6 responses

  1. Lindoro Almaviva
    February 7, 2012

    Like I said in my comment on NOM Fleeces Its Followers with Falsehoods (again), this case while decided narowly has set some precenedts that are hard to ignore and this might be one of them.

  2. Steve
    February 7, 2012

    This could also have some effect on the upcoming referendum in Washington, which is actually located in the 9th Circuit

  3. B John
    February 7, 2012

    Steve, this could have an impact in Washington. If people believe the Ninth Circuit has OK’ed gay marriage writ large, some could assume they no longer need to keep up the pressure on lawmakers to pass marriage equality.

    This does not grant gay marriage rights to anyone who hasn’t previously had the right. Lot’s of gay supportive people don’t get worked up over ENDA because they believe it is already illegal to discriminate against gay people in hiring and employment. We can’t let that happen with this ruling. We have to make it clear this applies mainly to California.

  4. Vicki
    February 9, 2012

    B John,

    Marriage equality is on its way to the governor’s desk for signature in Washington state. A referendum, if any, would be specifically an attempt to take away rights that had already been recognized: a close parallel to California.

  5. Michael Ejercito
    February 11, 2012

    This does give the Supreme Court a way to duck the big issue, granting cert to focus specifically on whether Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620 (1996) was focused on the “retrospective application to existing ordinances”, or the “prospective effect” Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning , 368 F.Supp.2d 980 at 1003 (D. Neb. 2005) rev’d on other grounds , 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)* This is important because if Romer was judging the “prospective effect”, then its decision was based on “the state of the law”, not the “change in the law”. This means a reversal on this basis means the case simply goes back to the Ninth Circuit for a decision on whether, regardless of whether or not California recognized same-sex marriage in the past, it must do so if it recognizes traditional marriage.

    * On reversal, the Eighth Circuit did not decide whether Romer was concerned with the prospective effect of the law.

  6. Michael Ejercito
    February 11, 2012

    Marriage equality is on its way to the governor’s desk for signature in Washington state. A referendum, if any, would be specifically an attempt to take away rights that had already been recognized: a close parallel to California.

    I would agree. The mere fact that the right was not being enforced does not mean it did not exist.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop