Rick Hasen: Reading the tea leaves on the 9th Circuit’s stay order

    Rick Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, writing at the American Constitution Society blog: “I believe caution is in order, and that proponents and opponents of gay marriage should read very little into the Ninth Circuit’s order as to how that court is likely to decide the Proposition 8 case. But the Ninth Circuit’s decision to issue a stay could increase the chances that the Supreme Court ultimately will side with gay marriage supporters . . . This case already has had more than its share of twists and turns. But for those who want to predict what will happen in the appellate courts, there’s really very little to go on so far. Certainly we should not rely on a procedural order containing no written rationale offered by a different set of decisionmakers than the judges who will decide the merits of the appeal.”


  • Posted: 08/18/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.acslaw.org

  • Tags: , , , ,

“Delay on gay marriage in Calif. gives Democrats room to focus on midterms”

TIME: New legal strategy for Prop 8 supporters

National Review Online: “Gay marriage on hold”

Matthew J. Franck: Professor Klarman sows the dragon’s teeth on Supreme Court and marriage

No same-sex “marriages” in California until appeal

“Gay marriages” halted; case fast-tracked

Attorney: Ninth Circuit makes “right call”

9th Circuit agrees to fasttrack same sex “marriage” hearing

Appeals court stays Prop 8 ruling

Pro-marriage groups laud Ninth Circuit’s emergency stay of Prop. 8 ruling

SCOTUS Blog commentary: 2nd Prop. 8 case expedited

    SCOTUSblog: “The Ninth Circuit Court on Tuesday morning ordered an expedited review of a second appeal on California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage — a plea by local officials in Imperial County, Calif., to enter the case in order to defend the ballot measure’s constitutionality. The motions panel of the Circuit Court, in a two-page order, set the county’s appeal to be heard at argument along with the appeal by the backers of Proposition 8 — that is, during the week of Dec. 6. The written briefing schedule will be the same in both cases, concluding on Nov. 1.”


  • Posted: 08/17/2010
  • |
  • Category: Marriage & Family
  • |
  • Source: www.scotusblog.com

  • Tags: , , ,

US conservative Christians fear for rights

Another issue emerges in CA’s “gay marriage” case

Daniel Blomberg on The Schilling Show: Recurring questions in the Cal. marriage litigation

Ed Whelan: Some reflections on 9th Circuit stay order

Ed Meese: Prop. 8 ruling ignores precedent, evidence and common sense

Dennis Prager: Same-sex “marriage” and the insignificance of men and women

Court rejects challenge by donors and diocese to plans for sale of Catholic high school

    California Catholic Daily: “Attorneys for the Diocese of Sacramento and seven donors to the now defunct Loretto High School are mulling whether to appeal an unfavorable ruling in a dispute over $7.75 million the sisters of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary received when they sold the campus last year . . . In May 2009, the sisters of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary sold the 9-acre Loretto campus to Aspire Public Schools, a non-profit firm that operates 21 charter schools across California, for $7.75 million — $5.75 million up front, with the remaining $2 million due in 2012 . . . In essence the appellate court said the nuns had, in fact, used the money contributed to Loretto for the purposes for which it was donated, and that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail at trial.” | For more information see Religion Clause.


  • Posted: 08/17/2010
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty
  • |
  • Source: www.calcatholic.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

“Gay marriage” back on hold during appeal on Proposition 8 decision

“Gay-marriage” ban to continue indefinitely

Same-sex “marriages” placed on hold in California

Federal appeals court stops California same-sex “marriages” from resuming

Federal Appeals Court intervenes in Prop. 8, halts California “gay marriages”

Federal panel puts same-sex “marriage” on hold as appeal of Prop. 8 ruling goes forward

Legal focus in Prop. 8 “gay marriage” battle: Who has right to fight?

Court halts California “gay marriage”

Appeals court stays marriage ruling

Court halts Calif. “gay marriages” pending appeal

Now California puts “gay marriage” on hold indefinitely as court decides whether they should go ahead

Prop. 8: Appeals court puts ruling on hold

Appeals court puts “gay marriages” on hold, sets December hearing

“Gay marriage ruling delayed; No Appeal to Supreme Court yet”

9th Circuit puts brakes on decision that struck down Calif. marriage amendment

Alan Sears: Perry verdict is calculated not just to change, but to eliminate marriage

“Court halts Calif gay marriages pending appeal”

Jonathan Adler: More on standing to defend Prop 8

    Jonathan H. Adler writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “I think that the defenders of Proposition 8 do have standing to appeal the decision, just as they had standing to intervene, and that even if they do not, the officials of Imperial County would, and should have been permitted to intervene. Although I generally support a rather narrow view of standing, I largely agree with Michael Dorf that it would be anomalous were state officials able to effectively nullify state ballot initiatives simply by refusing to defend such initiatives in Court. Further, I think the interest of the proposition’s defenders on appeal is equivalent to that of an initiative’s sponsors who could file suit to ensure their initiative appears on the ballot in the first place.”


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

  • Tags: , , , ,

CA: Mall can’t ban religious conversations, court says

CA: “Businesses await marriage windfall”

L.A. County Registrar’s office in Norwalk to stay open late Wednesday for same-sex “marriages”

Conservative Christians: It won’t stop at same-sex “marriage”

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