, or would defend Prop 8.
49.
Steve | August 21, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Don't allow Whitman to use this as a campaign talking point. Let's make sure that everyone knows that she WILL NOT be in a position to defend this hateful initiative.
50.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | August 21, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I know which governorship candidate NOM will support in California! Shhhh! I won’t tell anyone!
51.
Michelle Evans | August 21, 2010 at 4:05 pm
One problem I see is that in so many cases we have seen where the law actually has not made any difference with regard to a court ruling. The DIs were supposed to show harm to themselves in order to have the court issue a stay of Walker's opinion. They had no evidence to show that they would be harmed–yet we have ample evidence to show harm to our side–yet who got their way in court? The DIs.
Look at the evidence with concern to television coverage of the trial. Guess who won that argument? Not our side.
How about the SCOTUS decision with concern to corporations acting as individuals when it comes to financing candidates? Gee, human beings lost and corporations won. Look what has already happened to us because of this with Target and Best Buy.
We got a very clear win on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 by Walker, but considering the record from higher courts I have great fear for the way this may go.
The way it should have gone–if the 9th Circuit actually cared about justice–was that the stay should have been lifted while any standing or appeals processes went forward. The fact that we lost on the stay bodes possible ill for the future.
52.
Michelle Evans | August 21, 2010 at 4:07 pm
As for Whitman being too late for the Prop 8 party, it is not much of a stretch to imagine a simple one month delay in proceedings, which would push the date into January, and possibly open the door for her to jump in with both feet. SHE MUST BE STOPPED! Let her go home and retire with her eBay billions, but never let her near any more of MY rights!!
53.
JonT | August 21, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Sounds like a good idea.
54.
draNgNon | August 21, 2010 at 6:05 pm
How about the SCOTUS decision with concern to corporations acting as individuals when it comes to financing candidates? Gee, human beings lost and corporations won.
just to point out
- Elena Kagan lost that one.
- Ted Olsen won it.
now, when do you think these two will see each other next.
55.
Jonathan H | August 21, 2010 at 6:37 pm
“So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court.”
Meg, do you seriously think that the governor has the power to simply award standing on a whim?
'Cause if so, just take your name out of the running right now. Your understanding of the law is clearly so weak that however good your intentions you couldn't possibly be any better than a well-meaning obstacle in the state government.
Standing is not some privilege granted by authority, it is a theoretical state depending on certain criteria. So with regard to any specific case, you either have standing to appeal, or you do not.
As the Ninth Circuit examines the question of standing, they are not deciding whether or not the Defendant-Interveners have been good little boys & girls who deserve standing, they are studying whether or not the D-I's meet the specific criteria required by law in order for them to appeal this case. Is that clear Meg?
56.
Jonathan H | August 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Don't despair! Remember that there were two different stays, Judge Walker asked the D-I's to show harm, and they failed, so he ruled his stay would end last Wednesday. The 9th then brought in their own, separate stay. I don't know much about law, but I think I understand the reasoning here.
First, and hopefully foremost, it's a matter of legal consistency. If, for example, a law is enacted preventing a certain group from getting married, then you have to decide what to do with the, say, 18,000 couples of said group who already did.
The Constitution protects us from Ex Post Facto laws, but for a persistent state like marriage it's difficult to say that weddings performed during a brief period of time are fine but others are illegal. It's obviously inconsistent and begs the question that if these 18,000 are ok, what harm are another million?
On the other hand, annulling these marriages not only potentially runs foul of Ex Post Facto, but also creates countless legal tangles as people fight against it. And in this specific circumstance, as is that's not enough, it also has a tinge of cruelty to it. Even those with no empathy to speak of would hesitate, if only because they know how it would look.
So the courts try not to make these decisions, and stay away from situations where they might, even if only in the wildest fantasies of possibility, have to make these decisions. The stay seems cruel, even unjust, but allowing marriages to proceed now would be tantamount to saying that the appeal had already been decided, and a court of law must remain impartial.
Now that I've written all that, I realize that I got the important part in the first two words, so I'll say them again: Don't despair!
57.
Errin Davenport | August 21, 2010 at 7:43 pm
There should be a "LIKE" button.
58.
OldVerger | August 21, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Ms. Whitman, like other supporters of Prop 8, simply don't get it. They want only their traditional religious view of marriage imposed on everybody.
