A motion, filed on Storey’s behalf by the law firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom on Tuesday, asks that he be allowed to intervene on behalf of Imperial County in the case as a defendant-appellant for Proposition 8, the voter-approved same-sex marriage ban.
Storey was elected in 2010 and soon after being sworn in asked to intervene in the case. The motion was denied in the appellate court last month as the judges said Storey did not file in a timely manner.
Join the discussion and add your comments to this story! Scroll down or click here and tell us what you think.
Storey’s first motion was in response to the county’s deputy clerk being denied a motion to intervene in the case.
The county’s deputy clerk had filed to intervene in the case in 2009, but the motion was denied by the federal court, and then the federal appellate court because of a lack of standing. The federal appellate court wrote in its ruling last month that were the elected clerk the one intervening, the arguments about the county having an interest in the case might have merit.
Storey asked to be allowed to intervene because his office is responsible for issuing marriage licenses in the county, and he therefore has a significant interest in the case, he wrote in a declaration to the court.
The brief, filed Tuesday, comes as the backers of the proposition filed a petition for the federal appeals court to review a split decision by three judges that struck down Prop. 8.
Lawyers for the religious and legal groups that qualified the ban for the 2008 ballot had faced a Tuesday deadline for asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the 2-1 decision made two weeks ago. The ruling declared Proposition 8 to be a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
In the ruling, two of the three judges held that “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”
The proponents of the proposition have asked for a larger 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit to reconsider the case. A motion like that is granted if a majority of the 25 judges in regular active service in the 9th Circuit court agree to hear it.
The motion does put a temporary stay on the three-judge panel’s decision to strike down Proposition 8.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.