Prop 8 Watch. Grab your popcorn, kids!

[Telarus]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html

[Don Coyote]

And 6months to a year later they will again lose the right to marry.

I fucking hate my state.

Let the fuckers marry eachother.


ETA
And I fucking hate the Army, now I can't evne look at news about this because it seems to be flagged as LGBT....Can't be having soldiers looking at anything un-american I guess.

[DiscoUkulele]

Here's the thing, though. In the appeal, the defense has to show what was so wrong with the previous trial and why the judge was wrong. But given how ABYSMAL the defense was in this trial, they're going to have a hell of a time convincing the next judge to change things.

[Don Coyote]

So there is hope that it they will be able to marry eachother for a while yet.

[Tuesday]

Hopefully after they submit their written arguments on the sixth he denies the stay. This is a really great day for same sex couples!

[Doktor Howl]

Fuckin' A!

Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.

Now it's national, right?  We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.

[DiscoUkulele]

Fuckin' A!

Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.

Now it's national, right?  We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.

Pretty much, yeah. The next stop is the 9th Circuit Court, and then potentially (and probably) the Supreme Court.

[Adios]

Fuckin' A!

Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.

Now it's national, right?  We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.

[Doktor Howl]

Fuckin' A!

Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.

Now it's national, right?  We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.

Um, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[Adios]

Fuckin' A!

Judge Walker HAS overturned Proposition 8, and he appears to have rejected the defense's motion for stay (I'm making my way through the 136 page ruling for confirmation). If so, that means same-sex couples in California CAN get married again until a higher court states otherwise.

Now it's national, right?  We could be looking at another Loving-type decision.

Um, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Whoops. Bad mind tracking.

[Jenne]

So that stay is only for while the appeals process is "sorted out" as they said on NPR, but once that is underway, let the marriages BEGIN!

[Requia ☣]

What I've been hearing is the likely outcome of a federal suit will be that the courts rule its not in federal jurisdiction.  Not so much because of actual constitutional issues but because there is a possibility of a nationwide ammendment to ban gay marriage if the courts rule otherwise.

If the ninth rules as such, or in concurrence with the current ruling, SCOTUS will probably refuse to hear the case altogether.

[Aucoq]

What I've been hearing is the likely outcome of a federal suit will be that the courts rule its not in federal jurisdiction.  Not so much because of actual constitutional issues but because there is a possibility of a nationwide ammendment to ban gay marriage if the courts rule otherwise.

If the ninth rules as such, or in concurrence with the current ruling, SCOTUS will probably refuse to hear the case altogether.

I was wondering how it'd dance around the whole "states rights" issue.

[Requia ☣]

States rights aren't relevant in a question of whether or not an action is constitutional, see the 14th ammendment.

[Doktor Howl]

States rights aren't relevant in a question of whether or not an action is constitutional, see the 14th ammendment.

Also article VI.