Propositiion 8..."Protect Marriage" files appeal to 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal!

As expected - at least one party in the tustle over Prop 8 and the gay-marriage ban in California - would end up lodging an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the the heels of the ruling handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker.

In view of a court's finding yesterday - in a controversial 138-page ruling that essentially found that Prop 8 was unconstitutional - supporters of the Prop 8 ballot initiative (backed by California voters) found themeselves hot-footing it down to the Federal Courthouse overnight to protect their vested interest in opposite-sex marriage and family values.

Background

Post: 08/05/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposition-8judge-overurns-ban-on-gay.html

In a nutshell, opponents to gay-marriage must now convince a higher court that District Court Judge Vaughn Walker erred as a matter of law when he  ruled that Proposition 8 violated Federal Equal Protection and Due Process Laws.

In spite of the fact the 9th Circuit court has no specified deadlines to be mindful of in respect to a review of the issues ripe for appeal, the supporters of Prop 8 and oppositie-sex marriages proceeded to file their deliberate "Notice of Appeal" with the court (based in the San Francisco Bay area) post haste.

The appeal will be randomly assigned to a three-judge panel with little brouhaha.

In accordance with Appellate Court Rules of Procedure, each party in the action will be required to lodge a brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - at which point - a date will be set by the Court clerk for an oral hearing so that the issues may be clarified further to the satisfaction of the Justices presiding over the proceedings.

A disgruntled party - unhappy with the 9th Circuit Court ruling thereafter - will be entitled to launch  an appeal with the highest court in the land after that which is the  U.S. Supreme Court in Washington (D.C.).

However, the 9 sitting Justices are not required to "hear' the appeal.

A petition for a hearing on the issues may be denied by the court without explanation - at which point - the lower court ruling becomes binding (law).

The Prop 8 supporters are going to give it their best shot, though.

"This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, the Prresident of the National Organization for Marriage, which helped fund the 2008 campaign that led to the gay marriage ban.

Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

The appeal to the 9th Circuit filed on the heels of Walker's landmark ruling, was lodged by Protect Marriage, which is a coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown wisely chose to watch from the sidelines and remain out of the fray.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Proposition 8...Judge overturns ban on gay marriage! Well-thought out legal argument...

In a landmark ruling on the issue of same-sex marriage, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 yesterday, on the grounds that the California ballot initiative was essentially unconstitutional in nature.

In his 136-page ruling, which sent shock waves around the country - and in the sacred environs of the legal system far-and-wide - Walker argued that the State had no legitimate interest in treating gay and lesbian couples differently than their heterosexual counterparts.

Standing alone, "Moral disapproval' -  he wrote in his well-thought-out opinion - was not sufficient cause to uphold Proposition 8.

Previous court decisions have established that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale in support, Walker asserted in so many words.

Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he found.

Unlike like other court rulings on the issue of gay marriage that have relied on State Constitutions, Walker's ruling is the first to fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.

Hence, the much-anticipated ruling is expected to worm its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the interim, Judge Walker stayed his ruling until at least Friday - at which point other pressing legal issues ("unfinished business") - might be addressed in respect to the gay marriage ban.

18,000 California couples were married when same-sex unions were legally allowed prior to the ban imposed by Proposition 8 and a voter majority in 2008.

The court may be inclined to make a determination at this time if California same-sex marriages may  commence once again now that Proposition 8 has been overturned or remain on hold pending potential appeals.

Judge Walker held extensive hearings - in January of this year - to determine if there was any reasonable basis for excluding gays and lesbians from tying the knot in an official capacity at City Hall alongside their heterosexual neighbours.

During the course of the proceedings, witnesses - who would have preferred to have remained anonymous to avoid retaliation from members of the community-at-large - tearfully asserted that the notion that children of opposite-sex couples fared better - mind, body, and soul - (according to opponents of same-sex marriage)  were unsubstantiated, unfounded, and simply not true.

That argument appeared to resonate with the court, since Walker found that testimony by Proposition 8 supporters, failed to support that theory.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

Andy Pugo, an attorney in support of Prop 8, lamented Walker's findings and noted to all within earshot that the Federal District Court decision amounted to "an invalidation of the votes of 7 million Californians", "violated binding legal precedent", and "short-circuited the democratic process".

Pugo also hissed that it was "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill will and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8."

Hogwash!

When common folks went  to the polls to vote on Prop 8, they were not keen to the legal issues that Pugo - a trained lawyer - argued came back to haunt them unjustly.

I expect their votes were passionate ones, triggered by their upbringing, religious beliefs, ignorance, and so-forth-and-so-on.

Some no doubt relied on a biblical passage that cautioned that homosexuality was an abomination in the eyes of God.

But, what evidence is there that those were - indeed - the words of the God?

Others joked - "God created "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve" - when they took the position that marriage was reserved exclusively for heterosexuals on the grounds of pro-creation.

How many straight couples are "shacked up" around the State right now without any intention of having children?

And, how many individuals are in constant pursuit of sex, without the thought of marriage or bearing children in mind?

Andy Pugno, nonetheless, has taken the position that the Walker ruling will be overturned on appeal.

