Prop. H8 Watch: What Today’s Ruling Will Mean

Prop 8 Tracker reports that the California Supreme Court will issue its opinion later today, November 17th at 11:00 AM MTS, regarding whether the proponents of ballot initiatives have authority to represent the state of California when the state’s public officials (governor and attorney general) decline to do so.

So what does that mean?

According to San Diego Gay & Lesbian News, “If California’s high court decides that ProtectMarriage, (the sponsor of Prop H8), has no legal standing, the appeals court most likely would dismiss the appeal and Judge Walker’s ruling that Prop 8 is  unconstitutional would stand. Gay and lesbian couples would then be able to marry again in California.

If the high court decides that ProtectMarriage has legal standing, the appeals court could go either direction in its decision. Regardless of the outcome, all legal scholars believe that the appeals court decision will be then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the losing party.”

Ann Rostow over at the Bay Times puts it this way,”The good news is that whatever the outcome, the ball now returns to the Ninth Circuit’s court, where the real action takes place. The bad news is that the question of standing under federal law could, in theory, consume a great deal more time. It could even go up to the U.S. Supreme Court and back down to the Ninth Circuit before we even reach the main issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional.”

Either way, it’s a pivotal moment in the fight for marriage equality in California.

What are our chances of the judges ruling in our favor? Most activists, pro-marriage equality legal scholars and bloggers aren’t holding their breaths. will have the decision as soon as it comes in.


2 Responses to Prop. H8 Watch: What Today’s Ruling Will Mean

  1. Pingback: Prop. H8 Watch: CA Supreme Court Sides with Proposition Supporters « The Idaho Agenda

  2. The more the Prop 8 proponents say about it, the bigger the grave they dig for it. I say let them Speak! There is a lot to be said for open debate and freedom of speech. Where would we have been without Harvey Milk’s open debate with Anita Bryant?

    I don’t believe it’s in our interests to seek to deny our opponents due process. For one thing, it’s not fair, and for another, we might want Due Process ourselves in the very near future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: