European Union Forces Recognition Of Same-Sex Relationships By All Member States

There is good news from Europe today on the relationship recognition front, via Joe.My.God.

Pink Paper reports:

The European Parliament has declared that civil documents – birth and death certificates, marriage certificates, etc. – must be recognised the same in every European Union nation.

That means countries that don't allow same-sex marriage or civil unions are expected to recognise such unions from countries that do.

On 23 November, the Parliament said it "strongly supports plans to enable the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents" and "stresses the need to ensure mutual recognition" of them.

The next step is for the European Commission to propose ways to achieve mutual recognition of all partnerships and marriages throughout the EU.

"This is a great development for the many couples and families who see their fundamental rights diminished every day when crossing a border inside the EU," said Ulrike Lunacek, co-president of the European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights.

Co-President Michael Cashman said the statement adopted by the Parliament "follows the Commission's assertion in September that freedom of movement must be guaranteed for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation."

"Claims that mutual recognition will undermine national sovereignty are plain wrong; it won't affect national marriage or partnership laws, but simply recognize civil unions that already exist," Cashman said.

Member nations of the European Union are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Currently seeking to join the EU are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Elsewhere, it is legal in Argentina, Canada, South Africa, Mexico City, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Interestingly, in most of the countries which have civil partnerships (which are basically like the civil unions and comprehensive domestic partnerships in the United States) they are restricted to be accessed by same-sex couples only.

Prop. 8 Federal Appellate Oral Arguments On TV Dec. 6!

On Monday December 6th at 10am, A 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, also known as the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit. On August 4th, openly gay federal District Court judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the United States Constitution.

These facts have been known for awhile. The new information is that apparently the oral arguments in the Perry appeal will now be televised by C-SPAN and local channel KGO. This is a big deal, because the lower court was intended to be broadcast as well but the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 objected and appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court who overruled Judge Walker and banned the broadcasting of the oral arguments just days before the trial was scheduled to begin this past January.

Here are the details of the hearing on Monday, which will be in two 2-hour segments. The first session will be on whether the Proposition 8 propnents have "standing" to actually continue defending the statue, since the official parties to the lawsuit (the Governor and Attorney General) have refused to defend the voter-passed initiative in court. The second hour will be about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 itself.

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

The names of the judges who will hear the appeal have not been released yet. Whoever loses at this level will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, who may or may not accept the case.

Why I'm Not Getting Married Until Gay Marriage is Legalized

Let me forward this by pointing out that the reason is not just the possibility of me marrying a woman.  I'm actually undecided in my personal sexuality, so there's a perfectly good chance of me falling in love with a young man who I could, quite legally, in any state of my choosing, enter into nuptials with.  There's also the chance, which I have known for quite a while, that the person I fall in love with will not believe in the institution of marriage, (though I do,) as let's face it, I hang out with hippies.  And the whole point might actually be moot, because I have no intention of getting married until I'm well into my 20s and I really really hope that by that time, gay marriage will be legal anyway.  But if it isn't, and I do end up in a serious relationship with a man, and he does believe in the institution of marriage, I'm still not going to marry him until gay marriage is legalized nationally.

I haven't actually mentioned this to many people yet, thus I wanted to blog about it publicly.  Honestly, the reasoning is pretty simple in my mind.  As stated, I hang out with hippies, I'm really really obviously left-leaning, and I have been raised to believe in equality in all its forms.  Actually, when I was very little, I didn't even get that there was something unusual about two men being together - my gay uncle gave my sister and I a children's picture book called "My Two Uncles," and I liked the book, but the fact is, I didn't need the book to inform me of how okay it was that he was romantically involved with another man... it was just kind of fact to me for as long as I can remember.  If anything, I have taken that ethos far further than I think my parents expected me to, and am currently planning on going into a career as a lawyer to put my ideals into action.  And another way of doing that, i.e. putting my ideals into action, for me is to refuse to get married to a man until gay marriage is legalized.  As long as the situation in the United States is such that, if I were to want to marry a woman, I would not be allowed to, there is absolutely no reason why I should be able to marry a man either.  In short, if you're forbidding their gay marriage, my straight marriage should be forbidden too.  Incidentally, according to my friend Christine (she and my sister are the only people I've mentioned it to since deciding, since it came up in conversation,) this tactic was followed on the TV show Queer as Folk, which is hardly surprising, and reminds me that I should watch it.

So, anyway, just wanted to say that, and figured this would be a good platform to.  Thoughts?  Am I insane?  Do you approve?  Do we have better things to talk about?  Well, yes to the last one, but...

