Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

There'll obviously now be a flood/tornado/earthquake to seal the deal. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Well...at leas the next such disaster will be our "punishment." After all you can't expect god to hold to a schedule - he'll punish us in "the fullness of time."Which of course is a fancy way of saying "eventually a disaster will happen, and we'll just use that as proof that god is pissed over this specific event, and idiots will believe us."

1.6180339 writes: And, again, I am sure that the singular professional business sector most ecstatic about all of this would be..................the Divorce Lawyers.Edited by xongsmith, : Mostest of the mostest

So you can't go to court over things that are none of your damn business? Imagine that.

Well, for what it's worth, I think they were wrong on the standing question. The California Supreme Court, in response to a questions from the Ninth Circuit, specifically said that this group did have the authority under California law to represent the state on challenges to Prop 8. The U.S. Supremes just chose to ignore that.

Ah, but California law regarding standing really does not matter.The Supreme Court must use federal rules for determining whether the parties involved had standing and to determine whether there is a justiciable controversy. California's ruling on the question of standing is interesting, but irrelevant to the case at the SC. The Supreme Court literally does not have the authority to decide cases where there is no standing under federal law.Scalia and crew are also powerless to overturn a California court ruling on issues that do not involve federal law.It's a close question, but I think the SC ruling that there was no standing is consistent with their past rulings.

The state of California has standing to defend any law challenged as unconstitutional. The only question is whether the parties to this case have the authority to represent California in this proceeding. The California Supreme Court said yes. Roberts parsed and nitpicked the opinion until he felt he could get away with ignoring it. I've read the opinion of the California Supreme Court. It's clear that they held that the appellants had the authority under California law to represent the state. The only way to get around that holding is to basically ignore it, which is what Roberts did.You are quite correct that the question of standing in federal courts is for federal courts to decide. But there is no doubt that a state has standing to defend its own laws. Who has authority to represent the state's interests is a question of state law. Roberts ignored state law and misconstrued the federal question.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

I'm not disputing whether California law allows . In order to challenge the California ruling in federal Court, you must have standing to be in federal court. No federal standing means no valid appeal. Your premise is simply wrong. California law cannot subvert federal law. In an appeal in federal court, standing is a matter of federal law, not state law. I'm always ready to point out Scalia's gobbledygook, but he didn't actually write the opinion this time. Roberts did. Scalia agreed, but so did Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.I agree that it is a close question, and the four Justices in the minority agree with you. What undermines standing for me is my belief that ultimately the parties were just ordinary citizens and the general electorate suffers no injury when the rights of another person are vindicated. This is particularly the case for the right to marry. The citizens' recourse in this matter to elect officials who will support proposition 8 if that is what the majority wants.

You are conflating two very separate questions.Question 1: Who has standing to appeal? Answer: the state of California. This is a question of federal law. No state court can grant to the state standing to appeal in federal courts. This is well-settled law that I agree with. However, it is also well-settled that the state has standing to appeal any decision declaring any portion of its constitution unconstitutional. Do you agree with this?Question 2: Who has the authority to represent the state? This is a question of state law. The state of California, including the state supreme court, is well within its authority to say who, under state law, has the authority to represent the state when its laws or constitution is under attack. This is not a question for federal courts, they are bound by state law determinations about who has that authority. The California Supreme Court specifically held that these litigants had the authority under California law to represent the state of California in these proceedings. Once that happened, the U.S. Supreme Court had no authority to question or decide that issue of state law.Keep the two questions separate. Who has standing (a question of federal law)? The State of California. Who has the authority to represent the state (a question of state law)? The appellants.

What were those citizens saying were the reasons that they wanted to challenge the removal of Prop 8?

If federal law said that the appellants did not have the authority to represent the state, despite what the state law said, then wouldn't the federal law supersede?

I think it was an older lady... in her 80's or something.She apparently got a message from the government saying that her marriage wasn't legally recognized, so she wasn't able to claim the marriage-benefits that she did, and now owed the government something like $383,000.She didn't think it was fair to pay that, and went to court....I think.(Whoops, wrong case, this was DOMA).
And I also got confused about which side of the argument you were talking about.
On to my next "opportunity"!!People who call mistakes "opportunities" have never worked with their hands...Edited by Stile, : ...cutting yourself while attempting to cut wood is not an opportunity to use bandages.

No. Federal courts have no authority to construe state law contrary to an authoritative construction by the state. The ultimate authority on what a state's law means is that state. That's why, when this case was in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court certified the question of whether state law allows the appellants to represent the state to the state supreme court. They wanted the most accurate and definitive answer to that question.Now, to be sure, federal courts do interpret state laws all the time. It's quite common for questions of state law to come up in federal courts in a variety of different ways. However, at all times, they must defer to state determinations of the meaning of their laws.If a federal court determines that a state law violates the U.S. Constitution, the state is bound by that decision, because the federal court system is the final arbiter of constitutionality. But it must defer to state courts on the meaning of the laws of the state.

The was the plaintiff in the DOMA decision, not prop 8.

No, that's the DOMA case.The appellants in the Prop 8 case were a group proponents of Proposition 8. They pushed for the passage of the Proposition.