Got Prop 8 questions? Join us at 2:30 PM PST

January 4, 2011

By Adam Bink

As I wrote in today’s earlier thread, we have a special treat coming to help answer all of your Prop 8 questions coming out of today’s 9th Circuit ruling. I asked Shannon Minter, the Legal Director at National Center for Lesbian Rights and the lead attorney on the original In re Marriage Cases ruling at the California Supreme Court, to stop by here at 2:30 PM PST/5:30 PM EST and answer some questions. In re Marriage Cases was the original 2008 California Supreme Court case holding that the ban restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional and that laws treating gays and lesbians differently because of their sexual orientation are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. So, we’re in a spot of luck that we have someone who knows a thing or two about the California Supreme Court, given today’s ruling.

The format will be similar to the chat we hosted several months ago. You may remember Shannon and his deputy Chris joined us to take well over a hundred different questions on standing, timeline, constitutionality, and more. I will be moderating the chat.

Feel free to use this thread for Prop 8 ruling discussion until then, get your questions ready, and we’ll see you in an hour on a fresh thread with Shannon. I’ll provide any updates that come in until then on this thread.

Filed under: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,Prop 8 trial

69 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Rhie  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:33 am

    Scrib

  • 2. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:40 am

    Looking forward to it. In the meantime, I MUST try to get some work done.

  • 3. Joyce L. Arnold  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:42 am

    Thanks for setting this up with Minter.

    I'm seeing conflicting analysis — some saying the 9th court has signaled there is standing, some saying the opposite. No doubt Minter will speak to that.

  • 4. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:44 am

    Looking forward to it.

  • 5. Anonygrl  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:47 am

    AAAHHHH!!! I left work early so that I could be at home when the replacement for my dead computer arrived and EVERYTHING happened all at once!!!

    The good news is I am here now, and have a computer to use… so I am ready!

    Umm…. after quickly skimming everything, I guess my answer is ARGh? I get why they are kicking it back, but still, argh!

  • 6. Manilow  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:47 am

    OMGOMGOMG! I'm so excited!!!

  • 7. Sagesse  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:55 am

    Will catch up later.

  • 8. LIZ  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:02 am

    I was wondering if this does go through will it be federal? Meaning that marriage will be legal in all of the US?

  • 9. Patrick Lannan  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:04 am

    If we have a question we can post it here…?

    Has a federal appellate court ever done this before?

  • 10. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:06 am

    Whatever ruling the 9th Circuit issues will only affect the states within the 9th's jurisdiction. Even then, they could decide that Prop 8 is unconstitutional but base their ruling on facts that are unique to California. In that case, even though the ruling technically applied to all the states in the 9th's jurisdiction, in a practical sense it would apply only to California.

    It would require a ruling by the US Supreme Court before the impact would be nation-wide.

  • 11. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:06 am

    Save the question for the thread Adam will start when Shannon becomes available.

  • 12. myca  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Does this mean its being passed up to the supreme court?

  • 13. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:12 am

    If this is a question for Shannon, bring it up in the thread that will be started when he arrives.

    But I can answer this – it does not mean it's being passed to the US Supreme Court. It is the California Supreme Court that is being asked to get involved here.

    The 9th Circuit isn't passing the entire case to them, they're only asking the CA SC whether California law gives Prop 8 Proponents a sufficient interest in defending the initiative that they should have standing to appeal. If the CA SC says 'yes,' then the 9th Circuit will decide whether or not Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

  • 14. Phil  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:13 am

    How strong or weak is the case law in CA that would allow the prop8 proponents to have standing to appeal. Does the fact that the CA supreme court ruled earlier (beckley v. schwarzenegger) that the governor and attorney general couldn't be forced to appeal bode well for the plaintiffs in this case?

  • 15. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:16 am

    Adam has asked that the questions for Shannon be brought up in the thread he will start with Shannon arrives.

    I'm interested in the answer to the first part of your question, too.

    As to the second part, I don't think the CA SC ruled that Gov and AG couldn't be forced to appeal. IIRC, they simply refused to get involved. But even if that had been the ruling, I see these as very different questions. Whether you can force a state official to appeal and whether some other party has the right to appeal are different questions.

  • 16. Ronnie  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:19 am

    There was so much, so fast….I thought my email was going to explode….subscribing for now….I have to get back to sketching….<3…Ronnie

  • 17. Anonygrl  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:21 am

    By the way, Kathleen, have I told you lately that I love you? Thanks for sorting us out as you do.
    :)

  • 18. Dave Casker  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Log-in info??

