California | Gay Marriage | Jerry Brown | Proposition 8

Prop 8 Plaintiffs File Motion With Ninth Circuit, Jerry Brown Once Again Pushes For Same-Sex Marriages To Resume

Jerry

From AFER's press release last night:

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger tonight filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opposing the emergency motion for stay pending appeal filed by Proposition 8 Official Proponents.

“The Proponents’ motion, while exceptionally lengthy, does not come close to showing they have a strong chance of winning on appeal, which is what they must demonstrate to get a stay,” said Theodore Boutrous, attorney for the Plaintiffs. “And they completely fail to show that they or anyone else will be irreparably harmed — or harmed at all — by allowing people to get married while the appellate process proceeds. The public interest strongly favors allowing Chief Judge Walker’s ruling to take effect immediately.

Meanwhile, California Attorney General Jerry Brown is once again urging the courts to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. You'll recall he made a similar request after Judge Walker's initial ruling last week. The AP reports:

Attorney General Jerry Brown urged a federal appeals court Friday to waste no time in allowing gay marriages to resume in California now that a lower court has overturned the state's same-sex marriage ban. The brief legal papers came in response to efforts by same-sex marriage opponents to get the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals to block a lower court judge's ruling striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect next week.

Said Brown: "While there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by the district court's conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional,

Whitman Brown is running for the governorship against Republican Meg Whitman and the Ebay CEO has said time and time again that she does not support marriage equality. She's issued only guarded statements about the Prop 8 ruling: "... my view is the process needs to go on here. We should not have an administrative action that creates uncertainty at this juncture, so my advice is let's let the legal process continue."

Politico best sums up her strategy: "Since Whitman supports Prop. 8, she’ll likely avoid the issue altogether in order to attract wavering Democrats and independents."

Also, The LA Times today published an opinion piece by Harvard professor Michael Klarman who focuses on public opinion and judicial rulings. He uses Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 as an example: "Present-day perspectives on past judicial decisions shift as public opinion changes. When Brown was decided, Americans were almost evenly divided on whether it was right. Today, well over 90% of the country agrees that state-mandated school segregation is unconstitutional. Since at least 1970, no prospective justice could have been confirmed for the Supreme Court without an unqualified endorsement of Brown. Ultimately, Americans evaluate court decisions according to the justness of the result, not on whether judges showed appropriate deference to legislatures or strayed from precedent and original understanding."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. You know it's no big surprise a Republican will say "I don't support gay marriages." But I am surprised how this woman seems to be offering her poison pill with such a sweet coating.

    What exactly does all her message mean?

    Eliminate gay marriage somehow, even after prop 8 was overturned.

    Kill the economy even more by undercutting senior's income (pension plans contribute billions to economies with little employment income). This is a plan to let billionaire investment bankers get out of paying the promised rates of return on pensions which were funded by the hard work of generations of employees (out of their paychecks!)

    Fix K-12? How? No specifics, but most likely fix it for select demographics. I highly doubt inner city kids will be getting better classrooms. That would not be "efficient."

    Increase security at the border. Hmmm, save money on schools and pensions so she can beat up on Mexicans. Cool!

    Eliminate sanctuary cities like SF. Hmmm, how? Maybe punish cities by witholding state funds? So, transfer more money away from problem areas in order to worsen the crisis to the point that people have to riot or there is further decay of the social fabric.

    Economics is about where the feet hit the pavement. It's not about red or black ink on balance sheets, but madame CEO seems to think all this can be solved by striking pen to paper and taming the legislative beast. When poverty cries at her doorstep, what will she do? Since she has no plan for the fallout of her decisions I surmise she'll cry that liberals sabotaged her office. Why bother to let her in at all? Her plans are old hack conservatism that have little use in this economy.

    The world is transitioning form the fallout of plans like hers into a new economy. She is right that small business will help lead the way, but her prescription to help small business will enable big business to entrench it's tax advantages even further. Efficiencies like she talked about lead to out-competition from those in position to take advantage of what amounts to government subsidy of corporations. Many small businesses are not faced with the taxes she refers to, but big business is. How is small business going to outcompete Wal-Mart? Tell me how lowering the tax on Wal-Mart going to help mom and pop? You know Wallies might hire another kid at minimum wage because they got a break, but likey not! They'll pocket the cash and take the money out of California. That's the facts.

    Republicans stand for big business - don't let her sugar hide what's inside her pill.

    As gays and lesbians we ought to take issue with a lot more than just the marriage debate.

    Posted by: Jason | Aug 14, 2010 1:40:24 PM


  2. @Jason - Well stated. If Meg Whitman gets elected it would be a total disaster for California. She is going to do and say anything she possibly can to get elected. Carly (it's not off-shoring, it's right-shoring) Fiorina is just as bad if not worse. At times, to say I am disappointed with the Democrats is an understatement - but I can't imagine any gay person to have enough self-loathing to vote for these hypocritical bigots. To me, it's unfathomable. The GOP has been destroyed by Corporate Greed and Religious wingnuts; and their next goal is to destroy the middle class.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 14, 2010 2:00:13 PM


  3. P.S. Bravo to Jerry Brown for having the balls to call these bigots out. He has been a great advocate for marriage equality!

