CA Supreme Court Grants Prop 8 Defenders Standing To Challenge Judge Walker’s Ruling

When the California Governor and Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8 in court, supporters of the anti-LGBT law cried foul and said that they should have the legal standing to defend the law in court instead.

Today, the California Supreme Court agreed with them which means we’ll be back in court blasting away their petty, untenable defense soon, as Matt Baume from the American Foundation for Equal Rights explains above.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #afer #mattbaume #prop8 stories and more


  • arbiter

    Amazing. Standing means it can go to the SCOTUS and possibly strike down every anti-marriage equality law in the country! Here’s hoping, because DoMA isn’t going anywhere with this do-nothing congress!

  • Pitou

    Mixed feelings.. But this means its do or die, bitches. Put on those big girl panties…. To SCOTUS it goes!

    Question.. since this will be a continuous appeals process.. are prop 8 proponents allowed to submit new “evidence” to back up their claims or must they stick with what they had in lower courts?

  • Meh

    Eh. It’s not quite a victory- if you read the opinion the Supreme Court said their decision is non-binding, which means the court of appeals can decide whether or not it wants to grant NOM the chance to defend the proposition in court….not exactly an overwhelming statement of reprobation against the AG’s decision.

  • GayGOP

    @Meh: Actually, Meh is right. The Ninth Circuit is ultimately the one who decides whether there is standing here to challenge the law.

    The case is going to SCOTUS anyways, at least on the Standing issue, and it is entirely possible, indeed likely, I think, that SCOTUS will refuse to grant that NOM and their acolytes have standing under Federal Law, given their past stance on granting standing.

    @Pitou: This is a procedural issue only. Right now the question is whether or not the proponents of Prop H8 can step in and defend the law despite Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown, and Attorneys General Brown and Harris not defending Prop H8. Furthermore, there is nothing binding about what the California Supreme Court did. The issue posed by the Ninth Circuit, I think, is wholly irrelevant to the case, i.e. whether, under California, not federal, law, the proponents can defend the suit. The issue of sufficiency of the evidence is not before the Ninth Circuit at the moment. As it stands, I do not think that SCOTUS will find that there is standing, so, if SCOTUS does what it has with the past, it will throw out the Interveners/Appellants

  • Mark

    This time though it should be aired so everyone can see how petty and ignorant their arguments are. No backing down this time!

  • ChrisC

    Does this mean that the case can go to the SCOTUS and that if it does and they rule in our favor, it would repeal every Gay Marriage ban in America or maybe give Marriage Equality across the country? Sorry, I don’t know the ins and outs of American courts since I’m Canadian.

  • iDavid


    No, this is more a procedural issue as to who gets to fight in court, or not. If SCOUTUS finds the defendants do not have a right to appeal, it means that the “stay” on Prop 8 gets lifted due to the appeal process being exhausted. Calif will get marriage rights as Prop 8 gets immediately struck down. This is all dependent on what the ninth circuit court does. This however, only effects Calif specifically, though it will certainly reverberate throughout the country(s).
    Bottom line is, history shows SCOTUS wont rule in favor of gay marriage federally until the nation is more than 50% for it, which we have now. Next is to take the actual marriage issue in front of them (not just a standing issue) to get a federal ruling.

  • Ted B. (Charging Rhino)

    This is an excellent example of why the Founding Fathers established the United States as a constitutionally-limited republic and distrusted “direct democracy” from the streets over the long-term.

  • Michael

    It will go to SCOTUS and be affirmed. Why is everyone getting so excited? Not good news for us-given the makeup of the Supreme Court. The proponents should never have been granted standing (as they have no case).Now it means they have a case. Don’t lisen to Matt Baume, Jeremy Hooper or Pam Spaulding(GOProud lovers one and all given the socializing and laughter and agreements I was witness too)-they are not on our side. This is no victory.

  • Stefan

    To all those doubting the Supreme Court, there is a VERY reliable 5/4 split on the issue of gay rights. Justice Kennedy, considered to swing vote in the court, not only sided with the majority in Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas, but he wrote the majority opinions for them both. Because much of Perry v Schwarzenegger cites Romer v Evans it will be nigh on impossible for him to backtrack.

    Evidence also suggests that Roberts may very well side with us, having done pro-bono work with the plaintiffs in Romer v Evans, and also refusing to grant a stay of the gay marriage law in Washington D.C.

    If they rule on the merrits of the case, I’m not sure they would strike down gay marriage bans nationwide, but it would certainly set precedent for states with such bans to challenge them in court and strike them down. Enough cases will be bundled together and go to the Supreme Court, which will then result in all bans being struck down nationwide.

  • kylew

    @Stefan: I’m curious to know the general basis for the Justice’s who still oppose. From the UK, all of this legal stuff is looking increasingly preposterous. I don’t know that we’re any better (or even worse), but this is such a high profile case.

  • Steve

    The CA SC saying that their decision is non-binding, only means that future California state cases will not be bound. It has nothing at all to do with the Federal appeal of the prop-8 case. The Federal appeals court can do whatever it wants, in any case, without being bound by any state-level decisions.

    Allowing the appeal to go forward, just means that an eventual decision will affect more than just California. If the appeal had been stopped, then the decision would affect only California, and prop-8 would be overturned by the district court decision. By allowing the appeal to go forward, it can be affirmed by a higher court, and become precedent for other cases in other states. If it is affirmed by SCOTUS, it becomes precedent for the entire US, and _all_ DOMA-like statutes and amendments in _every_ state, will be overturned…

    My partner and I live in Florida, and we cannot move due to professional licensing issues.
    For us, the only way we will ever be able to be married and have it recognized by the state where we live, is if the Florida amendment is overturned by a Federal court. There is basically no way that the state of Florida is ever going to repeal that amendment.

    If some other case, with less preparation or trial record, were to reach the SCOTUS instead of this one, the outcome would be much more in doubt.

    So, we are thankful that this case is going forward.

  • B

    No. 6 · ChrisC wrote, “Does this mean that the case can go to the SCOTUS”

    What happened is that the Ninth Circuit Court (a federal court) asked the California State
    Supreme Court if the plaintiffs would have standing under state law, but a federal court can do what it wants. They might have asked the State Supreme Court just so that they would not have to cover both the “has standing under state law” and the “does not have standing under state law” cases in their decision.

  • Diana

    The Yes on Prop 8 side is going to win. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The Yes on Prop 8 side can prove that you cannot marry an AKA. The Yes on Prop 8 man is openly straight. The real winner will be JB and not Jerry Brown!

  • iDavid


    Stats and evidence prove otherwise. But w those who live in an alternate universe, they glaze over facts in order to uphold their addiction to rose colored fantasy and denial.

Comments are closed.