Back to Quick Hits

Perry (Prop 8) update

February 21, 2012

Proponents’ petition for rehearing en banc.
Their unopposed motion to file oversized petition.

Chuck Storey’s Motion to Intervene.

4 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Jamie  |  February 21, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    I really wished someone would start objecting to these long winded motions that just rehash the same arguments that were presented and dismantled at trial. Accidental pregnancy of heterosexuals is a valid reason to deny gay people their civil rights???? Again???? really????

  • 2. Leo  |  February 21, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    "The panel majority’s holding that California must recognize same-sex relationships as marriages conflicts not only with the binding authority cited above, but also with the decisions of every other state and federal appellate court to address this question."

    Huh??? What about the state courts of Hawaii, Massachusetts, California itself, Connecticut and Iowa? What am I missing here?

  • 3. Leo  |  February 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Ah, I see. They later reframe the question more narrowly as whether it's required by the 14th Amendment.

  • 4. Sagesse  |  February 22, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Seventeen words in they reference Baker v Nelson. Sigh.

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.