ACLU & GLAD File Lawsuits Against DOMA

Suzanne & Geraldine Ardis are married and
raising three boys in Clinton, CT.

Interesting news on the civil rights front. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) arefiling lawsuits today challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of same-sex married couples from New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and New York.

The New York Times reports in ("Gay Couples To Sue U.S. Over Marriage Law"):

The two new lawsuits, which involve plaintiffs from New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, expand the attack geographically and also encompass more of the 1,138 federal laws and regulations that the Defense of Marriage Act potentially affects — including the insurance costs amounting to several hundred dollars a month in the case of Ms. Pedersen and Ms. Meitzen, and a $350,0000 estate tax payment in the A.C.L.U. case.

The civil liberties union filed suit on behalf of Edith S. Windsor, whose spouse, Thea C. Spyer, died last year of aortic stenosis. The two women, New Yorkers who had been together for 44 years, married in Toronto in 2007. New York officially recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Had the two been man and wife, there would have been no federal estate tax to pay.

“It’s just so unfair,” said Ms. Windsor, who is 81.

Taken together, said Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the cases show same-sex couples “are falling through the safety net other people count on.”

Traditionally, Ms. Bonauto noted, the federal government has left the definition of marriage to the states. “The federal government has respected those determinations, except in the instance of gay and lesbian couples marrying,” she said. The result, she said, is a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

GLAD does not play around. Many people (including yours truly) expect them to win their other lawsuit challenging DOMA, Gill v. OPM,  which is currently before the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals with GLAD having already won at the district court level. That lawsuit was on behalf of same-sex couples who have been married in Massachusetts for at least 5 years.

Do you think DOMA will still be federal law five years from now? 

Lecture Notes: Gender & Marriage (Baehr v. Lewin)

Here are some of my lecture notes for today's class summarizing some of the ideas and questions that are in play in the discussion of Gender & Marriage: Baehr v. Lewin. Many of these ideas are taken or adapted from William Eskridge's The Case For Same-Sex Marriage.

We shall be discussing the construction of gender and sex today, in the context of marriage law.  The cases we will be dealing with are Baehr v. Lewin, Singer v. Hara, Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safely, and, of course, Loving v. Virginia. We shall be analogizing the scientific and social construction of sex and gender with the irrational and sometimes confusing construction of race. However, by looking at the differences in the way that the law has treated interracial marriage from the way it has treated homosexual marriage we will expose and analyze scripts based on these two reified characteristics: race and gender.

For example, just as we ask ourselves "What is the purpose behind anti-miscegenation law?" we should also ask ourselves "What is the purpose behind the ban on same-sex marriage?" Happily, we have the texts of numerous legal decisions in both areas which give us a number of opportunities to analyze the scripts of race and gender.

Today we will be discussing how the motives and beliefs behind gender discrimination are concomitant with the motives and beliefs which lead to sexual orientation discrimination. Similar to the way in which we discussed how ideologies of race were played out in the area of miscegenation law one of the useful ways to consider "cultural ideologies associated with sex" (which we call gender) is also through the examination of marriage.

First let's consider the difference between gender and sex. Sex is what we call the characteristic which differentiates between 'male' and 'female.' Gender is what we call the cultural and societal associations aligned with sex. How do different characteristics get assigned to (biological) sex as opposed to (cultural) gender? In other words, what are the biological features of sex which "matter"?

If we have established that there is a "gender line" which separates masculine from feminine similar to the "color line" which separated White from non-White how is this demarcation regulated? What forces determine that this line is not crossed?
What sanctions occur if the boundaries of appropriate gender expression are breached? How are these different for the sanctions for crossing the "color line"?

In particular we are trying to see if we can identify similarities (and differences) between how race and gender are constructed by marriage and law. In the case of race, marriage is used as a regulatory device of the "purity" of the race; it maintains the dividing line between White and Other. In this case the dividing characteristic, race, is a cultural construct, irrationally derived from alleged biological differences which, when examined, are hard to justify. In the case of gender, how is marriage used as a regulatory device of the difference between the hegemonic and subaltern halves of the gender binary? What  are the (historical) rationales behind maintenance of the color line and (the current and future) reasons for the maintenance of the gender line?

We have already established that governmental classifications based on gender need to reach an "exceedingly persuasive" standard of heightened scrutiny in order to survive. A number of sex discriminatory laws by the State have been invalidated since the 1970s. Prior to 1970, laws which classified by sex or gender were routinely upheld. Currently, there are a number of ways in which the Government maintains classifications based on sexual orientation and discriminates against the class of lesbians and gay men. Classifications based on sexual orientation are not "suspect classifications," but merely receive rational basis scrutiny by Courts. 

Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between sex and sexual orientation classifications. In fact, some people would argue that these two ideas are inextricably linked. Professors Andrew Koppelman and Sylvia Law have been in the vanguard of recognizing the intersection of sexuality and gender discrimination. This interesting theoretical notion has gained currency recently through the Hawaii State Supreme Court's ruling in Baehr v. Lewin that the state marriage law preventing same-sex couples to be issued marriage licenses violates the Hawaii state constitutional ban on sex discrimination. Even though the classification is based on sex, the class that is discriminated against is lesbians and gay men.

In the Hawaii marriage case one of the main arguments is that the nature of the current Hawaii marriage law is not a sex classification, but a sexual orientation classification. What difference does it make? What does this say about the way that law functions that this point is one of the main areas of contention? 


Below are summaries of the cases involved

Loving v. Virginia (1967) 

The United States Supreme Court invalidated Virginia's prohibition of different-race marriage as a violation of both the equal protection and due process clauses. The decision explicitly overruled Pace v. Alabama (1883 case in which the Court upheld a statute which criminalized interracial adultery more harshly than homoracial adultery). In defense of its anti-miscegenation law, Virginia cited the disapproval of different-race marriage by religious and moral traditions. The Court rejected this argument and characterized the statute as a "repugnant" attempt to "maintain White Supremacy." This decision initiated the "right to marry" line of cases (followed up in Zablocki and Turner)..

Baehr v Lewin (1993) 

The Hawaii State Supreme Court held that the state's denial of marrriage rights to same-sex couples is sex discrimination under the state constitution's equal rights amendment and remanded the case for trial to determine whether the discrimination could be justified by a compelling state interest. In December 1996, a Hawaii Trial Court found in Baehr v. Miike that the state's interest in supporting the upbringing of children in particular kinds of households uncompelling and ruled that Hawaii must begin issuing marriage licenses regardless of gender. The judge then granted a stay on his decision until the Hawaii Supreme Court could rule on the state's appeal. Before the Hawaii Supreme Court could rule the voters of Hawaii amended their constitution to empower their legislature to restrict marriage to mixed-sex couples, thus voiding the Baehr lawsuit.

Singer v. Hara (1974) 

The Washington State Court of Appeals upheld against both state and federal constitutional attack Washington's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The court both denied that the marriage law involved a sex classification and used a definitional argument to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. This was the first reported case to reject an argument that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is sex discrimination in violation of the state constitution's equal rights amendment.

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 

The Court invalidated Wisconsin's bar to remarriage when one partner has unpaid support obligations from a previous marriage. Emphasizing the state's interference with Loving's right to marry, the Court held that the law violated the equal protection clause by discriminating in the allocation of this fundamental right.

Turner v. Safely (1987) 

The Court invalidated Missouri's almost complete bar to marriage by prison inmates. Although the Court deferred to state rules regulating prisoners, it held that denial of the right to marry requires more rigorous justification because the unitive and legal features of marriage are so fundamental in our polity. 

    Here are some discussion questions to consider

1. How is marriage essentialized (i.e. what features of marriage are said to be essential to it in order for it to be called a marriage) in order to maintain the ban on interracial marriage? How is marriage essentialized to maintain the ban on same-sex marriage?
2. What characteristics does the United States Supreme Court ascribe to marriage in Zablocki and Turner? What impact does the USSC's characterization of marriage have on the question of same-sex marriage?
3. Contrast the language judges use in upholding bans on same-sex marriage to the language used in upholding bans on interracial marriage. Are there similarities? differences?
4. How are constructions of race and gender (through law and marriage) both similar and different?
5. When the USSC holds that the ban on interracial marriage is really a measure to "maintain White Supremacy" what "ideology of race" (Pascoe) are they adopting?
6. What ideology of gender does the current ban on same-sex marriage enforce or promote?
7. Try to form an analogy between Haney Lopez' arguments about Whiteness and a corresponding argument about Maleness. Can you do so? In what contexts does the analogy 'work'? In which contexts does it not work?
8. In what ways does The Law deal with gender differences differently than it deals with racial differences? Think of some explanations for the differences. Identify some similarities.

If Prop 19 Passes...

All right, so this is what I think about the following things:

• The legalization of marijuana
• Why I'm upset about this whole thing
• What I will feel like if Proposition 19 passes

First, I'd like to address that I believe that Proposition 19 should pass. Honestly, if people want to do something, they're going to do it whether or not it's illegal. I know that for fact. There are also the people who are only doing it because it's illegal. Believe me, I think it's stupid to do something for that reason, but I know people who do things for "the thrill of the chase." But that's besides the point. To legalize marijuana would not be the end of the world. California would tax it to no end, and the economy would start moving again, which is something that we in California very sorely need. As per usual, while looking this up, Wikipedia had the information about Prop 19 that I was looking for. It basically explains what would happen if the proposition were legal. Okay, that's how I feel about this piece. Let's move on to point two.

The whole reason that I'm upset about Proposition 19 passing is because I would much rather see same-sex marriage legal than the legalization of marijuana. People got so excited in college (and elsewhere, but I heard about it tons more here) about this proposition passing in a way that I never saw about Proposition 8 getting overturned. If (as we're reading), marriage is a fundamental right, why can't everyone marry? This is the question that many Americans are ignoring in favor of things like this:

• "Yes we cannabis" (one of the many signs I saw in my dorm room with a picture of Obama smoking what looks suspiciously like a joint)
• Well, they'll be able to get married eventually. Why not make a difference about this?

I don't understand how marijuana could ever take priority over something that's supposed to be a basic and fundamental human right.

If Proposition 19 passes in the wake of Proposition 8 passing and "preserving traditional marriage," I will be so disappointed. Not in the fact that the proposition passed, and not because people voted against marriage equality, but because more people voted for the legalization of marijuana than they did for the legalization of marriage to two people in love, regardless of sex or gender.

Anyway, that's my two cents on the issue. If Prop 19 fails, then I suppose that this whole blog post is in vain, but whatever. I felt the need to explain this situation to people who might understand where I'm coming from.

Analyze This: NOM's Ad In Minnesota Against Marriage Equality

The above ad will be more on point when we get to the third Section of the class which deals with marriage equality, Gender & Sexuality, Marriage & Law, but I couldn't resist adding it hear as an example of how the people who are opposed to LGBT equality frame their arguments in order to appeal to the most number of people.

Note that the ad begins with images and sounds of Martin Luther King, Jr., our country's most respected civil rights leader talking about the right to vote. The right to vote to eliminate the civil right of another minority (i.e. the majority should get to vote to decide what rights the minority gets to exercise, for example whether that minority has the right to marry someone of the same sex) is what the argument is.

In addition, harkening back to our current study of LGBT rights in the 1970s and Anita Bryant's Save Our Children campaign, there is the argument that allowing gay marriage will have "consequences," one of which will be that boys will be taught that they can grow up and marry boys. (The horrors!) But, of course, regardless of whether Minnesota enacts marriage equality, that will always be the case somewhere in the world since marriage equality is an established fact in multiple areas around the country and the world. Other consequences are examples of "movement backlash," in which allowing marriage equality will place people who oppose it to be victims of frivolous lawsuits by activists who will sue them for  expressing viewpoints opposing gay marriage.

Who wouldn't want to vote to give THEMSELVES more power? Shouldn't you have the right to decide how other people live their lives? That's one of the implicit messages of NOM's ad.

Discuss.

And Another..

As of, oh TODAY, same sex marriage is now legal in Conneticut.. YAY. All preexisting civil unions will automatically be changed to marriages, which is great for the LGBTQ community there, but I wonder about the straight opponents to ending civil unions. I'm not talking about bigots who don't like the idea of two boys kissing, no one particularly cares about them. The people I'm wondering about are the straight couples who have civil unions, for any of the many reasons they do (to preserve their inheritance, to oppose the institution of marriage, etc.) and what will now happen to them. Will they be able to change their marriage back? Will they loose the benefits of the civil union? (I'm thinking most now about older people who have ex-spouses inheritance because they have not remarried. What will they do in their old age?)
This bears some looking into but, for now, one more state with equal marriage! yay!
(Also, sexting is now illegal)

EQCA Tries To "Shame" Whitman and Cooley For Prop 8 Support

In light of statements by Republican candidates Steve Cooley and Meg Whitman that they would defend any court ruling in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, Equality Califorina is launching the following television ads.

Whitman's gubernatorial opponent, Jerry Brown, is the current Attorney General and has refused to defend Proposition 8, as has current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris is running against Cooley for Attorney general and has said she would not defend Proposition 8 in court because she feel it is unconstitutional.






The ads are set to begin airing on Monday, September 27, and will run on the CNN, FOX and MSNBC affiliates in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego and Palm Springs metropolitan areas.

Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures.

National Poll Shows Majority Support For Marriage Equality

A new nationwide poll from Associated Press of 1000+ individuals (pdf) is yet another poll to confirm Maggie Gallagher's worst nightmare: "A majority of Americans support marriage equality."

