Civilsation is breaking out all over

[pecunium]

The saga of Prop 8 is probably over, and the strategy of Boies and Olsen is proven to be more wise than I thought was at the time (though I never doubted they were canny players of the legal game).

The judge ruled on the stay request from the people who wrote Prop 8. Unless Arnie (who can't run again) or Gerry Brown (who is running now), decide to make an appeal, there is, from reading Final Stay Order.pdf almost no chance the appeal will be heard.

It hinges, mostly, on the status of the defendants. The people who were defending Prop. 8 in court, weren't the actual defendants. When Calif. declined to defend, they were allowed, as the authors of Prop. 8, to intervene. That didn't grant them actual standing. They were being allowed, as a favor, to stand in for the actual defendants.

If you read the order... which is a thing of beauty (and a joy forever): they might be able to argue for standing, but it's an uphill battle. If they don't have standing, then they can't show a likelihood of victory

The court first considers whether proponents have shown a
likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal. The mere
possibility of success will not suffice; proponents must show that
success is likely. Winter, 129 SCt at 375. Proponents assert they
are likely to succeed “[f]or all the reasons explained throughout
this litigation.” Doc #705 at 7. Because proponents filed their
motion to stay before the court issued its findings of fact and
conclusions of law, proponents do not in their memorandum discuss
the likelihood of their success with reference to the court’s
conclusions.

When the court looked to the flip side (having dismissed the various claims of harm... even though they were unable to describe any during the trial), and looked to see what harms the plaintiffs might suffer should the stay be maintained...


But no presumption is necessary here, as the trial record left no doubt
that Proposition 8 inflicts harm on plaintiffs and other gays and
lesbians in California. Doc #708 at 93-96 (FF 66-68). Any stay
would serve only to delay plaintiffs access to the remedy to which
they have shown they are entitled.

Proponents point to the availability of domestic
partnerships under California law as sufficient to minimize any
harm from allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect. Doc #705 at
11. The evidence presented at trial does not support proponents’
position on domestic partnerships; instead, the evidence showed
that domestic partnership is an inadequate and discriminatory
substitute for marriage.

He sums up...

None of the factors the court weighs in considering a
motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’
motion for a stay is DENIED.

The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until
August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all
persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or
enforce Proposition 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

And there was much rejoicing.

Comments

[txanne.livejournal.com]

How are straight people harmed by gay people marrying? Jumping up and down while screaming like a thwarted toddler doesn't count.

(er, sorry, this really is a serious question! I've never understood this part of the h8ers' "reasoning.")

[bunsen-h.livejournal.com]

Something about making the State of Marriage less special and holy, I think. If those godless perverts can say that they're married -- not merely "civilly unified" or whatever, but married, that special word -- then it means less that a normal couple are married. Or something like that. Like you, I don't understand the alleged reasoning; seems to me that a straight couple in a dysfunctional married relationship do more to damage the institution than a gay couple in a good married relationship (i.e., not at all in the latter case).

[txanne.livejournal.com]

I'm counting "less special and holy" as "jumping up and down." That's not a reason that matters to people who aren't that particular kind of religious-crazy. (I'm a churchgoing Christian, BTW; the difference between me and the h8ers is that I'm a grownup.)

[bunsen-h.livejournal.com]

By that standard, I think all the "arguments" come to is "jumping up and down." Which I guess is what that ruling says too.

[txanne.livejournal.com]

I keep hoping they'll have something besides "la la la Jesus says gays are icky," which isn't even in the Bible! (What Paul was on about was temple prostitution.) But they never do. (I did once make somebody stop speaking to me by asking them how old they were when they chose to be straight, but I don't think that'd work on closet cases.)

[harimad.livejournal.com]

I have no intellectual or emotional understanding either, but I think I'd be better able to defend my position if I did. Since I don't understand how the other side thinks, I can't work with that to help them see differently.

It also means I can't properly predict what someone who might agree (cough *Scalia* cough *Roberts* cough) might think. This despite being acquainted some of these people.

[elf]

If I managed to follow the logic, it's something like this:

* Marriage is a very important social condition, the very foundation of civilized society.

* Society needs to encourage *good* marriages, and discourage bad ones. It does this by giving tax shelters etc to married couples, and by making divorce painful and expensive, and, um, maybe some other stuff. (I did say I had trouble following the logic.)

* If THOSE PEOPLE (whoever it is this decade) can get married, that shows society does *not* value the importance of marriage.

* Obviously, straight people will stop getting married because the institution has been so devalued. Or, maybe there will be less benefits-for-married-people to go around, if they have to be spread so thin.

It's some weird version of the property-value arguments used to keep Black people out of all-White neighborhoods... "if they come in, nobody good will want to be here anymore!" Except nobody's shown any evidence that marriage is going to be less popular among m-f couples if ff or mm couples also get in on the game.

There's also some arguments about marriage having the purpose of creating a safe environment for accidental children, but the logic on that one is (1) even more painful and (2) totally bypasses the issue of "so, why do we allow childless couples to get/remain married?"

[txanne.livejournal.com]

Okay! That...still doesn't make sense, but at least now I can follow their non-Earth logic. Thank you.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

* If THOSE PEOPLE (whoever it is this decade) can get married, that shows society does *not* value the importance of marriage.

This is where the logic fails in my eyes.

Barney Frank has a fantastic observation about the radical gay agenda. Paraphrasing: All we want is to get married, have kids, and join the military. No self-respecting radical in history would call that an agenda.

[ubiquitous-a.livejournal.com]

Very well put! You'd think with that kind of an "agenda", those of Conservative persuasion would be all about it! ;)