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 14, 2010 2:02:24 PM


  4. I am unable to view the Plaintiff's opposition to the stay on AFER's website.

    Posted by: Randy | Aug 14, 2010 2:50:40 PM


  5. Here is the website that the 9th Circuit has setup specifically for this case. You can view all the filings there.

    Website here: ==> http://2tu.us/2kk7

    Specific filings: ==> http://2tu.us/2kk5

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 14, 2010 4:36:15 PM


  6. It's good to see that we can count on Brown and others to continue backing us 100%. But it's tiring to hear the same lies over and over as uttered by the so-called religious "right". Both adult homosexual and heterosexual relationships are LEGAL relationships, and, as Judge Walker has said, neither is morally superior to the other. The idea that gay marriage opens the door to other kinds of illicit marriage (a familiar "argument" by the right) is nonsense of a high order. A sexual relationship between an adult and a child (child abuse) or between an adult and an animal (animal abuse) are both examples of ILLEGAL relationships and punishable in our society (like rape), as they are fundamentally non-consentual. Likewise multiple wives (polygamy) and multiple husbands (polyandry) are ILLEGAL relationships too.

    Historically, society has turned a blind eye to many examples of marriage which are condoned. A murderer on death row is allowed to marry; atheists are allowed to marry; serial divorcees are allowed to re-marry as much as they like; infertile couples and elderly couples who will never procreate are allowed to marry as well. No test is required to prove commitment. The only requirement until this time is that both partners be heterosexual. We homosexuals who are in legal, committed relationships, and who pay the same kinds of taxes, have been categorically denied what the courts have defined as one of the most fundamental civil rights in our society.

    Finally, the idea that same-sex unions is unique to our time is also untrue. For several hundred years, both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church blessed same-sex unions in a special ceremony. We know this because research has uncovered the actual text of the service that was used- in several languages (John Boswell: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe). Marriage IS a civil right, and society is the stronger for it when that right is expanded to include gay men and lesbians.

    Posted by: Jerry | Aug 14, 2010 7:34:38 PM


  7. As a fellow Californian, I was at first concerned that Meg Whitless might actually have a shot at winning the governorship. Then she opened her mouth. She's attacked the state government, sanctuary cities, pensions, CALPERS, immigrants, and spent over $120 million already just to end up behind in the polls. As the election gets closer, I suspect the gap will widen, as Californians are in no mood to elect someone who is trying to buy the election.

    Posted by: Keith | Aug 14, 2010 7:35:47 PM


  8. It's these brave decisions that make me anxious to cast my vote for Jerry Brown. For those that don't live in California don't know the constant whining and plastering of television ads of Meg Whitman blaming everyone, except her colleagues at Goldman Sachs, for the fiscal crisis in California and the country. It is only a matter of time before she scapegoats us too. We need to always vote and constantly vote. Jerry Brown is proud of his supporters and as should the rest of the Democrats. On the other hand, we don't vote! It disappoints me that, Whitman, Fiorina, Angle, Paul, and other Tea party candidates have a chance of winning and having the ability to take away our rights because we are upset with one president. My point, Jerry Brown with these decisions inspires me to vote this November, and it should inspire you.

    Posted by: Redebbm | Aug 14, 2010 10:57:49 PM


  9. I will definitely vote for progressives and REAL DEMOCRATS who have done something for us in the GLBT community.

    Jerry Brown is definitely getting my vote!

    Posted by: FunMe | Aug 15, 2010 11:23:30 AM


  10. Nice hosting! It’s my first time to read like this article.fygvuhb

    Posted by: knockoff handbags | Sep 18, 2011 11:10:26 AM


  11. I will definitely vote for progressives and REAL DEMOCRATS who have done something for us in the GLBT community.

    Posted by: replica designer handbags | Sep 23, 2011 2:11:05 AM


  12. Nice hosting! It’s my first time to read like this article.fygvuhb
    gklf3ojngh

    Posted by: wholesale designer handbags | Sep 23, 2011 2:13:14 AM


  13. woo...

    so right

    i like it
    so much
    .gieinigng

    Posted by: replica designer handbags | Sep 23, 2011 9:54:10 PM


  14. It's these brave decisions that make me anxious to cast my vote for Jerry Brown. For those that don't live in California don't know the constant whining and plastering of television ads of Meg Whitman blaming everyone, except her colleagues at Goldman Sachs, for the fiscal crisis in California and the country. It is only a matter of time before she scapegoats us too.

    Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/jerry-brown.html#ixzz1b12QLJnp

    Posted by: ugg boots | Oct 17, 2011 1:55:43 AM


  15. Californian, I was at first concerned that Meg Whitless might actually have a shot at winning the governorship. Then she opened her mouth. She's attacked the state government, sanctuary cities, pensions, CALPERS, immigrants, and spent over $120 million already just to end up behind in the polls. As the election gets

    Posted by: gucci hat | Oct 17, 2011 1:58:46 AM


  16. For those that don't live in California don't know the constant whining and plastering of television ads of Meg Whitman blaming everyone, except her colleagues at Goldman Sachs, for the fiscal crisis in California and the country. It is only a matter of time before she scapegoats us too

    Posted by: uggs sheepskin | Nov 3, 2011 12:14:51 AM


  17. so right..


    Now this is very good. Do you think? I feel good. Ha ha

    Posted by: Replica designer handbags | Nov 19, 2011 1:01:57 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Daniel Radcliffe: No Big Deal If Men Date Transgendered Women« «