The headline is that in response to the question "Should the Federal Government give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, or not?" 52 percent say yes, 46 percent say no.

This is now the second poll in as many months which indicate majority support for marriage equality. Last month, the CNN poll similarly showed majority support for marriage equality (again 52 percent yes, 42 percent no) when the question was "Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?"

It should also be noted that as recently as May 2010, Gallup showed that there was majority opposition to marriage equality nationwide (44% yes 53% no) in response to the question "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures

Who's a family?

Who's a family? Some say pets in, same-sex couples out

"in 2006, when asked if gay couples and pets count as family, 30 percent[of poll participants] said pets count but not gay couples.
"The sheer idea that gay couples are given less status than pets should give us pause," Powell said in an interview.
Even though five states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriages, the federal government doesn't recognize them. The Census Bureau definition of "family" remains traditional: "A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together."
Many religious conservatives hope the government sticks by that definition, even in the face of shifts in public opinion.
"Same-sex marriage is a dangerous social experiment," said Glenn Stanton, director of family formation studies for Focus on the Family. "A lesbian couple who legally married in Massachusetts — are they family? We would say, 'Absolutely not.'"

While this article's hook is enough to keep you thinking for a while ("straight people with cats are families but gay people with cats, dogs, and two kids aren't? hmm...") it also has a nice overview of current feelings around marriage, families, and adoption issues. The interests of many groups, gay or straight, are brought to light in a pretty well rounded way, which i appreciate.

Quite often the debate in America is over how 'marriage' should be defined, but this article also brings up how the definition of 'family' ties into that debate. People opposed to the idea of same sex marriages, for example, oppose not only the change in the definition of 'marriage' but the change in the formulation of a traditional 'family' (the 'think of the children!' card is played rather often, despite multiple research studies).

This article also mentions a whole book on the subject, and I do love book links.

CA Sup Ct Refuses To Force State To Appeal Prop 8

Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to force the state of California, as represented by the Governor and Attorney General of the state, to act as defendants in the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

As I blogged about earlier in the week, the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General on Monday to attempt to force them to defend Proposition 8, but the 3rd District Court of Appeals rejected their argument. Now the state's highest court has also rejected their legal argument.

The court did not explain why it rejected the emergency petition filed by the Pacific Justice Institute. The institute had argued that the attorney general and governor were required to uphold all laws, including initiatives passed by voters.

Earlier Wednesday, lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger filed letters with the court maintaining state officers have authority to choose which laws they challenge or defend in court.

"The governor, like any litigant, has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or not to appeal an order," counsel Andrew Stroud wrote for Schwarzenegger. "Here, the governor exercised his discretion and decided not to file an appeal."

[...]

Schwarzenegger, who has been under pressure from fellow Republicans to appeal Walker's decision, has said he supports the judge's verdict. Brown, who is the Democratic nominee to succeed Schwarzenegger as governor, has said he cannot defend Proposition 8 because he agrees it is unconstitutional.

"Although it is not every day that the attorney general declines to defend a state law, the state Constitution or an initiative, he may do so because his oath requires him (to) support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the law," Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter wrote on Brown's behalf Wednesday.

The coalition of conservative and religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 has appealed Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But doubts have been raised about whether its members have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens, they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The 9th Circuit has said that is one of the issues it will take up when it hears oral arguments in early December.

If the federal appeals court dismisses the appeal because the ban's proponents lack legal standing,  Walker's ruling would become final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.

All people interested in marriage equality will be watching very closely the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' arguments in this case. It would sort of be unfortunate f the case was decided on a relatively abstruse legal point like standing, instead of the very importantfederal constitutional issues raised in Walker's District Court opinion of August 4.

Appellate Court Rejects Attempt To Force Prop 8 Appeal

Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures

Recall that earlier this week heterosexual supremacists from the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General claiming that they were trying to avoid a "constitutional crisis" by forcing these elected officials to appeal Proposition 8 in federal court, even though both men have declared their belief that the measure violates the U.S. constitution.

On Thursday came word that their lawsuit was summarily rejected. by the 3rd District Court of Appeals:

The institute said it would file an immediate appeal to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a reversal by Sept. 11, the deadline for state action in the Prop. 8 case.

"When the people peacefully enact a constitutional provision and the attorney general refuses to give them meaningful review in the federal judiciary, then you have a veto by the executive branch," said the institute's lawyer, Kevin Snider. "That is a constitutional crisis, usurping the power of the people."

The reason why this legal skirmish is important is that there is a very live question of who has "standing" (or legal authority) to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling declaring Proposition 8 violates the federal constitution. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal the week of December 6th.