This goes to an interesting quirk of this case that I've raised on other lists before: how is it that the citizens of California came to have the Alliance Defense Fund as their attorneys, stepping into the shoes of the State in order the formulate and articulate what California's state interests are in maintaining marriage discrimination? The formal answer is that the 9th Cir has a liberal standard for intervention, gives ballot initiative proponents a presumptive right to intervene, and (unlike the 6th cir) doesn't distinguish between the interests of such proponents at the ballot stage vs. post enactment.
Steve Sanders Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:52:58 To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: RE: Perry v. Schwarzenegger - Effect of Religious Beliefs _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
