Cali Prop 8 Ruling... and it's future.

[strredwolf]

If you got an opinion about gay marriage, keep it to yourself. This is about the court case, not about the subject it involved.  In other words, it is a meta-discussion.

So I finally got a chance to read the ruling in the California Proposition 8 federal court case.  A few things stuck out to me:

The petitioners (2 gay couples and an intervening San Francisco government) put on a very proved-fact, science driven case.  It stuck to them, and it paid off... or did it really?  The defendants (Cali Attorney General, the LDS, and a Prop 8 support group) flubbed it, for all the wrong reasons.

• They had a ton of people ready to testify, but yanked all but two back.  Why? They worried about the cameras in the court room, and the delayed telecast, would compromise the safety of their witnesses.  They still kept them out when the US Supreme Court killed the telecast off.  WHY?!?
  
  
• One witness the judge basically threw out in the end because not only could he not back up his testimony with proof and science, he consistently contradicted himself.  Why was he there in the first place?
  
  
• The defense itself kept assuming that the judge was accepting belief as fact.  You can't do that!  That's not allowed in any court! The RIAA tried to do that, and is now being smacked down for it.
  

The thing is, I can't see how a proper defense would be built.  Off hand, I know of no peer-reviewed paper on gay/lesbian couples having disadvantages other than the ability to procreate (but that's why there's adoption).  It's all one's opinion, and that doesn't hold much (if any) weight in a court of law.

So the judge, having basically tossed out the defense's entire case, tried to attack the petitioners... and since it was rock solid (equal rights demand marriage rights for all, California suffers financially for not letting all folks marry, there's no state interest for this type of discrimination), the judge was left to strike it down as unconstitutional two ways to Sunday.
 
But the defendants are appealing!

They got one layer of courts, the Circuit Courts, to go before hitting the Supreme Court.  They have to prove that the judge erred... but they have to overcome their lackluster defense.  I don't see how the judge did commit a reversible error.  If the ruling survives this point, then the findings it documents become indisputable provable fact -- it will be very hard to disprove them.

I do say, they will push to the Supreme Court, and I doubt they will get the full hearing.  I think they'll get a note saying the court will decline to hear it... and they will waste two years to get that note.  I really doubt the Supreme Court will be willing to hear it.

Have you read the entire ruling?  If so, comment here.  Otherwise, it's best you do read it.  I'll wait.

Comments

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

Something you alluded to, that I want to expand on a bit:

The conclusions in the ruling are divided into "findings of fact" and "conclusions of law". Appeals courts - and the petitions to them - generally focus on the conclusions of law; it is assumed that the findings of fact are, well, factual. For one of the findings of fact to get overturned, it would have to be shown that it does not factually follow from the testimony and evidence presented. (However, I suppose one way that could happen is the judge's decision to give certain testimony no weight in making the findings of fact; if that decision gets overturned then I imagine the case would be returned to the judge for him to make new findings of fact with the new weight that the appellate court gave the testimony in question.) That said, both the decision to not consider Blankenhorn an expert witness and all the other findings of fact made were extremely well supported.

Long story short - the findings of fact are all but set in stone already, absent some method of voiding the entire trial on procedural grounds. Since the conclusions of law follow so directly from the findings of fact made, it's going to be very hard for an appellate court - the Supreme Court included - to overturn the ruling.

It takes four out of the nine justices to agree to hear a case in order for it to proceed. If the appellate court holds up the ruling, as I expect it to, I'm guessing the more conservative wing of the Court might decide to hear it in order to have a chance at overturning it. On the other hand, I don't know if there's even enough there for the Roberts Court to reasonably overturn it, so they may choose to let it go than risk making it an even stronger precedent than it already is.

(Of course, as soon as the appeals process is completed, Supreme Court hearing or not, someone will attempt to use the precedents set out here to overturn DOMA. That should be interesting.)

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

The Defense of Marriage Act is already overturned. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html) This, and Prop 8, are now at a point where once appealed, their effect will get applied nationally (because DOMA's ruling only applied to Massachusetts, and Prop 8's ruling to Cali).

I do think an appeal will cement the whole thing in.

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

Huh, I didn't know that. Do you know if the DoJ is appealing the DOMA ruling?

Also, how does the DOMA ruling in MA affect the federal government? Are they now required to respect gay marriage for federal purposes in MA but nowhere else?

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

Not off hand, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do so they can intentionally loose and get DOMA struck down everywhere. Right now, it's only affecting MA residents.