# California Supreme Court Ruling on Proposition 8 (SSM)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [May 22, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306 "2009-05-22T16:29:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/161 "2010-08-13T18:13:43Z")

</div>

> [@Kyla](#):
>
> Ah, thanks! Ignorance fought. 🙂

[This guy](http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/the-standing-issue-of-the-prop-8-appeal.html) has an interesting take on the issue of standing in the 9th Circuit (in addition to having [somewhat plagiarized the Straight Dope motto](http://www.flickr.com/photos/jillklausen/4888245143/sizes/l/in/photostream/)).

> [@](#):
>
> Possible outcomes to this dilemna?
> 
> (1) Someone may urge the actual defendant (the State of California) to appeal it anyway, in the interests of fairness or justice or reaching a resolution  
> (2) The appellate court (the Ninth Circuit) may agree to take the case with a provisional understanding that the defendant-intervenors must show that they have standing  
> (3) Nothing. The case stops here and, under federal law, gay couple have the constitutional right to marry in every state.

He goes on to speculate that option #2 will occur first, but that they will affirm Walker’s ruling due to the lack of standing, then the Supremes will be asked to hear it, at which point they’ll kick it back to the lower court and demand that they rule on the merits, before it gets back to the Supreme Court.

I’d say that’s a fairly decent guess. However, I’m utterly confused as to why #3 would be an option at all (other than the nothing happening part). I understand that Walker’s ruling can be used as precedent in future suits in other federal jurisdictions, but how on earth could it automatically apply to every state without even going any further? That makes no sense whatsoever.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\
**Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/162 "2010-08-13T18:36:37Z")

</div>

> [@Shayna](#):
>
> However, I’m utterly confused as to why #3 would be an option at all (other than the nothing happening part). I understand that Walker’s ruling can be used as precedent in future suits in other federal jurisdictions, but how on earth could it automatically apply to every state without even going any further? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I don’t see how it could, assuming the 9th refuses to hear the case. I don’t see how that would have any standing outside of the state.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306.md?page=8)