California’s budget crisis and its Prop 8 litigation: What they reveal about the state’s divided Executive

    Vikram David Amar writing at FindLaw: “In California, the unfolding gay-marriage episode has showcased this Attorney General autonomy. In the ‘same-sex marriage cases’ in the California Supreme Court in 2008, Attorney General Jerry Brown . . . filed briefs that were different from the Governor on the merits, asserting different, nuanced views of what state equal protection means . . . The Attorney General has declined to defend the state law in [Perry v. Schwarzenegger], and again has gone beyond a ‘clean hands’ approach of abstaining, and instead has formally attacked the law (as he had done in the most recent state court battles). The Governor, who has made a number of separate filings, has declined to weigh in on the merits of the case, saying that he lacks a basis for responding to the plaintiff’s legal arguments . . . Does he agree with the Attorney General’s refusal to defend state law? If so, why doesn’t he make that clear? If not, what is his position?”


  • Posted: 08/16/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: writ.news.findlaw.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Dahlia Lithwick: “What will Anthony Kennedy do on gay marriage?”

    Dahlia Lithwick writing at Slate: “Kennedy himself has become the Rorschach test, with both sides importing their worst fears onto their assessment of his future vote. Still, it’s the only question anyone’s asking . . . For a bit of deeper insight, I turned to a 2004 paper called ‘The Gay Rights Jurisprudence of Anthony Kennedy,’ by Artemus Ward, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University . . . [Ward] concludes that Kennedy’s ‘opinions in Romer and Lawrence can be considered precedent to expand gay rights, including gay marriage. At the same time, they could constrain his choices and he could be unwilling to extend his position to more controversial gay rights claims.’ And that’s pretty much the uncertain Kennedy landscape we’ve all come to recognize.”


  • Posted: 08/16/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.slate.com

  • Tags: , , , , ,

Judges decision on motion for stay appealed by defenders of California marriage amendment

Oakland Tribune editorial: Let appeal of Proposition 8 proceed

African Americans react, agree with, denounce Prop 8 ruling

ACLU: Summer for marriage

Kennedy key to same-sex “marriage”

Lyle Denniston: Who speaks for California on Prop 8?

    SCOTUSblog: “California’s Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., formally notified the Ninth Circuit Court Friday night that the state will not appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. That position, along with a flurry of other filings in the Circuit Court, puts new emphasis on a basic issue: can anyone else carry on the case? And that comes down mainly to a question of state law: who speaks for California, legally? . . . Adding another element to the controversy over who may appeal is a claim by the local governing body of Imperial County, Calif., and its marriage licensing officer that they have their own, independent right to pursue an appeal. In a filing Friday in their own, related case pending in the Circuit Court, they asked to be allowed to support the Proposition 8 backers’ plea for postponement.”


  • Posted: 08/16/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.scotusblog.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Erwin Chemerinsky: Who has standing to appeal Prop. 8 ruling?

Why California “gay marriage” ruling may not head to US Supreme Court

Vaughn Walker, California judge, doubts Prop 8 supporters can stop same-sex “marriage”

“Sweeping clarity undoes Prop 8″

“Is the GOP becoming the Gay Old Party?”

9th Circuit Judges move quickly on Prop. 8

FRC: Government of the courts, by the courts, and for the courts?

County clerks ready if same-sex “marriage” ban lifted

Could Prop 8 case fizzle before reaching Supreme Court?

    Blog of LegalTimes: “[T]he possibility is real that the case might never make it on appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s because the advocates of Prop 8, who are launching the appeal, may not have the necessary ‘standing’ to carry it forward. The case is titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other officials in the position of defending the ballot initiative. But those officials, who are sympathetic toward gay marriage to varying degrees, are not inclined to appeal Walker’s ruling . . . Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf, while sympathizing with Walker’s decision, wrote recently on his blog that a good argument can be made for standing when state officials are reluctant to defend a successful ballot initiative.”


  • Posted: 08/13/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: legaltimes.typepad.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

“Judge doubts gay marriage ban’s backers can appeal” – Dale Carpenter comments

Tim Wildmon: A biased ruling on “gay marriage” in California

“Judge doubts gay marriage ban’s backers can appeal”

What’s next for Proposition 8 case?

State officials step aside for Prop. 8′s demise

Attorneys: Calif. voters losers in Prop. 8 ruling

Judge: Prop. 8 backers might not have legal standing to appeal

Prop. 8 judge lifts stay, but same-sex “marriages” still on hold

Federal judge denies motion to stay Calif. marriage ruling

Calif. judge lifts stay, permits “gays” to marry Aug. 18

“Same-sex marriages to resume in California on Wednesday”

First a victory, now a war

David Hacker: Will Lopez v. Candaele forecast the Ninth Circuit’s view of Prop 8?

    ADF Attorney David Hacker writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “[A] Lopez ruling may give us some insight into the Ninth Circuit’s view of the Prop 8 decision, which has been appealed to that court. After all, the cases bear several similarities . . . In defending the professor’s actions, the College argued that some speech and beliefs do not merit constitutional protection. Similarly, in Perry, the plaintiffs argued that the votes or speech of 7 million Californians should not count because their beliefs are rooted in prejudice . . . Second, in Lopez, the professor silenced the student’s ability to speak. In Perry, the plaintiffs argued and the court ruled that the People of California cannot exercise their rights to speak and vote by supporting a definition of marriage that is millennia old . . . If the Ninth Circuit properly rejects the College’s argument and holds that Lopez has the right to speak freely on campus about his religious beliefs, no matter how much some may disagree with them, then the court might – and should – extend that logic to Perry and hold that citizens of a state have a right to define marriage as they wish, no matter who disagrees with it.”


  • Posted: 08/13/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: blog.speakupmovement.org

  • Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Judge says “gay marriages” can resume

“Gay couples disappointed as judge delays weddings”

“Gay marriages may resume in California next week, judge rules”

Judge: Prop. 8 lifts Wednesday

Alan E. Sears: Prop 8 case has implications for all Americans

Prop 8 judge called “tyrannical activist devoted to satisfying himself”

San Mateo County “gay marriages” could resume next week

“California judge keeps gay weddings on hold — for now”

“Green light and delay on same-sex marriage”

Free speech victory for silenced pro-life Calif. student: Judgment ends lawsuit against K-8 school

SCOTUS Blog: Prop. 8 defenders appeal on stay

John C. Eastman: Should judge have recused himself on Prop. 8?

Legal commentary on today’s Cal. marriage stay order

Frank Turek: “Top ten gay marriage false facts Part 1″

Fiorina widens lead over Boxer

“Judge keeps gay marriages in California on hold”

Heritage Foundation Prop 8 ruling round up – more experts find Walker’s opinion unpersuasive

CA: Same-sex couples lining up at City Hall

Ed Whelan: Judge Walker and supposed lack of “evidence” of marriage’s procreative purpose

Victor Davis Hanson: Everyone a bigot?

Judge to rule on Prop. 8 stay status on Thursday morning

Santa Clara mosque seeks to install minaret

Conservative Congressmen take stand against federal judge’s marriage ruling

CA: Superintendent defends Christian school’s decision to fire on basis of faith

San Francisco unions sue over Proposition B

Imperial County appeals Proposition 8 ruling to 9th Circuit

Terry Jeffrey: Judge Walker v. the laws of nature and nature’s God

Maggie Gallagher answers three questions

Phoenix bishop: Is marriage a “hang up” or God’s plan?

    Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted writing in The Catholic Sun: “The misguided decision of Judge Vaughn Walker, striking down as unconstitutional the California Marriage Law called Proposition 8, cannot be passed over in silence . . . We have great need to rediscover the good news of God’s plan for marriage; and we need to resist in the public square all efforts to label this plan as a ‘hang up’ of the past. Labeling homosexual ‘marriage’ as ‘a right’ is not an enlightened idea of the 21st century. It is a novel form of a resurrected falsehood from more than 2,000 years ago. It will not stand the test of time, just as it cannot withstand popular opinion now.”


  • Posted: 08/11/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.catholicsun.org

  • Tags: , , , ,

Californians’ income falls for first time since WWII

    The Sacramento Bee: “Government statisticians have put a number on Californians’ paycheck pain last year: about $40 billion. The federal Bureau of Economic Analysis said personal incomes of Golden State workers fell by that amount in 2009 compared with the previous year – the state’s first year-to-year decline since World War II.”


  • Posted: 08/11/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: www.sacbee.com

  • Tags: ,

National Catholic Bioethics Center: Judge Walker’s opinion on Prop 8

Michael Medved: “Gay Marriage Myths and Truth”

    “The decision by federal judge Vaughan Walker to invalidate California’s Proposition 8 both recycles and revives some of the tired, misleading clichés regarding the same sex marriage controversy. These distortions demand direct, concise correction and rebuttal.”


  • Posted: 08/11/2010
  • |
  • Category: Featured

  • Tags: , ,

FRC: The kids are not all right . . .

Planned Parenthood where teen died from abortion drug loses affiliation

So, now its “conservative” to redefine marriage

Cal Thomas: “Gay marriage decision is judicial vigilantism”

The college where “Islam Meets America”

Pat Buchanan: The Solomon of San Francisco

Bill Murchison: The “gay marriage” fantasy

    Townhall: “I’m sorry, there’s no such thing as gay ‘marriage’ — as distinguished from gay ‘relationships’ — because marriage as understood by the whole of humanity for the whole of human time, normally under religious auspices, exists for purposes no gay relationship can satisfy . . . One is the blending of the relationship between the only two human types there are — male and female . . . A second, genuinely urgent thing that marriage does — and no gay relationship possibly can — is project the human race into the future.”


  • Posted: 08/10/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: townhall.com

  • Tags: , , ,

In S.F., Ginsburg addresses standoff on judicial appointments

CA: Teachers at Corona religious school dismissed for incompatible beliefs

Traditional marriage outdated?

Cal: Commission Confirms New Justice for Fifth District Court of Appeal