Federal Prop 8 Trial | Gay Marriage | News | Proposition 8

BigGayDeal.com

California Appeals Court Rejects Attempt to Force Schwarzenegger and Brown to Defend Prop 8

Beckley

A conservative group called the Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal on Monday, seeking to force California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend Prop 8 in court, something both have said they will not do.

According to a notice posted to the court's website, that petition has been denied. Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland rejected the petition without comment.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Good! Schwarzenegger got us into this mess by vetoing marriage equality TWICE!

    Posted by: r | Sep 2, 2010 2:44:28 PM


  2. This is pretty much as expected ... but the speed with which this was rejected is nice to see.

    The only purpose of the PJI's effort, by the way, was to get a little press coverage about how Arnie et al. are ignoring the "will of the people," blah-blah. And, at that, they succeeded, so now they should go back in their little cave for a while.

    Posted by: K in VA | Sep 2, 2010 2:45:29 PM


  3. I hope that AG Holder and President Obama are taking note that they too don't have to defend wrong headed laws that run in opposition to their core values.

    Posted by: Dave | Sep 2, 2010 2:50:12 PM


  4. QUICK, Let's form a Political Action Committee so we can sound impressive and then threaten to sue, say, the Arizona Governor for being a gas bag! Or Koch Industries for seeding hatred! Or Fox News for, well... all of the above.

    Would that work? Seems that's all I hear coming from Planet Wing Nut; perhaps a little taste of their own medicine going back at 'em?

    Posted by: Rad | Sep 2, 2010 3:02:31 PM


  5. "I hope that AG Holder and President Obama are taking note that they too don't have to defend wrong headed laws that run in opposition to their core values."

    This is an outrageous assertion. There are reasons for AG Holder and President Obama not to defend DOMA in court, but none of the good reasons are because it might "run in opposition to their core values." That would be a dark day. There are ample good legal rationales for not defending DOMA; recurring to one's personal conflict with a law is absurd reasoning. Many people's "core values" are in conflict with our own. That's why laws matter.

    Posted by: BCLance | Sep 2, 2010 3:25:05 PM


  6. I'm confused by this ruling. So what happens next? Do the people of California have the right to marry whomever they want or will it go to a District Judge to decide?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the gay folk in California. But if this means the case is closed and it goes no further than California, I'm kinda miffed. I'd like to see this wind its way through the court system and hopefully land at the Supreme Court so that people that live outside of California have a shot at marriage equality as well.

    Somebody please sort this out for me.

    Posted by: Stephen | Sep 2, 2010 3:30:46 PM


  7. This has got to be one of the stupidest, most absurd wastes of time and money, ever. The whole thing, not just this posting.

    The entire idea of gay marriage being voted on is ridiculous, at best. I've yet to meet a gay couple whose affection for each other has even one single iota of effect on me or anyone else.

    Who friggin' cares? And WHY??? If gay people want to destroy their lives by getting married, they should have the same ability as the rest of us. Just don't let them say we didn't warn 'em first.

    Posted by: Chipperkeet | Sep 2, 2010 3:32:15 PM


  8. Well, chip, I hope you are not married...

    Posted by: B | Sep 2, 2010 3:53:43 PM



  9. Sorry Chippy..I have been with my same-sex partner for 37 years+ so far,and there hasn't been any destroyed lives yet..My two brothers' however have each been married 4 times,during that same relationship time period of mine of 37+ years..Destroyed lives seems to be a franchise owned by the Heterosexual elites..

    Posted by: Elk | Sep 2, 2010 4:10:28 PM


  10. @STEPHEN: This case was only tangential to the Prop 8 case. This was filed in State Court (not Federal) in an attempt to have the Court order State officials to defend this amendment to the State Constitution. It is still to be seen if the Defendant-Intervenors will have standing in the Federal Appellate Court, since the Official Defendants (the Governor and AG) have decided not to appeal.

    Posted by: Tom | Sep 2, 2010 4:39:23 PM


  11. Stephen.

    This group is affiliated with the Arizona group that is helping defend Prop H8, and is also the same group that is trying to get Imperial County in California to get legal standing to defend Prop H8 at the 9th District Court of Appeals. The reason this is all happening is that it's widely believed in legal circles that the Prop H8ers have no legal standing to defend Judge Walker's ruling. . .basically, that only state officials who actually control the issuances of marriage licenses have standing in this case. In a 1999 Arizona case on an English-only Amendment, the US Supreme Court ruled that petitioners can't appeal because they have no legal standing...they may be interested parties, but they're not the government nor given authority to enforce or defend laws.

    So, this was nothing but a last-minute desperate attempt by the Prop H8 supporters to find a legal loophole that would force a state representative to defend the Proposition, and thus give Prop H8 supporters legal standing. Since September 11th is the deadline to file an appeal with the 9th District, time is running out for them. . .so we'll probably see some more outrageous legal attempts to delay or derail the "Standing" issue in the coming week.

    Posted by: Keith | Sep 2, 2010 4:47:42 PM


  12. "I hope that AG Holder and President Obama are taking note that they too don't have to defend wrong headed laws that run in opposition to their core values."

    Why don't people understand that we WANT the administration to defend DOMA so that the case can go up to higher courts and eventually to the Supreme Court? GLAD has said this quite clearly. Otherwise the victories only apply in Massachusetts.


    Posted by: BillyBoy | Sep 2, 2010 5:15:46 PM


  13. The Obama is not going to defend Gay rights or protest DOMA. Obama wants to keep in good with the Right wingers by showing how "Christian" he is, or as the Righties believe, a fundie Muslim.

    either way Obama doesn't give a damn about gays, other than our money. lol.

    Posted by: bernard | Sep 4, 2010 12:55:16 PM


  14. Pacific Justice Institute has today filed a petition with the California Supreme Court, requesting the court to order the governor and the state attorney-general to appeal the Prop 8 decision to the federal appeals court. The California Supreme Court case number is S186072 and the case caption ‘Beckley v. Schwarzenegger (Perry)’.

    Posted by: guest | Sep 7, 2010 3:08:26 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios Divorcing Husband« «