Judge Vaughn Walker says Prop 8 will no longer apply in California as of 5 p.m., Wednesday, August 18.
Back on August 4, Walker ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. He then issued a stay of his own ruling to give the defense time to argue why Prop 8 should remain in place while it crawls up the appeals ladder toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
It might have helped if anti-gay side actually had a dog in the fight. Today Walker wrote:
Because proponents make no argument that they -- as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs -- will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.
The new decision gives defenders of Prop 8 time to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which could again stay Walker's original ruling.
Leave a Comment:
Waiting just a few weeks to be granted equal protection under the law is OK by me, for I have been waiting my entire adult lifetime. Shoot, my parents could not marry each other in the state of California until 1948 when the law prohibiting interracial marriages in CA was overturned, so since I was born in 1950 I guess I am just glad to be alive.
For those in the majority who have not experienced discrimination it is hard to convey how demeaning and inhibiting it can be on a day to day cumulative basis. For no matter how skilled and accomplished you may be you can be fired just for who you choose to love.
How sad it is to me to have a black President who feels we have to first conduict a survey of military personnel before granting gays in the military equal protection under the law. Would he have liked there to have been a survey in Mississippi or Alabama of registered voters before giving blacks their right to vote under the Voting Rights Act. For a constitutional law professor he seem quite dense when it comes to gay rights. He is against gay marriage and wants us to have a second class status via civil unions.....didn't he read in his constitutional law classes that the separate but equal doctrine was done away with? Or does he simply just choose to ignore the portion of the Constitution that demands that there be a separation of church and state? Or is he merely reading some polls that say he will be harder to be elected if he stands up for gay rights?
Where has the integrity of the man I voted for for President gone? When Governor Schwarzenegger is more progressive than him on an issue he should give his positions a second thought.
I was one of the people waiting at the Beverly Hills Municipal Court building today to obtain a marriage license. When my fiance and I arrived at 9 a.m. we were the first in line to await the Judge's ruling on the stay. The staff of the Recorder/Clerk's office was very helpful and courteous to us.
As we waited 3.5 hours for the ruling to be released, we watched as straight couples arrived, submitted their documents, received a license, went next door to the JP's chapel, and reappeared 10 minutes later -- their legal civil marriage now accomplished.
We were elated as it was finally announced that Walker had denied to stay, then were totally deflated when we learned he had created a non-stay stay of 7 more days in order to allow the opponents time to secure a stay from the Ninth Circuit. Such a process will likely deny us any window of opportunity to marry until the case has inched its way to completion at that level. In the confusion caused by the non-stay stay ruling, we were asked to move to the back of the room to allow yet more straight couples to pass us by on their way to their civil marriage.
The non-stay stay is just the latest trampling of our due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment, but we must be absolutely sure, musn't we, that the opponents have yet another week to come up with new dresses for arguments that have already been pronounced "without weight" and trotted out before still more and more and more judges. If they keep it up long enough they'll finally find someone to validate their moral annoyance and declare us, for another generation, unequal before the law.
Thanks Judge Walker for the brilliant ruling last week, but WTF?
The 9th circuit had better wake up to the reality that the constitution is a living, breathing document, and do the right thing. DADT needs to come next, like tomm.; I don't understand why Obama can't wipe it away with the sweep of a pen, like Truman did with race in the millitary?
The president can't wipe it away with the sweep of a pen because the policy wasn't created by presidential proclamation. It's the law of the land, and its authority is set in legislation passed by the Congress. As such, it will take more legislation to overturn it. A president can't simply wave his hand and decree enforceable laws invalid, even if Bush did it.
Question. I read that in Mexico City it is legal for same sex couples to marry and that their Supreme Court ruled that the other states in Mexico must recognize that marriage; but, the other states did not have to make the performance of same sex marriages legal. Could the US Supreme Court take that route?
Yes, the US courts could take that route. In our laws it is referred to as the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constition. Article IV Section 1 states:
why must they doodle with this for another week??!!
Because the people who must act to fix the problem are sincere in their moral views, honestly doing what they feel is right and necessary to protect society and our culture, not unlike the Ayatollahs. I'm not justifying the unjustifiable, just pointing out their reasoning.
My understanding is that neither the governor nor the AG are going to appeal this ruling. Who else has standing to appeal? The various other organizations involved don't seem to.
If no one has standing other than the state, it will never go to the next level because no one will appeal it. (Assuming the report is correct about the Governator and General Moonbeam.)
Re: state and plaintiffs bearing any harm resulting from a stay (v. proponents), Judge Walker also wrote these amazing lines:
"Proponents also point to harm resulting from 'a cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."
I read the following in The New Your Times and was wondering if it was accurate:
"That question is up to Ninth Circuit. But even if Judge Walker’s ruling stands in California, it would be a shame if the case stopped there. Only through appeals, first at the Ninth Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, is there a chance that the principles set down by Judge Walker will apply to the entire country. Yes, there is the possibility that the judgment could be struck down, but it is sometimes necessary to take big risks to get important results, as the lawyers behind this lawsuit have demonstrated. If same-sex couples in California have the constitutional right to be part of the mainstream of society, then so should every couple in America."
Would Judge Walker's ruling really not apply to other states if it isn't appealed? I am by no means a civic scholar, but he is a FEDERAL judge, isn't he? How could a law banning same-sex couples from marrying in one state be unconstitutional but be perfectly constitutional in another? We are talking about the Constitution of the United States, not of just one state. I did want the 9th Circuit to find the proponents of Prop 8 without standing, but if this is the case, I want standing, I want it to go forward. I am confused.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14sat2.html?_r=1