So that's a no? In terms of legal language this appeals brief is a summation of the questions surrounding the Prop 8 decision. What you think legal briefs are short? LOL.. I've never read a short one, perhaps you can show me one. In legal circles, you must be formal in your language, you must provide a timetable of events, and you must make arguments for each event and ask the court to review each based on the merits. IN an appeals brief, you're essentially asking the court to review the evidence, and the facts, and consider precedence where applicable. In short, the 9th circuit relied on a misapplication of previous decisions, it misapplied the precedence of its own courts decisions regarding how they handled similar challenges as ballot initiatives, and it also misapplied and misinterpreted how to apply a rational basis test in Prop 8. The 9th circuit relied on other states decisions that were dissimilar in context and outcome to form their majority opinion. The court, it was argued, was making law, in spite of the will of the people on a matter that was in every legally recognizable way, and based even on the courts own previous rulings, a matter left to the people to decide for themselves. Due process was served, and equal protection on a rational basis was met, and yet the court still struck down Prop 8. The brief argues that the court in its peculiar interpretation of the precedence was erroneous and egregiously legislating form the bench. It asks the SCOTUS to acknowledge these concerns and return to the people the amendment seeking to grant marriage to only that of a man and a woman, and to preserve the right of homosexuals to form civil unions. People forget that in Prop 8 they did not seek to take away rights to civil unions that was already granted in a prior legislative measure, but only to protect the traditional designation of marriage to that of a man and a woman. Still the 9th circuit ruled in its majority decision that it was the purpose of the people to punish by animosity a select group of individuals based on an unpopular charcter trait.
Of course it's more in-depth in the brief, and if you truly want to understand the reasoning behind upholding traditional marriage then read the damn thing, but as I predicted, you won't as it doesn't fit with your narrative that all that are against gay marriage are mean spirited homophobic bigots.. So continue on.
Tim-