Comments on: Schwarzenegger and Brown oppose stay on Perry decision

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:31:52 +0000

Timothy– I know he said he was against it, but that is as far as he went, if I recall.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:50:28 +0000

“It is not yet clear whether the intervenor-defendants have any standing in appeal or in a request for stay.”

I was wondering about that myself. But since they had standing to be defendants, I would tend to think they would have standing on appeal.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:07:54 +0000

Ben Mathis,

Judge Walker gave a temporary stay until he has had the opportunity to decide whether there is good reason to put a stay on the decision until it faces appeal.

During this case, the official defendants (Schwarzenegger, Brown, and other local officials) all refused to defend Proposition 8. So intervener-defendants were allowed to defend the amendment.

It is not yet clear whether the intervenor-defendants have any standing in appeal or in a request for stay. I guess we’ll find out in the next week.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:00:07 +0000

TampaZeke,

Oconno is correct. Actually this was addressed in In Re Marriage cases and the CA Supremes clarified that the legislature had no right to reverse Prop 22 on their own.

Schwarzenegger could have “made a statement” and signed the illegal laws, but they would not have gotten a single gay couple married one day sooner than they were otherwise.

Ben,

Ahnold did announce opposition to Prop 8. The ONLY people to even try and use his opposition were Log Cabin. The ever-so-fabulous No on 8 campaign ignored him.

By: Ben Mathis

Ben Mathis — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 05:05:08 +0000

I don’t understand where the stay came from if Brown is the official representative and he’s on board with no stay. Can someone clear it up?

By: cd

cd — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:39:53 +0000

@Tampazeke: He HAD to veto the Marriage Bills. Prop 22. doesn’t allow for the legislature to override it, the Supreme Court of California stated as much.

It was also a way of avoiding an anti-marriage referendum sooner, when it was quite clear that one was going to pass with a larger margin than Prop 8 did in late 2008. I pointed that out at the time.

The decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger comes within a few weeks or months of when California probably has, on 1% trend per year, broken 50.0% voter support for gay marriage legalization. A curious coincidence, but a good one.

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:23:10 +0000

Ryan, where has it been suggested that Walker is even considering “not even allowing an appeal”? First, he doesn’t have the power to stop an appeal and he wouldn’t try to even if he could.

Lifting the stay on his order is not the same thing as disallowing an appeal. In fact it wouldn’t affect the appeal in any measurable way.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:02:38 +0000

Arnbold had plenty of chance to oppose prop. 8, to work against its passage, and he didn’t lift even a finger, let alone his muscled arm.

I’m glad he’s on board now, but a little too little a little too late.

By: Craig Wagner

Craig Wagner — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:02:28 +0000

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 05:59:25 +0000

I think I’d prefer the stay remain in place. If Walker lifts it, the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS will almost certainly step in and overrule him, anyway. And maybe if Kennedy is truly on the fence about this, Walker not even allowing an appeal might sufficiently push him to the other side.