1) State constitutional challenges are handled in state courts. That is, Prop 8 was challenged as violating the California constitution, and the CA Supreme Court upheld it.
2) Federal constitutional challenges are handled in federal court. Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 violated the federal constitution. Given that the Ninth Circuit decision was vacated, that decision stands - and Prop 8 is dead as a doornail.
BTW, I completely agree with your take on both decisions.
It appears the claim is based on the italic text below.
Walker issued a stay "to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal" (from wikiP). I don't fully understand that piece - why do this? Is that linked to the section below of the CA Constitution or is there another reason? This stay still needs to be lifted either way.
An administrative agency ... has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.
As of now, no appeal exists yet. Can the stay be lifted?
Now Tim Tebow and his fiance can finally get married and he can stop with this whole "I'm just a virgin" bs.
Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-27-2013 at 07:35 AM.
As much as I'm glad that the Equality of Marriage ovement is getting a ig buff, in looking at the "how" her t's rather disturbing and a further move from democracy to authoritarianism.
Put simply, we're seeing far too much "executive Discretion" resulting in entire areas of law being unenforced by a selct fewin power in an executive branch in violation of the will of the people.
Two examples: We elect leaders, leaders vote for Immigration laws. Immigration Laws go unenfrced by the Executive over a long period, elading to an untenable (claimed) situation and the decision toc ompletely stop enforcin large portions of the law, and that then used as the basis to force new laws....new laws that the exuctive can then pick and choose which parts to enforce. For example, I certainly hope no one thinks the border will b any better secured if this pending law passes.
In Marriage, In CA, the people voted ina Referrendum. They voted,like it or not,to ban gay marriage. The Government chose not to defend the law the people voted for, thus leading to the SC. decision that the folks defending it lacked stading to do so, thus it was defeated via non-defense. In short a few executives in CA Govt. overruled te will of millions of CA citizen with their own policy desire, and won.
I am not a fan ofour executive branches, state offedral, having so much power to simply nullify law they disagree with as a few in leadership see fit. It's a dangerous precedent for the future IMO.
I want and support marriage equallity (civil contract equallity). I do not want to get there by further giving the tny minority of elected executives almost authoritarian power to decide what law is or is not worth enforcing or defending when those laws were passed by duly elected legislatures. Thats not how the balance was supposed to be maintained between branches of Govt.
We, as a people, seem very happy to continue to provide more and more power to fewer and fewer individuals, and to trade portions of or individual freedoms for some small amounts of ease and comfort. Not a good tact IMO.
Let's reset it
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition effectively overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.
After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).
United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012, but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013.
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to appeal the U.S. District Courts' ruling, since the state government refused to defend it. Same sex marriage in California does not resume until the federal district court removes the stay of effect that prevents its ruling of unconstitutionality from reversing the amendment to the state constitution.
That piece of the CA Constitution simply says that administrative agencies can't make their own determinations on constitutionality.
Heyyyy....what's going on in this thread?
Please limit your asinine comments to doling out quack legal advice to your fellow crypto-liberals who wouldn't know a knish from the Knesset, thanks.
Now back to the bottom of the barrel you crawled out of.
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-27-2013 at 11:49 AM.
So...I wonder if "my marriage is reduced" folks plan on getting divorces now since their hetro-marriage is now corrupted by this ruling, and hence they can no longer enjoy/tolerate being int he same civil class as gays?
Maybe Chuches could replace Marriage with "Holy Relgious Unions" for the faithful and then bar all not of the faith (including gays) from getting them?
This is a great example of how faith-based Republicans have cut off their own noses to spite thier faces (and Conservatives who care more about Governmental Authoritarianism than if gays get to have weddings).
By standing so vehemently against marriage Equallity (civil) they directly helped create the events that this ruling is the end result of, where State executives have now been granted power to over-rule the democratic process and duly passed legislation by simply not enforcing it and not defending it in court. Same way those same Republicans, who march in line with their party when it comes to Amnesty, helped create that mess too.
Hey, next up abortion in Texas. Wonder what THAT eventual ruling will give to Government in terms of new powers to screw the people.
If Democrats didn't have Faith-based Republicans, they'd have to invent them. They win because of them. We may be a Conservative nation, but we're a liberal social nation today and will be for as far as I can see going forward, more so with each passing day and passing old (R) voter.