Not all faith communities agree with their view. After more than 20 years of "doing our theology," the Episcopal Church passed a Resolution in 2006 to "… oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions…"
We did that because we have come to the conclusion that same-sex unions can be good examples of the sacredness of love, just like opposite-sex ones.
Overturning Prop 8 frees all Episcopalians in California to enjoy the full benefits of marriage as we understand it. And it also leaves the supporters of Prop 8 free to practice their own religious beliefs in their own way.
Imposing one religious view of marriage on others through the force of civil law is simply wrong.
59.
Felyx | August 21, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Don't Panic!
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
60.
PamC | August 21, 2010 at 11:43 pm
"Don't Panic!"
@Felyx: lol, but you didn't print this in large, friendly letters…
61.
Bolt | August 22, 2010 at 1:09 am
@Alex, as one commentator in this forum once stated, V. Amar is the only legal analyst stating this legal theory. He did make a legal leap in logic without explaining when he stated that if the Ds don't have standing, then the trial should be overturned.
That does make sense, but so does allowing the Ds to defend their train wreck of a case. I would ask Amar if there is legal precedent for the 9th to follow. Has a federal trial ever mirrored this situation, and what happened? How could he conclude that the trial must be overturned without legal precedent?
IANAL.
62.
Bolt | August 22, 2010 at 1:13 am
I'm a bit worried that this case is not being resolved on it's merits. This is what the Ds have tried to avoid from the start, and they're getting their way.
63.
MJFargo | August 22, 2010 at 1:39 am
I don't know. While one of the criteria for granting an Emergency Stay–again, only one–is whether or not there is a likelihood of winning on appeal, it's the issue of standing that needs clarifying. The panel considering the Emergency stay isn't charged with examining that, but they clearly thought it was important.
I find my own confidence in the case presented to Judge Walker. Absent any procedural gaff (and no one has pointed a convincing one out), I feel very optimistic. Knowing too, that anything can happen.
The request for appeal by the proponents was one big whine. I saw nothing substantial, and the response by Olson/Boise was again very reassuring.
64.
Kate | August 22, 2010 at 1:42 am
Yes….. and all of that is one of the reasons I'm so concerned that the 9th is playing to the DIs. Does the 9th really, truly believe that the DIs presented such a good case for the Emergency Stay? That the DIs satisfied all the requirements of having such a stay granted?
65.
Kate | August 22, 2010 at 1:44 am
What a moving post! It shows me that not all churches are so hateful. Is the Episcopal church fighting publicly to overturn Prop 8?
66.
Kate | August 22, 2010 at 1:50 am
Note to Fiona:
I would be deeply honored to go skipping with you at any time.
Love,
Kate
67.
MJFargo | August 22, 2010 at 1:56 am
Trying not to be blind to any and all possibilities, because I was pretty low when they granted the Emergency stay. But can you imagine the storm (a different on, not the other one) that the proponents would have kicked up if the Emergency Stay panel had made that big of a determination all by themselves?
Letting the issues of standing and the rest of it have a thorough examination would avoid the finger-pointing of the "liberal" 9th being quick to activism.
Really, I keep wanting someone to point out, "Where are we in trouble here?" The previous rulings against Judge Walker (the televising, and to a lesser degree all those emails) had some basis. No one's pointed out a basis for me to worry…yet.
68.
Kate | August 22, 2010 at 2:01 am
Thanks for the encouragement, MJFargo. I guess I'm in the process of learning that the courts are willing to make the cases for parties who aren't capable of doing so themselves. The DIs couldn't satisfy the legal requirements, so the 9th just let them have it anyway. Will they keep doing that, all the way to the end? I'll bet they won't do it for us…… On the other hand, if it's truly legal and part of the system for the 9th to be "giving" this to the DIs and that will benefit us in the long run, OK. I'll take it. Obviously, I am neither a lawyer nor a rocket scientist.
69.
Ann S. | August 22, 2010 at 2:20 am
I agree with what Jonathan H says above (at the moment it's post 53) — the court didn't lift the stay because if they had, some court down the road might have to decide the status of the marriages that had taken place pending the appeal.
I realize it's not a very satisfactory answer, but that's my gut feeling.
70.
jeffpelline | August 22, 2010 at 3:07 am
http://jeffpelline.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/will-…
"Will GOP hard liners undermine Meg?"
71.
OldVerger | August 22, 2010 at 3:15 am
In a word, yes. The Episcopal Church has been openly fighting for LGBT rights for many years.
I'll refer you to this article in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/la-bishop-issue... In part, it says: "The Episcopal Church, which has in recent years become one of the Christian denominations most supportive of gay and lesbian rights, has been vocal in its opposition to Proposition 8."
The article also quotes Bishop Jon Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles. +Jon issued a celebratory statement when Walker's Prop 8 decision was handed down.
Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church's voice of quiet reason is frequently drowned out by passionate and unthinking shouting.
72.
OldVerger | August 22, 2010 at 3:32 am
I think the Ninth Circuit may want to take some of the heat off Judge Walker. Right now, he's getting a lot of flack in the form of "it's just one activist judge's opinion." I believe the Ninth Circuit will affirm his ruling. I'm no lawyer, but the lawyers I've heard from think his work is carefully crafted and would be difficult to overturn.
I think it is probable that the Supreme Court will not take it up. They can reasonably say that the interveners don't have standing. But their real reason would be to give the country some breathing room. That way, the Ninth Circuit decision will be used as precedent in other circuits and the process will take longer.
73.
Carpool Cookie | August 22, 2010 at 3:55 am
Well, didn't the California Supreme Court first decide marriage equality should be allowed, because not including it didn't jibe with the California constitution?
Then in a separate, later circumstance, a court ruled that it wasn't unconstitutional to bring forth and vote on unconstitutional propositions. (Kind of a mixed message?)
Can someone more informed than me please clarrify this?
74.
Cat | August 22, 2010 at 3:55 am
The United Church of Christ also is (and has been for a long time) 'open and affirming' to the LGBT community. In the SF Pride there are always several religious groups that participate. It's such a pity that religions who welcome marriage equality are often drowned out by the ones that oppose it. In addition, the ones that oppose it, often do so from the top, backed by money and media. There may be many people among their followers who are much more open to marriage equality. In general, there are plenty of religious people (the vast majority in my opinion) who are loving rather than hating.
As one minister said: the Bible is a cane to support you on your walk, not a cane to punish. (Can you believe I'm an atheist?
75.
Carpool Cookie | August 22, 2010 at 4:08 am
Well, from what I've observed, we're not exactly a nation of kind, educated souls….so while I agree with your statement, it doesn't trump the world we live in.
76.
Ann S. | August 22, 2010 at 4:09 am
Cookie, once Prop 8 amended the CA Constitution, they would have had a harder time finding it violated the CA Constitution. The US Constitution wasn't argued to them, because then there would have been a possibility of appeal to the SCOTUS, and everyone wanted to keep it away from the SCOTUS.
77.
Carpool Cookie | August 22, 2010 at 4:17 am
Interesting, thanks for reminding us all that the Episcopalians are a Christian faith that allows same sex marriage.
There are also the Unitarians……though there's some discussion as to if that's purely a Christian faith, I believe. Like the Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc., I think these faiths fall more accurately under the umbrella of "New Thought" religion….in that they were part of the wave of churches that emerged after the Indusrial Revolution, when people were beginning to rethink the boundaries of science and "god".
Of course, I could be wrong. But don't the Unitarian and Mormon faiths barely squeak by as "Christian"? It seems they're kind of Protestant, by default.
Now it's all going a bit hazy for me….
78.
Carpool Cookie | August 22, 2010 at 4:23 am
That's my feeling to. I think the 9th Circuit is being courteous (ironic use of the word) in approaching this in a very thorough manner…..but I severely doubt they will grant the proponants standing. They just want to hammer it out in a very clear way.
79.
Gery Weisschadel | August 22, 2010 at 4:25 am
That dang ol' bell curve…
80.
Kathleen | August 22, 2010 at 4:27 am
A number of churches and faith organizations submitted an amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs in the case. You can see the brief here:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-cou…
81.
Kate | August 22, 2010 at 4:37 am
The Mormons do have the word "Christ" in their official title (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
82.
Kate | August 22, 2010 at 4:42 am
Thank you Kathleen — that was really some great reading!
83.
