Question: Who in Calif. gov't is appealing Judge Walker's ruling?

[CanonRay]

Schwarzenegger was the named defendant, and he supports the ruling. Jerry Brown is the A/G, so I'm sure it's not him. So exactly who is appealing, and what if California doesn't appeal? Are they legally required to do so?

Any legal eagles out there know the answer?

[stray cat]

1. I assume its the state since the people voted it in

[CanonRay]

2. Yes, but who is "The State"?

Certainly not A/G Jerry Brown...?

[stray cat]

3. It would have to be brought on behalf of the people of CA not Jerry Brown

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Seeing this post makes me smile a wicked, schadenfreudish smile.

[kctim]

4. Don't know much about

California or its politics, but could it be a minority rights group or leader? Seeing how the vast majority voted for Prop 8 and all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. I think you have things mixed up there. -nt

[kctim]

14. As I said

I am not familiar with Cali or its politics. A simple search brought up that 7 of 10 minorities voted for Prop 8 and I heard something like that I thought on NPR right after that vote. Fighting for minority voting and votes is kind of a thing for me, so I was curious if maybe such a group was fighting in this case.
Would appreciate knowing what I have mixed up here, thanks.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. No, I misunderstood. Your post does have a sort of internal coherence, which I understand now.

And I get the same positive feelings as from the other post above.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. It was one of the religious groups that backed the Prop.

They were the only ones left to defend the case -- Brown as AG refused to.

People with ProtectMarriage.com were some of the Defendant Intervenors who steped in and defended the case.

[Chan790]

8. If that's the case...

and they were not a named defendant, then it's possible that the 9th may rule that they don't have standing to appeal and only the state of CA and the named parties do. That would be the end of it, I would surmise.

[Hepburn]

9. Protect Marriage.com is a named defendant intervenor in the suit...

...therefore, they have standing to appeal.

[Chan790]

10. I was not aware of that, but a question.

why were they named? (If you know, you seem to know more here about the details of this than any anybody else.)

Alternately, if the reason was to seek damages at some later point; why not file that suit separately? It does not seem like PM have any power or authority to enforce this law so naming them did nothing but give standing for appeal to a party that had no means to uphold the law if the state lost the lawsuit.

[Hepburn]

15. One can intervene in a lawsuit ~~ if the court allows for it.

Those who wish to intervene canfile a motion and if the court approves, the persons/entities become parties to the suit. Others can oppose the motion to intervene ~~ and like all motions, it's up to the court to decide.

Here is a link about ProtectMarriage.com getting into the suit and in that link, there is a link to the actual motion to intervene:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/Details/4620

It appears that the intervention by ProtectMarriage has nothing to do with damages, but rather to protect the status of Prop 8 as a party defendant to the action. Thus, if they lost in the trial court, have standing to file in the 9th Cir ~~ the appellate court for federal district courts in Calif.

No party has power to uphold -- if by that you mean enforce -- any law. Enforcement rights are held by the executive branch of government, local, state or federal. There are exception in statutes that provide for private attorney general actions, but the general rule is that the executive branch enforces the law.

[Chan790]

18. Power to uphold

yes, enforce. No, we understood each other perfectly. I was questioning why PM was named since they weren't part of the Exec. Branch and couldn't enforce the law.

I didn't know they hadn't been named in the initial filing. Thank you for clarifying this all. It makes more sense now.

[CanonRay]

19. Thanks for the answer to my original post

My wife and I were discussing the case and this question came up. Having no lawyers in the family, we weren't sure, so thanks.

[robdogbucky]

6. Many different viewpoints, even among the pols:

"...Backers of the marriage ban said they were confident they would prevail in the end, and predicted that Walker's decision would energize people who believe marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, just as the ban had mobilized gay rights proponents...

...Walker's decision comes amid other stabs at momentum. Last month, a federal judge in Massachusetts overturned part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that it is unconstitutional to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman...

...The issue is a tricky one for politicians, including President Obama, who has said he opposes same-sex marriage but also opposes Prop. 8. It could play a pivotal role in the November election, as candidates in the state's top races this year have widely different views.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown praised Wednesday's invalidation of Prop. 8, saying Walker "came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it (as state attorney general): Proposition 8 violates the equal-protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment of the United States."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/05/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&feed=rss.news



The story quotes Brown as against Prop.8 and his refusal to back it, as well as Rethuglican pols like Ahnold, Whitman, and even Reefer Madness Dem, B. Boxer coming out against it. Only high profile pub candidate Carly Fiorina publically supported Prop. 8.


As for whom might be the first party in the race to appeal the ruling, the head of an Arizona group, "Douglas Napier, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz," is one of those that fired off his salvos in response: He called the ruling, which was the result of a nonjury trial in January, a legal "bump in the road."

"Those that want to uphold traditional family values are going to be outraged," said Napier, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz. "The whole nation is watching, and the whole nation should be quaking to think that a single judge sitting in California can reverse the will of 7 million voters..."

Votes for referenda have been notoriously suspect Mr. Napier, especially when outside money is allowed to flow in.

My response to him would be, well then, if your position has so much merit, why weren't there any credible experts to testify on its behalf in the evidence phase of this proceeding? If you take the trouble to read the decision, their side was ludicrous and behaved as if they had some official or moral mandate to discriminate.

Or, what gives any religious organization in a nation where there is allegedly separation of church and state, like the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church, the right to interfere in another state's, indeed in another citizen's right to decicions in their own personal life? Like one Prop. 8 opponent said, "Now do we get to scrutinize and challenge every hetero marriage?"



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Hepburn]

7. The defendant intervenors....

...the group that supports Prop 8. They are named litigants in the matter. See named "defendant intevenors" at this link to the opinion of Judge Walker:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-the-prop8-decision-is-here.html

Edit for typo.

[stranger81]

12. No one from the state is appealing and no one is required to.

The intervenors (read: Utah Mormons) are the only party appealing.

[Hawkeye-X]

16. I hope their church goes fucking broke

and Protect Marriage has to find bankrupty protection from their own lawyers who will be demanding a $500,000 retainer EACH to continue the appeal.

[stranger81]

20. I second that motion. [n/t]