|
|
|
Uploaded: Friday, November 30, 2012, 3:26 PM
Updated: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 7:31 AM
Supreme Court will not announce Prop 8 action until Monday or later
|
The U.S. Supreme Court will not announce until at least Monday and possibly later whether it will review the case of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage.
The Proposition 8 case and several related cases concerning the federal Defense of Marriage Act were not on a list released by the court this afternoon showing two other appeals for which the court granted review.
A representative of the court's press office said the court will not release any further orders indicating grants or denials of review until Monday at 6:30 a.m. PST.
Monday's order list could show whether the court has decided to hear an appeal by sponsors of Proposition 8 of a lower court ruling that found the voter initiative unconstitutional.
The court also has the option of delaying consideration of whether to take up the appeal until a later date.
If the panel agrees to review the case, it would hear arguments sometime this spring and issue a written ruling by the end of June.
Proposition 8 has been left in effect during the appeals process.
If the high court denies review, the final ruling in the case will be a decision earlier this year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturning the ban.
Gay and lesbian marriages could then resume in California as soon as the circuit court issues its mandate in the case. Lawyers for two couples who challenged Proposition 8 have estimated that the mandate could be issued within two or three days.
In the event that the Supreme Court denies review, San Francisco and Los Angeles County have asked the 9th Circuit to provide 24 hours notice before issuing the mandate so county clerks can prepare for an expected influx of requests for marriage licenses.
If the 9th Circuit ruling becomes the final decision in the case, it would apply only to California.
That court said by a 2-1 vote in February that because same-sex marriage was legal in California for several months in 2008, it would be unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of an existing right.
The sponsors of Proposition 8 and their committee, Protect Marriage, have argued in their appeal that California voters were entitled to choose a traditional definition of marriage.
An announcement of the Supreme Court's plans was expected today or Monday because the justices had placed the marriage cases on the agenda of their private conference today, but the court has no deadline for acting on the case or for making an announcement of its action.
--Julia Cheever, Bay City News — Bay City News Service Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 1, 2012 at 10:41 am "The sponsors of Proposition 8 and their committee, Protect Marriage, have argued in their appeal that California voters were entitled to choose a traditional definition of marriage."
I disagree, this is an issue for the courts to decide. Prop 8 passed with only about 53 percent of the vote (even parcel taxes have failed to pass with more support than that) :
Web Link
So really, we have almost half of voters in California against prop 8 (myself included).
Loving v Virginia decided that interracial couples had the right to marry, we did not let voters decide, it was the courts.
This prop 8 issue is no different, courts should decide, and hopefully they will say that prop 8 is unconstitutional and allow same sex marriages to resume in CA.
|
|
Posted by Carl , a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Dec 1, 2012 at 11:37 am So, Resident, you seem very informed on this matter. Do you think the court's decision on interracial marriage was a good thing, or no? I've never been able to make up my mind on this one. Help!
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm I don't see how inter-racial marriage has had a negative impact on my life or on the lives of my family and friends.
If people with a different racial/ethnic heritage want to marry one another, far be it from me to say no.
If you're in the USA and you can't appreciate the rights of individuals to choose a partner, then perhaps you should consider going back to where your ancestors came from. You might be happier.
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 1, 2012 at 7:19 pm I believe that all Americans have a right to choose who they want to marry.
As I see it, different strokes for different folks. I don't care who somebody else chooses to marry. It's none of my business.
Happy Trails whoever you marry.
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 1, 2012 at 11:14 pm "So, Resident, you seem very informed on this matter. Do you think the court's decision on interracial marriage was a good thing, or no? I've never been able to make up my mind on this one. Help! "
I assume you are being sarcastic. Of course the decision on interracial marriage was a good one! And the courts should now give those same rights to same sex couples. I do not understand those who claim that same sex marriages hurt traditional marriages, how? All same sex couples are asking is to have the same rights as other couples. I hope the courts soon decide to make same sex marriage legal.
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm hmmmmmmmmm...what is really troubling Carl? I'm getting curiouser and curiousier...tee hee hee...
what exactly is it that Carl doesn't understand...hmmmmmmmmmmm?
|
|
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Dec 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm Negredation and degaynation of our Nation seems par for the course these days. Look who we've got as president. Just keep on tearing apart the constitution folks, just keep on tearing it up.
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 3, 2012 at 11:27 am Hi Carl(a)...when and where do you plan to hold the next KKK meeting?
Keep us all posted...tee hee hee...
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Dec 3, 2012 at 11:31 am Carl(a) is a California KLUCK(OR)!
BUSTED!
|
|
Posted by Cholo, a resident of San Ramon, on Dec 3, 2012 at 11:34 am B-O, B-O - Web Link
enjoy...CARLA!
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