Linda | August 22, 2010 at 4:44 am
@Carpool Cookie–
I believe the Unitarians do not subscribe to any one religion; they do believe there is a 'god' or 'spirit' but they do not dictate who that Being is or how that Being should be worshiped. They seem to focus more on social/environmental/political issues and less on religious ones. That's just what I've observed.
Mormons, on the other hand, do consider themselves Christians; and are offended and hurt by the persecution they receive by other mainline Christian denominations–Particularly the Roman Catholics and the Evangelicals–which makes their 'marriage' on the Prop 8 issue even more curious.
84.
Carpool Cookie | August 22, 2010 at 4:50 am
My head hurts….
85.
Martin Pal | August 22, 2010 at 4:58 am
Do not even allow the possibility of thinking that Meg Whitman can win. And act accordingly.
86.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 22, 2010 at 6:18 am
Please also make sure all your friends are registered to vote, and understand that it's CRITICALLY important that they show up at the polls even though it's not a federal election! If people have moved or changed their name, they need to re-register to vote. I keep voter reg forms in my car and my briefcase. You'd be SHOCKED how many people spout a lot of politics, but aren't even registered. Sigh.
87.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 22, 2010 at 6:33 am
If I can chime in: Unitarianism considers itself a "historic faith" that dates back to The Reformation, and though it was initially rooted in Christianity (and still is to a greater degree in the UK, I understand.) http://www.uua.org/publications/pamphlets/introdu…
Here in the States it now embraces many forms of belief including atheism. There's a group within UU that calls itself the "UU Infidels" that has been known to complain when the national newsletter is too churchy for their tastes; our local UU congregation even had a protracted discussion about whether to continue using the word "church" in the title of the org, as it's a denominationally-loaded word.
88.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 22, 2010 at 6:50 am
Agreed. I'm guessing there's no feeling that the issue isn't ripe for the courts, but that the Court isn't ripe for the issue. I also agree the Supremes will probably not want to touch this one if they can avoid it. Kicking it out on standing would make it easy for them.
89.
Carol | August 22, 2010 at 7:49 am
Though a lawyer, I'm certainly no expert in this field!
Judge Walker let the H8 side present a defense because it would have been unfair to decide such important issues based on a one-sided record and arguments. At the trial, the proponents had famous lawyers and all the help they asked for, did the best they could, and still couldn't present any facts or coherent theory. That they participated doesn't in itself give the proponents legal standing unless they can satisfy the requirements laid out above by Don from Texas.
If the 9th Circuit were to send the case back for a retrial, which would occur late enough that Whitman or Cooley, if elected, could order the state to defend, I don't see how they could come up with facts that would lead to a different outcome. Therefore, I don't see a retrial in my crystal ball.
90.
Linda | August 22, 2010 at 8:03 am
I was wondering about that. Even if Whitman is in a position to 'defend' prop 8, she would still be required to provide facts to support her position, right? It seems to me that all her spouting off is just posturing to secure votes.
Just like all NOM's spew is just euphemized hate-speak with no real basis other than, 'we think it's gross, so you can't do it'. They cloak their bigotry with pretty words like 'family', 'children', 'tradition' and– their favorite– 'God'–and by using those words it frees other like-minded bigots to align with them, guilt-free, and self-righteous laden. Throw in a sentence or two about religious freedom and America being founded on Christian values, and the gullible masses are hooked.
Whitman knows this. She knows she doesn't have to actually follow through with anything she says. It will be up to the courts and those 'activist' judges to disregard the will of the people. Whitman is in the luxurious position of being to say whatever she wants with no fear of accountability.
91.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 22, 2010 at 8:42 am
@LInda: Yes, you are right. This "marriage" on the issue of Prop H8 is just more proof of the saying that "politics makes strange bedfellows."
92. Top Posts — WordPre&hellip | August 22, 2010 at 5:17 pm
[...] Courage’s Rick Jacobs: Meg Whitman won’t be able to defend Prop 8 By Eden James As many of you know, there’s been a lot of talk about how the Prop 8 case would be impacted if Meg [...] [...]
93.
mikenola | August 23, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Dave, not meaning to quibble, but Beck is a Libertarian of Convenience not Conviction.
Beck himself basically admits it if you watch his interviews outside of Faux News.
He is in it for the money and has found that other peoples fear brings him money.
AS for his stance on gay marriage and gay rights, that is a departure from what he has been saying for the last 5 years or so. there are plenty of you tube videos to demonstrate that particular conundrum. Why his change of heart now I have no idea, but it sure is stirring up crap in the homo-hater world lol.
Ann Coulter claims gay friends and is somewhat known as a fag hag in her circle. The problem is that she is such an pandering whore like Beck that it is impossible for me to give her any credence on any topic.
Like Beck she is in it for the money and controversy and fear bring her money. She does not care at whose expense.
Please don't ponder her "coming out", we don't want to offend our lesbian sisters with that kind of curse..yeeewwww…
94.
mikenola | August 23, 2010 at 5:07 pm
JPM,
the most she could do at the 9th Circuit level right now is file an Amicus Brief in favor of ProtectMarriage and the haters. The court could ignore that brief.
It is a non-issue as far as the case being at the 9th right now.
It will become an issue when the 9th either denies standing or gives standing but rules against the haters on merit. (If we, the good guys, somehow lose on merits we will be appealing to SCOTUS opening another chance for Witchie Poo to rejoin the state to the case.)
In either of the first cases the haters will petition Justice Kennedy. Either for a stay on the standing ruling and to get a SCOTUS hearing on the issue of a DI having standing to take over the states role in cases where the state chooses not to appeal. Or they will appeal for a stay on the ruling while they appeal the case to SCOTUS on losing on merits.
SCOTUS, through Kennedy has already indicated that DI's most likely won't have standing.
But the timing of the election and breadth of this case are unique and Kennedy might issue the stay ostensibly to allow for a SCOTUS hearing.
That would do two things, one push the date out past the inauguration so then Witchie Poo would be the De facto defendant replacing the Governator in job title. She could possibly rejoin the state to the case in that appeal.
That would do several things:
It would moot the point about the case being heard at the 9th on standing, but not vacate that ruling.
let SCOTUS rule that DI's don't have standing and force the 9th into a hearing on merits with Witchie Poo as (probable) Defendant along with ProtectMarriage.
There are about 8 more permutations that all basically end with us at SCOTUS which is where Bois and Olson want to go anyway.
95.
mikenola | August 23, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Bolt,
you posted this comment:
"According to Amar, if the 9th upholds Walker’s ruling, the SCOTUS will step in. If the 9th turns over Walker’s ruling, the SCOTUS won’t want anything to do with it. "
The wording is awkward and I think that is causing some of the confusion.
SCOTUS does not "do anything with anything", they accept or reject a request for a hearing. That is it. They cannot hear a cause sua sponte (on their own decision).
The worry some people have is generated from Baker v Nelson. The haters claim that Baker is the controlling case law, but it is not. To be controlling it must be the same type case on the same issue. This is clearly not that situation.
Baker is not even a ruling on the merits of a case, it was a mandatory appellate review of a 1972 Case out of the 8th Circuit that resulted from a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that the Minn. Appellate court was right not to hear an appeal of a case from the trial court.
SCOTUS dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". This is a way to dodge a case the court does not feel is "ripe" for hearing.
In 1972 there were no gay rights, no legal marriages, no out politicians, no national gay churches, no churches that were accepting of open gays, no open firemen, teachers, soldiers, doctors, no DOMA, no DADT or opinions to repeal them. There were no countries that had equality of greater standing than the U.S.
The landscape and mindset is different now.
There are also some things that the haters legal team tries to keep quiet.
1) Alito was a gay housing advocate in his college, early days as a lawyer and from the bench. He has stood solidly with gays on issues of fairness and equality his entire career. He is a conservation with a serious Libertarian bent when it comes to social issues and equal application of the law. His catholic and conservative credentials are focused on financial and business rulings NOT on social issues.
2) Scalia opined in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas that decriminalizing sodomy acknowledged the relationships of gays as equal and opened the door to gay marriage. (not an exact quote but read his written opinion it is all there).
Scalia views himself as a constitutional scholar even though he has defended the 14 previous SCOTUS rulings that claim marriage as a fundamental right without reference to gender.
He will have to turn himself into a pretzel to work his Catholic dogma overrule his own words and opinions.
3) Stevens, Ginsberg and Kennedy are considered solidly in our corner.
4) Sotomayor is considered likely to be in our corner. Her hispanic catholic upbringing does not seem to be likely to overshadow her beliefs on civil rights. particularly with the whole single mom raising her and the known gay causes that she has been known to support.
5) Kagan is considered in our corner because of her Harvard record and her input to the DOMA cases out of MASS that have not been appealed by the Government (and they are rapidly loosing time on being able to appeal them). She is also known to be for the repeal of DADT.
6) Roberts never wants to be seen on the wrong side of a historic decision, particularly on social issues. That becomes pretty clear in the opinions he has authored.
Thomas is a lost cause.
The odds are we will have a 5/4 court in our favor, but we might even stretch and get a 6/3, 7/2 or 8/1 ruling because this case is so ripe and the general belief of the courts particularly since the 14th Amendment was ratified is that public disapproval by the majority is not sufficient to take away or impinge on the rights of the minority.
I hope you managed to read this far and get some hope out of it.
96.
Kathleen | August 24, 2010 at 2:14 am
mikenola, you wrote, "… the DOMA cases out of MASS that have not been appealed by the Government (and they are rapidly loosing time on being able to appeal them). …"
The Government has 60 days to appeal from the date of judgment. An amended judgment in Gill v OMP was only just filed August 18 and the judgment in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services was filed August 12.
97.
mikenola | August 24, 2010 at 3:22 am
@Kathleen re: post 57 August 24, 2010 at 9:14 am
The reason I say the time is running out without explaining it is two fold, The first reason was I was basically exhausted from a long day. The second is my post was too long. Sorry to leave it out there as if it was really questionable.
Both cases were ruled on by Tauro on July 8th 2010.
Gill was decided at summary judgment that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional on 5th Amendment grounds under the equal protection clause.
Mass v. U.S. Dept of HHS was ruled that Section 3 ia a violation of the 10th Amendment on the spending clause.
He held entering rulings on both cases to the point that the cases will conveniently NOT become fodder for political campaigns hoping to win in Nov. If that was intentional I don't know, but I suspect it is.
The filing dates for responses etc will make sure that only the most craven pol will try and make claims about this for political fodder. Most will not play that silly game.
Typically when the Government intends to Appeal a ruling their intentions are announced almost immediately.
The month plus leeway between the rulings and entering the judgment became sort of a "free pass" to allowing the party that might want to appeal just a little more time to strengthen their case for appeal. There are a lot of technical reasons for it, but in effect that is what it is.
The judge is not going to change his mind in that time, only strengthen his "officially published opinion". The Government knows this and prepared a framework of the grounds they think might be in his ruling. They were taking notes in court after all.
All this applies to my statement in that, by not having their appeal basically ready to file and get these cases on their way, they are agreeing to keep it a non-election issue.
From what we know from Obama's statements DOMA repeal is something he wants. Same with Pelosi and Reid. Holder is not likely to put on a strong argument because there are bills expected to come forward to repeal DOMA after the Nov. Elections. Those bills if passed would moot any case or appeal.
This of course is all personal opinion based on reading the courts and court documents, like any other case it could go either way. But the clock is ticking, the government has not made a demonstrative public effort to drive home their appeal of these rulings.
Their time is running out, not today or tomorrow, but soon enough in political time ( which is like dog years) that it is noticeable and palpable.
So Kathleen, despite your taking issue with my use of "time is running out" as a descriptive, it is running out.
DOMA has taken what looks like a death blow and we are just waiting for the last gasp before declaring it dead.
98.
Kathleen | August 24, 2010 at 3:34 am
I often get questions here about what is happening with the DOMA cases. Because of the way you phrased your statement — that the government was "rapidly loosing time" in which to appeal — I just wanted to be sure everyone knew what that deadline was.
My post was meant more as clarification. It seems you may have taken it as a kind of personal rebuke. It was not meant that way.
99.
mikenola | August 24, 2010 at 4:02 am
@ Kathleen, August 24, 2010 at 10:34 am
It just reads as if you took issue with the lack of supporting words around my post.
One of the best things about this blog and others is that they can provide an opportunity for learning and reasoned thinking, they can also provide opportunities for snarking..
No matter how much we may know on a subject, we can all hopefully learn more and learn about ourselves in the way (and on what issues) we choose to comment.
I failed to initially provide justification for my opinion that "time is running out" for the reasons I stated. My bad.
A stranger on the internet is incapable of "rebuking me" in any way that I would internalize. I only post on things I have some insight into and usually don't fail to justify my opinion or fail to give leeway that an opposing opinion might be right. That can lead to some long posts.
You took issue on the post as I pointed out, you did so because I failed to justify why I said what I said. Your reasons are for that don't seem to be snark and my response was not a slap at you.
There is one "silver lining" to having Perry and the DOMA DUO cases that we don't often see mentioned. That is that LGBT people and our allies are demonstrating a serious interest in the Law & Courts and trying to understand how they work.
We are trying to wend our way through things we feel are complex and somewhat confusing.
I have a hope that this will continue POST Perry and DOMA DUO cases and we will continue to pay close attention to the law as it is made and applied in our daily lives. I do mean more than civil rights law.
One of the failings of the Black and White communities after the 14th Amendment and after MLK, desegregation, etc. is that the individuals did not pay close attention to the way (and substance) of subsequent law. It was accepted (incorrectly) to be a legally done deal. History shows the fallacy in that thinking.
Some groups tried to keep the emotional tide rising but we (as individuals) suffered from political fatigue and fighting the same skirmishes over and over again.
The fatigue comes in part by not understanding the Laws and how it works as a process. Very much like a child who does not read well is often exhausted after spending a day in school. The lack of comprehension is well documented to manifest as fatigue which often evolves into the student not trying any longer. Basically giving up to the Status Quo.
Hopefully these cases will help us become permanently more informed and energized as we (as a community) learn and embrace the process.
Hopefully we can foster reasoned debate, creative and critical thinking and establish our community as a force to be socially and politically reckoned with by using fact instead of fiction or fear.
100.
Kathleen | August 24, 2010 at 4:23 am
Clearly a misunderstanding… I wasn't asking you to justify your characterization of the time for appeal. I was just being specific as to what the deadline is.
I agree that one of the great things that has come from this blog, and interest in the Perry case in general, is the fact that people have become engaged in the legal process. I am of the firm belief that understanding the law and how it works makes better advocates.
Adding to your post about the Supreme Court justices — a couple of considerations wrt to Chief Justice Roberts. He played a role in helping plaintiffs prepare their case in Romer. He also had an opportunity to stop DC from going forward with issuing marriage licenses, but refused to grant a stay. Neither of these facts necessarily mean he's on the side of marriage equality, but it at least indicates that he doesn't have some idealogic objection that would guarantee an adverse decision.
101.
mikenola | August 24, 2010 at 4:43 am
@Kathleen,
Romer itself is an interesting case from many aspects and is often viewed as a precursor to complete gay equality from the highest court.
I truly believe that Roberts does not want to land on the wrong side of history in relation to major social issues, even though he is conservative on most things.
Perry is the Roe v Wade, Loving v Virginia, etc case of his time as Chief Justice.
He has a dedication to the law and the advocacy process, believing that each of us is entitled to a vigorous advocate. That his personal opinion may be different does not impinge on his ability to advocate for issues of his client. That translates in interesting way as he rules from the bench.
The decision in the DC case (not granting a stay) seems to indicate that he understands that a great deal of the anti-gay sentiment is plain old animus and a personal dedication (on his part) to the concept that the opinion of the majority cannot outweigh the rights of the minority.
I believe he internalizes the 14th amendment as the vehicle which will allow the U.S. to attain the ideals of the Constitution in terms of personal liberty and justice for all; for equality applied evenly and instinctively by Americans towards other Americans.
That is a lofty ideal and I may be giving him to much credit but i absolutely believe he does not want to be on the wrong side of history.
we will see,,,, in my wildest hopes we get an 8/1 ruling for our side on Perry and then get to watch the haters heads explode over and over again.
102. Colon Cleanse Home Remedi&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 8:12 am
Get Healthy With A Colon Cleanse…
[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…
103. Online games&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 8:24 am
Get it…
[...]Here is another great site[...]…
104. porn&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 8:24 am
Watch it…
[...]Interesting info[...]…
105. free stuff&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
The cool site…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]…
106. Tegaderm film 1626w&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm
tegaderm film…
I saw this site and linked to it! Toataly recomended!…
107. Self Confidence Quotes&hellip | September 2, 2011 at 8:03 am
Self Confidence Quotes…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.