[Equality/Politics] Prop 8 Supporters May Not be Able to Appeal

[kobold]

Ooooooops!

Oh no! It means people may have to stop worrying about what OTHER consenting adults are doing behind closed doors.

Probably should have put up an actual defense instead of, "We can't prove it, but it'll hurt the children."

Comments

[xanath]

Well . . . I wonder if it's possible for this decision to spur similar actions in other states. It'd be easier if we could just get DOMA overturned, but the likelihood of that seems nil.

[arya]

^^ This.

[kishi]

I think that's really unfortunate, actually. No appeal means it's longer until a case like this reaches the Supreme Court.

[cuddlycthulhu]

I've also read that the proponents may not even file an appeal based off that judgment out of fear that they'll lose in the Supreme Court based off that judgment and how brutal it is. They'd rather lose Cal than the enter US.

[also_huey]

Probably should have put up an actual defense...

What would that 'actual defense' look like? I mean, "We hate the homofagorts" isn't really an actionable tort under current legal precedent, is it? Or is there some other defense that I'm missing?

[maga_culinae]

"Jesus said gays are evil and only a man and woman who are married to each other can make babies (please ignore my child born out of wedlock that's standing behind me but my decision is the only moral decision) and WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

[also_huey]

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think "God hates fags" is a cause of action any more than "I hate fags".

[sparklypelt]

I second that. Whatever happened to Jesus Loves Me? Oh, wait, I'm gay - that's right. Nevermind. *snork*

[shmuel]

I am not a lawyer, but on the face of it, Vikram Amar's argument toward the end of that article seems hard to avoid: if the defendants don't have the standing to appeal, they shouldn't have had the standing to bring the case at all... which would seem to throw the whole trial into question.

(I admit I can already feel the schadenfreude welling up at the prospect of this collapsing specifically because the judge got too cute and overplayed his hand. But again, not a lawyer.)

[xanath]

The judge allowed various homophobe organizations to defend the case essentially amicus curiae, as interested third parties. They were able to file briefs and present witnesses, but since they are not direct parties to the case they might not have the standing to appeal.

::grins::

See icon.

[lizetta]

Another amusing point on this is, according to my lawyer bf (so not my first hand knowledge), conservatives are the reason that standing has taken such a narrow definition. They fought for years to reduce the number of lawsuits, and now that may come back to bite them in the arse.

I admit they I'm of the opinion that this case is strong enough to win at the Supreme Court, but I know there will be others.