  • 19. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Ummm, am I being told (nicely) that I'm being controlling? :)

  • 20. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:25 am

    No log-in necessary. Adam will start a new thread when Shannon arrives. Then just post your question for Shannon in the comments and he will respond in comments.

  • 21. Phil  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:25 am

    I also read your analysis of today's ruling suggesting that the CA SC will find that proponents have standing to appeal – but I am not sure how it squares with previous precident in Arizonans v Official English. Also is standing to intervene in the original case equivalent to standing to appeal? I realize that the 9th Circuit suggests that it is but can the CA SC split hairs on this issue?

  • 22. Anonygrl  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Not at ALL!!! I am saying that I LOVE you!!!!!

    Hugs and kisses and roses and all the cookies you could ever want for your ability to see through all this stuff and answer questions so well for us!!!!

    LOVE LOVE LOVE!!! XOXOXOXOXO

  • 23. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Arizonans is based on federal law, and what they are certifying is a question of state law (although they seem to say that conferring state law standing is enough for them to have federal standing in this case).

    Standing to intervene is different from standing to become the sole defendants.

  • 24. Rev. Joseph Shore-Go  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:28 am

    would the 9yjh had sent this down if they were ready to rule that it is constitutional?

  • 25. Manilow  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:29 am

    Kathleen – do you think that the CA SC will expedite this issue similar to the way the 9th did?

  • 26. Joel  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:29 am

    You crack me up? Are you, by any chance, Jewish? Because that was a very Jewish reply ;)

    I'm a big fan of yours, too, BTW!

  • 27. Shannon Minter  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:30 am

    Hello Everyone,

    This is Shannon. Lots of great questions.

  • 28. Phil  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:31 am

    Thanks for your comment Ann. I understand that Arizonans v Official English is based on federal law but doesn't federal law trump state law? If so could the 9th Circuit or the US SC still find that the proponents do not have standing to appeal on their own?

  • 29. Anonygrl  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:31 am

    They might, yes.

    But they cannot rule at all on the case until standing is settled… and they seem to want another ruling on that from the Cali Supreme Court first.

    They could have ruled on standing themselves, but have decided not to, for whatever reasons.

  • 30. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:31 am

    Ability to intervene and standing to appeal are two different things. But I didn't see an indication in the opinion that the 9th Circuit judges conflated the two. Can you point to the part of the opinion that made you think that?

  • 31. zoe keithley  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:31 am

    IF the "voice of the people" is the deciding factor on Prop 8, what do we do with the information that untold numbers of anti-gay people flooded California (I SAW them in Sacramento) to hype up their position, making it look to the general public that there was larger support for their position than was actually the case. In other words. what about voters being "bought" one way or another by out of state interests during an election?

  • 32. Jerry Wesner  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:33 am

    So, if this is going on now, how do I access it?

  • 33. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:34 am

    They're asking the CASC for its ruling on state law. Standing in federal court and standing in state court are two separate (but related) questions. States may set broader standing requirements, for instance, which would apply only in their state's courts.

    Boies thinks that there could be standing in state court but not federal court in this instance. It doesn't appear that the 9th Circuit panel agrees.

  • 34. Rev. Joseph Shore-Go  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:34 am

    something I was never clear on is how does prop 8 affect those wh are legally married out of state or country. . . as that was part of the original ruling (troy Perry) etc..

  • 35. Phil  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:35 am

    What are your thoughs about the potential consequences of having this 4th branch of government (the people) being able to appeal on their own without any checks or balances? I thought we were a representative republic not an simple direct democracy.

  • 36. jsteven  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:35 am

    The question asked if the prop8 people had standing “upon its adoption or appeal.” This does beg the question of to whether one can separate standing of the appeal and the original federal court case. Walker was vague in stating why he gave prop 8 standing in the first place.

    What basis could one give for deny standing in the appeal, but allowing it in the initial Federal case to allow Judge Walker’s full ruling and conclusions of fact and law to remain intact? (Emphasis of why original standing?)

  • 37. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Go to the website look for the next available post.

  • 38. Ellen Pontac  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:37 am

    Q: Where do I find the responses?

  • 39. Alyson Young  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:39 am

    I'm a bit confused… I think Shannon Minter's prediction was that the 9th Circuit would simply moot the question of standing if it planned to assert that Prop 8 was constitutional. This, however, strikes me as backward. Given that the trial court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, wouldn't the 9th Circuit need jurisdiction (by way of appellants' standing) in order to reverse that decision? It seems that standing is only moot if the court planned to affirm.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% opposed to Prop 8 and still more than hopeful that the 9th Circuit is simply being diligent. Perhaps they plan to affirm on alternative bases, which again would require jurisdiction and hence standing.

  • 40. Jim in Oregon  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:39 am

    Q. We were married in CA Oct 08 and still valid, now domestic partners in Portland OR. How will the 9th circuit ruling affect us here? Will this help Oregon in their overturning amendment 36 the anti gay marriage ammendment?

  • 41. Lynn  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:41 am

    "If the state Supreme Court determines that the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 lack the prerogative to defend the measure, it is unclear whether the ban would be unenforceable or remain in effect."
    (HuffPost)

    Help understanding the possibilities would be great.

  • 42. Rev. Joseph Shore-Go  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:42 am

    I am sorry but I am seeing loads of questions and no responses

  • 43. Martin Karasch  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:42 am

    It is unclear to me why proponests of prop. 8 have any standing on an issue of gay rights. How is anyone other than gay and lesbian folks affected one way or the other?

  • 44. Claudia Center  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:42 am

    I thought here …?

  • 45. Sheryl  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:43 am

    Is there a "live" chat or is all of this simply a blog?

  • 46. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:44 am

    ANSWERS ARE BEING POSTED IN THE NEWEST THREAD.

  • 47. Sheryl  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:46 am

    Based on the ruling today, is it possible that the 9th circuit could take the position that if the Proponents lack standing in the 9th circuit – then the lower case is thrown out as well, as they would not have had standing to defend in the trial as well? Seems that the concurring opinion was headed in that direction.

  • 48. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:49 am

    Sheryl, go to the newest thread if you want to pose questions to Shannon and Chris. But they have said that the lower case would NOT be thrown out.

  • 49. JT TIerney  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:49 am

    I can't see where the answers are being posted

  • 50. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:49 am

    GO TO THE NEWEST THREAD.

  • 51. Phil  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:50 am

    I am not sure if standing to defend a ballot initiative is necessarily the same as stnading to appeal a ruling that names the governor and attorney general. The ruling by Walker does not name or directly impact the proponents.

  • 52. Bill  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:53 am

    The last post I can see is from 2:37 pm. Do I go
    somewhere else for the new thread?

  • 53. Karl Schneider  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:54 am

    Where would one find this "latest thread"??? This "discussion" is harder to find than a Republican's heart…
    dubya tee eff?

  • 54. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:55 am

    http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/01/04/live-on-p…

  • 55. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:55 am

    GO TO THE NEWEST THREAD TO SEE ANSWERS!!!!
    http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/01/04/live-on-p…

  • 56. JonT  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:57 am

    ☮

  • 57. JonT  |  January 4, 2011 at 8:06 am

    But Ann, where should I go to see the questions and answers?

    /ducks and runs :)

  • 58. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 8:07 am

    I am going to give you such a HIT!!!

    (jk)

  • 59. Brian Quirk  |  January 4, 2011 at 8:33 am

    Please, where can the panelists' answers to all these questions be found?

  • 60. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 10:33 am

    LOVE YOU TOO!!

  • 61. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Standing is not a moot question. The 9th Circuit has to have jurisdiction in order to reach a decision on the merits one way or the other – to either affirm or overturn the lower court ruling. If there is no one with standing to appeal the case, then the 9th Circuit can't hear the appeal.

    I can't imagine that Shannon has ever suggested the 9th Circuit would bypass the question of standing.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Technically, a ruling from the 9th Circuit will be binding precedent for courts in Oregon on federal constitutional questions. However, as a practical matter, the 9th Circuit could invalidate Prop 8 based on facts that are unique to California, making the precedent not actually useful.

    Also, even if the ruling is broad and impacts Oregon, it won't automatically invalidate Amendment 36. It would require either that the state repeal it (to comply with the federal ruling) or someone will have to challenge it in court, relying on the 9th Circuit's decision when making their case.

  • 63. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    If there is no one with standing to appeal, Walker's ruling stands and Prop 8 becomes unenforceable in the state of California.

  • 64. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    We can hope, but I don't know.

  • 65. Richard A. Jernigan  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Sorry to have missed this. Hectic day. Will read this in more detail later and see if someone else had the same question I was thinking of.

  • 66. Kathleen  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    I already think our initiative system is democracy run amok and this would only make it worse. That's my opinion.

  • 67. Mandi  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Scibing

  • 68. Ann S.  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    My gut sense is that the court will expedite, but that is just a WAG*.

    *WAG = wild-assed guess

  • 69. Mandi  |  January 4, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Scribing… Again lol

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

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.

Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!