In retrospect, it appears that Walker - a male of gay persuasion - handled the legal proceedings wisely.

The lengthy, thorough trial proceedings - for instance - may prove to have been prudent under the circumstances.

Legal experts have underscored in the wake of the ruling - that higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial - although they still could determine that he was wrong on his interpretation of  the law.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples, and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Nonetheless, there was an outcry in some quarters.

Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, the Executive Director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he protested.

"To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he whined.

Since Walker's ruling based on established law is sound, that leaves the issue of morality.

Only God can pass judgment on that!

Amen!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Proposition 8...Justices' lunatic notions signal inability to reason legally or logically!

At a much-anticipated hearing on March 5th - where attorneys on both sides of the Proposition 8 issue presented oral arguments - Justices at the California Supreme Court appeared to signal their decision on the matter (according to a reactionary press and legal pundits) by virtue of thoughts bandied about aloud in the courtroom yesterday.

In my mind's eye, if what news agencies are predicting is true, then clearly the Justices have lost their faculty to reason logically or intelligently address legal issues.

For example, the Los Angeles times conjectured:

"The California Supreme Court strongly indicated it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married."

If true, aren't the Justices aware of the sticky grey area they're about to venture into?

The idea on its face is so patently absurd that I personally question the sanity of these bench warmers from the get-go.

If the court upholds Prop 8 - and likewise - sanctions a handful of gay marriages as legal and binding because the individuals were betrothed before Prop 8 won at the polls - then they will find themselves in a worse dilemma.

Isn't it obvious?

A handful of "gays" will enjoy the right of a gay marriage - a union that will be recognized as legal and legitimate by the highest court in California - while a larger percentage of the gay population in the State will be barred from wedded bliss simply because they did the "right thing" and waited for all the legal challenges to be addressed.

In retrospect, two things are obvious from the get-go.

The gays who respectfully honored the legal process are going to be penalized for not dashing in and taking advantage of a tenuous situation when the opportunity was ripe.

In the wake of such a ruling, the equality issue complained of in respect to heterosexuals right to marry, will surely bust out with all its ugly ramifications in the gay community and possible split it apart.

I conjecture, bottom line, that if the court is inclined to rule as aforementioned, then an obvious legal issue will arise.

To sanction gay marriage among a handful of homosexuals, but bar the right to the majority, amounts to granting a special privilege to a select group in violation of the California Constitution.

In essence, there would be a glaring conflict in such a proposed ruling!

Notwithstanding, legal experts - and the press - may have jumped the gun!

I have been involved in oral arguments on an appeal matters where the Justices raised questions in open court that I thought signalled a ruling adverse to my legal position.

Imagine how jubilant I was when I received a copy of the order in the mail and discovered the Justices actually found in my favor.

You see, at oral arguments, Justices may pose questions to simply clarify the finer points of the law - or in the alternative - seek to resolve questions that may have been raised which weren't fully expounded upon in the brief.

In essence, on occasion, the Jurists are playing devil's advocate.

In the final analysis, we'll all just have to wait until the fat lady sings!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Mayor Villaraigosa...presides over recommitment ceremony for gay couples! Prop 8 ruling on horizon...

On the eve before the California Supreme Court was slated to hear oral arguments on the issue of the gay-marriage ban imposed by virtue of Proposition 8, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa chose to take a stand on the issue publicly.

The Mayor, embarking on his new term of office after yesterday's win at the election polls, elected to preside over the "recommitment ceremonies" of a handful of gay couples who tied the knot during the five-month period when same-sex marriages were legal in California's Golden State.

Kudos to Mr. Villaraigosa for having the gumption to step forward and take a position on the controversial issue.

The people of this great nation need more politicians in office who are willing to take decisive action, instead of playing it safe by sitting on the fence and talking out of both sides of their mouths to land votes.

Martin Luther King Jr. said it best:

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

http://www.julianayrs.com

Richard Raddon...quote of the day!

For the past two weeks - since news broke that Richard Raddon contributed $1500.00 in favor of the Proposition 8 initiative - there has been a flurry of activity at my blog site at Wordpress where I posted an article on despicable behaviour I encountered at the hands of Raddon a few months ago.

Post link:

http://julian1st.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/los-angeles-film-festivalrichard-raddon-improper-behaviour-la-times-conflict-of-interest-blogger-disdain-pass-on-it/

When Mr. Raddon resigned his post - in spite of the fact a handful of Board Members at the Los Angeles Film Festival encouraged him to remain on as Director (Don Cheadle, included) - the subject heated up with accusations flying back and forth between the Mormons, the gays, and the Blacks!

Did I forget anyone?

At my blogsite at wordpress, a number of pro-active anti-Proposition 8 folks have been posting comments non-stop.

I've been publishing them as part of the "healing" process.

Today, I laughed when one fellow attempted to post a comment (anonymously, of course!) in which he made the sweeping comment that everyone who posted on the issue - or visited the site to peruse the article - was a bigot!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Andre Gide once said:

"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."

Equality...quote!

I treat everyone as my equal until they open their mouth and prove otherwise...

Julian Ayrs

The Daily Planet

Collection of Poems