Comments on: Prop 8 Undergoes Another Review, Not Going To Supreme Court Just Yet

By: Nikki

Nikki — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:38:40 +0000

I love how that judge was appointed by Bush XD

By: Sawyer

Sawyer — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:35:55 +0000

Thank you all, I understand it better now! It’d be pretty sweet if someone could point out that making gay marriage illegal violates the whole equality thing in the Constitution, but I’m a foreigner and clearly have no idea what I’m talking about~

By: Dagra Dai

Dagra Dai — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:11:41 +0000

Anyone hear the latest news from Maryland? Same sex marriage is only a governor’s signature away from becoming law.

By: annotations

annotations — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:44:33 +0000

Yes, and that decision was fantastic in that it addressed strict scrutiny and why it applies. Step by fact-ridden step, just to be specific. The best part was where the judge makes fun of BLAG’s [worst acronym ever] citing a 3 page article in slate–you know, total bullshit not peer reviewed etc…

But district court holdings that something is unconstitutional are not really national precedent, even when you wish they would be…

By: Veronica

Veronica — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:43:41 +0000

My vaguely-knowledgeable interpretation:

1) This is a federal case involving federal issues. Prop 8 was already found by the California Supreme Court to not violate the California State Constitution. That was the end of that. Federal courts have no jurisdiction over state law or constitutional matters short of some very specific instances involving parties from different states, and when a state law/other legal provision implications federal law/the federal constitution. This case does involve whether Prop 8 violated the US constitution.

2. However, I believe Ummm is right that the decisions have specifically involved the context of Prop 8 itself – that is, a situation in which a state granted a right like marriage to a group of people and then stripped it away. So it’s not really be-all-end-all about gay marriage – theoretically it would only apply where something similar has happened, and that would probably take its own court case unless the ultimate ruling is particularly broad (which, short of a replacement of a conservative justice on SCOTUS, I don’t see happening).

3. But even if it were, the Ninth Circuit only has jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of the US. The decisions of the Ninth Circuit are not binding on any other circuit. This means, short of a Supreme Court decision on the matter, the law can be different in different federal jurisdictions. A decision from the Supreme Court, however, would make its decision binding on the whole of the US.

By: Ummm

Ummm — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:47:47 +0000

In the US the Circuit Courts only have authority over regions so what they decide does not control what is done in other regions. The relationship between the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court is sort of like the relationship between managers of individual stores and the general managers that control multiple stores. The store managers make decisions that control what people can do in their store, but they can’t control what people do in other stores. The general manager can control what is done in all the stores. The Ninth Circuit only covers California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

I haven’t actually read the opinion, but from what I understand, the reason that the most recent ruling would only apply to California is that the Court didn’t actually say that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. They said it was unconstitutional to go from allowing gay marriage to banning gay marriage.

If the Supreme Court does not eventually hear the case, and the larger group of the Ninth Circuit decides the same way as the smaller group then gay marriage will once again be legal in California and Washington will not be able to change its mind and ban it.

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:02:00 +0000

Hooray for good news

By: Kierbuu

Kierbuu — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:45:19 +0000

In more Supreme Court fodder, DOMA section 3 was ruled unconstitional Wednesday afternoon in US District Court. Section 3 is the part that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes. Throwing it out wouldn’t force states to recognize same-sex marriages, but it would mean the federal government would have to for things like immigration hearings or social security payments. Ruling was handed down by Judge Jeffrey S. White (2002 Bush appointee).

By: Evidux

Evidux — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:54:26 +0000

Hey Prop 8 people, in the dictionary under redundant it says: See redundant.

By: Kestrel

Kestrel — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:50:44 +0000

While the Unite States Constitution applies all over the United States, State Supreme Court only applies to their states’ level on down. State-level Supreme Court interpreting a state law as unconstitutional keeps the whole decision in the state. Or they could be talking about California’s state constitution?

I’m very tired and I want a latte and another couple slices of cheese toast, basically.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:46:39 +0000

(and isn’t too elementary sounding)
(also, *ruled*, not *rules*. Can’t type)

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:44:29 +0000

In the US, the federal government (i.e. what would be called ‘the state’ in lots of other countries) has a constitution, but so does each individual state, with the caveat that individual states’ constitutions (and other laws) cannot violate the federal constitution. In the case of Prop 8, the ruling was that it violates the constitution of California because it stripped a minority population of a previously held right. No judge has ever rules that Prop 8 (or any similar marriage ban) violates the US(i.e. federal) Constitution.

Hope that makes sense!