Ginny LaRoe, writing on Legal Pad offers further comment about the status of the Pro 8 Appeals case, currently before the Federal Ninth Circuit panel of judges. Here is my earlier recap/commentary on the state of the case. LaRoe writes about how a Washington DC ruling could offer the Californai panel direction in the question of if the Prop 8 proponents have standing. She writes:

With the panel judges on the Prop 8 appeal so clearly focused in on the question of standing, the San Francisco City Attorney’s office has brought to their attention a new ruling on the issue.

It’s part of the effort by that office, a long-time advocate for gay marriage and an official intervenor in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, to persuade the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that anti-gay marriage forces don’t have standing to appeal the district court ruling render the voter-approved ban unconstitutional. A ruling dismissing the appeal for lack of standing is widely thought to be a way to more quickly end the litigation and open up same-sex marriage again in the state.

A Dec. 20 Washington D.C. district court ruling held that proponents of a referendum in an voting case lacked Article III standing to appeal an action by the U.S. attorney general. Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney, told the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the ruling in LaRoque v. Holder “offers a thorough discussion of referendum/initiative proponent standing” and rejects the Prop 8 proponents’ argument that they have standing as quasi-legislators.

If I understand the situation correctly, if the proponents do not have standing, Judge Walker’s finding stand, and Same-sex marriage is again legal in California. If the Prop 8 proponents do have standing, the Ninth Circuit judges will rule tat either Walker was right, or Walker was wrong. Either way they rule, the “other side” will most likely appeal the Ninth Circuit panel opinion, and the case continues on its way up to the Supreme Court.

I see pros and cons no matter which way the case goes, although I believe if I had to pick, I’d choose for the the Ninth Circuit to find that the Prop 8 proponents do have standing, but then also find that Walker’s ruling was correct. I’m not a legal type guy (maybe one of my readers will chime in with a comment). Maybe the best would be for them to decide that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing, but also issue a statement that they believe that Judge Walker’s ruling was correct. That would do a few things:

• Gay and lesbian couples could again marry in California.
• A Federal judge wold have ruled that state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violate the Federal Constitution. This may decrease the likelihood of other states pursuing such constitutional bans.
• It would free up other couples in other states to file suits against their own states constitutional bans, and increase the likelihood of a future class action suit for same-sex marriage rights.

Here is my earlier recap of the Prop 8 appeals hearing.