It really depends on what the 9th’s ruling turns out to be and how broad it is. There are so many permutations here, that a number of scenarios are possible. The situation you outline is (for the most part) theoretically possible, but I think it’s unlikely. My guess is the 9th would likely stay a ruling upholding the District Court.
However, whether or not the District Court will stay is a whole different kettle of worms. There are pretty good arguments (IMO) that it’s not necessary for the District Court to issue a stay, so it’s anybody’s guess.
The judge’s opinion is well-thought-out and does not contain a hint of bias. A reasonable judge could, and did, decide this way. Why must every decision people don’t agree with be the product of malice, of evil, or of bias? Why can’t these people simply say, “I don’t agree with his analysis,” and leave it at that?
I’d be interested in seeing a rational, opposing analysis using the 55 pages of fact written up in this ruling. Not because I disagree with the current ruling (I think it is great) but because I am hard pressed to imagine how it could be otherwise so would be curious to see if it could be done and still be rational.
ok, you realize you’re stacking the deck, right? “findings of fact” aren’t exactly findings of mana from heaven - they’re skewed and subject to the trier of facts’ own perspective on things.
That said, I don’t think it would be very difficult to have a rational, 100+ page opinion finding the exact opposite of what this judge found (not having the benefit of knowing how adept or bumbling counsel was for each side).
That’s a bit unfair. A rational argument against legalizing gay marriage is hard to imagine. A rational argument for upholding Proposition 8 isn’t, really.
I think it would be difficult. The other side just doesn’t have any good, rational arguments for itself. They were after all just given the chance to present some of those rational arguments, and failed utterly. And when one side has all the good arguments it’s reasonable to expect that any rational judgment is going to go their way.
The other side doesn’t have any good, rational arguments for banning same-sex marriage. It does have good, rational arguments for not overturning a ban on same-sex marriage.
I’ve been down this road before here. People see the word ‘rational’ and ascribe to it an ordinary, conversational meaning. It’s a term of art in law.
The issue is not primarily an issue of fact. It’s an issue of law.
Can the state make a judgment that marriage is for the purpose of procreation? This judge says no, that in this day and age that’s simply not what marriage should be about.
But a rational legislature could disagree. “Rational,” in the sense of having a reason, not “rational” in the ordinary meaning of “weighing and balancing competing interests and settling on one.”
I agree that even under intermediate scrutiny, banning same-sex marriage fails. I disagree that under the rational basis test, it does.
What is needed here is simply a decision that gayness is a matter for intermediate scrutiny.
How is it “stacking the deck”? The trial entered in various facts to be considered. If you want to write an opposing analysis you get to bring in any “facts” you choose? Facts which have not been vetted in the court?
Seems unfair to say the other side can just gin up whatever they like. Both sides, in this case, would need to operate off the same set of facts put in evidence.
In a vacuum, with the question phrased as "Should we permit/deny gay marriages, yeah. But in this specific case, I can advance a one-paragraph rational argument for the Yes on Prop 8 side. Not a particularly good one, but definitely rational.
“Every law is entitled to the presumption of constitutionality. In ths particular case, an amendment to the state constitution, duly adopted by the voters themselves after extensive public debate, is especially entitled to such a presumption. To rebut that presumption, plaintiffs would have to show that it flies in the face of settled constitutional principles. They have failed to do so.”
Not a good argument, given the overwhelming factual and legal case advanced by gay-marriage proponents challenging Prop. 8. But unquestionably a rational one.
=====================
As I understand it, the trial judge stayed his ruling for 48 hours to give respondents, who lost, opportunity to perfect an appeal. Is that correct? If so, what happens when the 48 hours are up?
no. you get to weigh and consider and discount and value the facts differently.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. you asked to write the contrary conclusions of law part given walker’s conclusions of fact. you’re failing to see that the conclusions of fact are written in a way to support the conclusions of law, and that factual findings are massively influenced by the perspective of the trier of fact.
these aren’t “facts” like “LA is south of SF” - they’re “legal facts” that dont have sureness
If you can interpret the facts in evidence differently that is fine…have at it. Considering the defense’s own witnesses conceded a number of points supporting the plaintiffs have fun reinterpreting the facts.
But you have to use the facts in evidence to write a counter-analysis of this case.
Yes, and I don’t think that’s particularly difficult task to interpret the facts differently and arrive at a contrary legal conclusion. As I mentioned in a previous post, 4 state supreme courts have effectively found the opposite of Walker.
The trier of fact is completely free to ignore the “experts” who testify on behalf of the proponents of prop 8 for want of credibility, and attach more credibility to the experts who testify on behalf of the opponents.
edit: i see you have edited. I’ll just add this: holding that there is/is not a rational basis for government action is so fundamentally a question of one’s own interpretation and processing of the factual statements and legal arguments put in front of the trier that it’s pretty obvious that the directly opposite result can be reached without being biased or predisposed.
IIRC (without looking up all those cases) all cases regarding SSM so far have dealt with State constitutions. This is the first one to say it is protected under the federal constitution.
yes, “equal protection” really means a different thing in state court :rolleyes:
these cases are perfect examples of rational, reasoned analysis holding exactly opposite to what walker held. the fora for these opinions is irrelevant.
edit: these opinions all include analysis based on the 14th amendment, if i’m not mistaken.
Could the legislature do so, in light of Supreme Court decisions such as the one that allows prisoners, even death-row inmates, to marry, even though they have zero chance of procreation? I thought that decision made it crystal clear that the courts disagree with the “marriage is for procreation” argument.