Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, December 6, 2010

A Good Sign from the 9th Circuit?

Posted by on Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM

So says Jan Crawford:

The appeals court panel hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the California gay marriage ban indicated this afternoon they will rule it violates the rights of gays and lesbians — with the only question being just how broadly the ruling will be.

(That of course assumes the appeals court will reach the question — they first have to decide whether the Prop. 8 supporters have legal standing to defend the law.)

If they reach the merits, the judges today were clearly were skeptical of arguments by the lawyer for Prop. 8 supporters. But at the same time, they also seemed reluctant to issue a sweeping ruling for gay marriage.

As for those less sweeping rulings the judges hinted at, as way of background, I interviewed Lambda Legal about how this could shake out here.

More reactions to today's hearing from Prop 8 Trial Tracker here, and the blow-by-blow of the arguments here.

 

Comments (7) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
gloomy gus 1
Go broad, darling court, go broad!
Posted by gloomy gus on December 6, 2010 at 3:00 PM
2
@1 as a Californian, part of me wants to say go narrow so my gay ass can get married here. However, as an American, I hope they go broad and it gets upheld. Unfortunately, I could well see them go broad and then get hammered back to the beginning at the U.S.S.C.
Posted by Frank Rizzo on December 6, 2010 at 3:06 PM
gloomy gus 3
@2, no kidding. I'm sure Boies and Olsen want to hit the Supremes with everything they've got to get the ruling for the ages they've been after from the start. But I will be biting my nails - possibly those of my neighbors as well.
Posted by gloomy gus on December 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM
MacCrocodile 4
@3 - I already bit my nails clean off back in '08. I'm down to my wrist stubs at this point.
Posted by MacCrocodile on December 6, 2010 at 3:23 PM
5
That's something of a dishonest opening paragraph.
Posted by Nick on December 6, 2010 at 4:12 PM
6
Never, ever, make predictions on the outcome of a case based on how you think it went at oral argument.
Posted by Toe Tag on December 6, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Baconcat 7
I think we'll get a broad injunction across the ninth circuit with 2-3 years of stalling before it even becomes a glimmer in the Supreme Court's eye, meaning come January or February, folks can get married in Pocatello or Wasilla but not, say, Chicago or Austin.
Posted by Baconcat on December 6, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy