Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Incorrect. The state declined to defend, so the proposition proponents were the ones who defended it in court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry#Defendan...

Even if you were right, that wouldn't be the case for the Michigan case I linked upthread, where state officials stood firmly behind keeping gay people from marriage.




From your wiki link:

"The Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of lack of standing."

...meaning the proponents weren't allowed to defend it in court.

I've already stated my feelings about the ruling in the Michigan. In fact, I have deep misgivings about the kind of research presented in that case on both sides, especially when it comes to making policy decisions.


The proponents did defend it in federal court. They lost.

It's true that the Supreme Court wasn't interesting in hearing from them again, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that if they had, it would have turned out as anything different than their disastrous showing in federal court. Remember, they were going to the Supreme Court seeking appeal, which means they don't get to re-litigate the whole thing, just to raise questions about particular points of law. The findings of fact would stand, and as far as facts went, they had nothing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: