Imperial County’s clerk cannot fight against gay marriage … legally anyway.
It’s the ruling the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued Tuesday as it declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and denied Clerk-Recorder Chuck Storey’s motion to intervene in the case. However, lawyers for Storey say a final decision isn’t in yet.
The court ruled Storey had filed too late, denying his motion to intervene to defend Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban.
Though the decision came down Tuesday, it will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Robert Tyler, Advocate for Faith and Freedom attorney who represented Storey.
“Chuck’s goal is to make sure the voice of the people is heard,” Tyler said.
Storey had entered the case to argue for the gay marriage ban, after state government officials had said they wouldn’t actively argue for the proposition. There were questions as to whether the campaign “Yes on Prop. 8” would be allowed to appeal the case.
If the state Supreme Court had not ruled that the “Yes on Prop. 8” campaign could argue the case, there could have been a much different outcome for Storey’s case, Tyler said. Now, though, the U.S. Supreme Court will get to decide whether the “Yes on Prop. 8” campaign can continue with it, which is why Storey’s case will likely continue as well.
Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have the final say, he said.
Storey, who serves as the commissioner of civil marriage for the county, was not the first in the Valley to want to join the law suit.
Imperial County and its deputy clerk had both filed to enter the case in December 2009, citing the high percentage of voters locally who had supported Prop. 8. The local government groups had asked to be a part of the case should the state decide not to defend the proposition, because at the time the governor and attorney general did not appeal the decision.
There were questions at the time as to whether the “Yes on Prop. 8” campaign, which had pushed to get the proposition on the ballot and passed, would be able to appeal a decision like this. It was later ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court that the campaign could.
The local officials were denied entry in the case in August 2010, about the same time federal district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional. The judge cited the fact that the county clerk hadn’t been the one to file, instead it was a deputy clerk.
In early 2011 then-recently-elected Storey decided to enter the fray as the clerk-recorder.
“I took an oath of office to uphold the California Constitution,” Storey said in a statement from Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “Proposition 8 is part of the Constitution.”
Staff Writer Elizabeth Varin can be reached at evarin@ivpressonline.com or 760-337-3441.
It’s the ruling the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued Tuesday as it declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and denied Clerk-Recorder Chuck Storey’s motion to intervene in the case. However, lawyers for Storey say a final decision isn’t in yet.
The court ruled Storey had filed too late, denying his motion to intervene to defend Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban.
Though the decision came down Tuesday, it will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Robert Tyler, Advocate for Faith and Freedom attorney who represented Storey.
“Chuck’s goal is to make sure the voice of the people is heard,” Tyler said.
Storey had entered the case to argue for the gay marriage ban, after state government officials had said they wouldn’t actively argue for the proposition. There were questions as to whether the campaign “Yes on Prop. 8” would be allowed to appeal the case.
If the state Supreme Court had not ruled that the “Yes on Prop. 8” campaign could argue the case, there could have been a much different outcome for Storey’s case, Tyler said. Now, though, the U.S. Supreme Court will get to decide whether the “Yes on Prop. 8” campaign can continue with it, which is why Storey’s case will likely continue as well.
Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have the final say, he said.
Storey, who serves as the commissioner of civil marriage for the county, was not the first in the Valley to want to join the law suit.
Imperial County and its deputy clerk had both filed to enter the case in December 2009, citing the high percentage of voters locally who had supported Prop. 8. The local government groups had asked to be a part of the case should the state decide not to defend the proposition, because at the time the governor and attorney general did not appeal the decision.
There were questions at the time as to whether the “Yes on Prop. 8” campaign, which had pushed to get the proposition on the ballot and passed, would be able to appeal a decision like this. It was later ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court that the campaign could.
The local officials were denied entry in the case in August 2010, about the same time federal district court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional. The judge cited the fact that the county clerk hadn’t been the one to file, instead it was a deputy clerk.
In early 2011 then-recently-elected Storey decided to enter the fray as the clerk-recorder.
“I took an oath of office to uphold the California Constitution,” Storey said in a statement from Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “Proposition 8 is part of the Constitution.”
Staff Writer Elizabeth Varin can be reached at evarin@ivpressonline.com or 760-337-3441.
