Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[The Cat-Tribe]

FWIW, a stay for 14 days of the court's final judgment was automatic under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a). In this case the Proponents of Prop. 8 had filed a motion for a longer stay of injunction pending appeal (which is a matter of discretion for the district court under FRCP 62(c)) and moved to shorten time for filing a response to the motion. The Court granted this motion(pdf). Thus, the Court is deciding about an injunction staying appeal on a slightly accelerated basis AND nothing should be read into the original stay.

This confuses me. If there was already an automatic stay, why bother with the preliminary stay in the order you link to:

"The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the
motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided."

The order to the clerk was pursuant to the Rule (and modified it to extend until the motion to stay pending appeal was decided).

[Soheran]

The word is that the stay has been lifted. Nothing on the Court's website yet, though.

Edit: Denial of stay order (pdf)

Crucial bit:

"That judgment shall be STAYED until
August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all
persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or
enforce Proposition 8."

So no indefinite stay is granted, but a little time is given for the proponents to appeal.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Here's the latest, and most accurate.

When I first Googled, there were a number of "Dewey Defeats Truman" type articles.

Crime | Government | Medical marijuana | Education | Prop 8 | Traffic | Westside

L.A. NOWSouthern California -- this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home

Judge who overturned Prop. 8 extends temporary hold on gay marriage [updated]
August 12, 2010 | 12:39 pm

A federal judge today refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Walker said that same-sex marriages may resume at that time unless a higher court blocks them.

Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it.

[Updated, 12:50 p.m. "As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the Court of Appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," Walker wrote.

"In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the govenror or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."

Walker said there was no evidence tht the sponsors of Proposition 8 "face the kind of injury" required to have standing to file an appeal.

"The uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily againist the likelihood of their success," he wrote.

The campaign for Proposition 8 said it would immediately appeal Walker's ruling.

"If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," the sponsors said in a prepared statement. They did not address Walker's contention that they may not having standing to appeal.

In front of San Francisco City Hall shortly before Walker's ruling was released, a phalanx of Prop 8 supporters wearing yellow plastic ProtectMarriage vests held their ground in front of dozens of jubilant same sex marriage backers.

"A Moral Wrong Cannot Be a Civil Right," said one. Another proclaimed "Pervert Judge, Pervert Ruling." Others yet called for an end to "Judicial Tyranny."

But in this gay rights bastion, the weight of public opinion became clear when an open air double decker tourist bus passed. Cameras snapped as same sex couples festooned with marriage equality stickers hooted and waved.]

Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

The high court already has slapped down Walker once in the case. Lawyers for Proposition 8 appealed a pretrial decision to permit some broadcast of the trial proceedings, and the high court overturned Walker’s decision on a 5-4 vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown had urged Walker to permit same-sex marriages to resume, arguing the state was well-equipped to handle them.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during the six months it was legal in California in 2008, and the California Supreme Court later ruled that those marriages would remain valid.

The sponsors of the anti-gay marriage initiative told Walker that gay nuptials now would be clouded by uncertainty. The challengers countered that gay men and lesbians were capable of deciding for themselves whether to marry now or wait until the appeals conclude.

In weighing whether to put a ruling on hold, judges consider the likelihood that higher courts would uphold their ruling and whether irreparable harm would be caused by a postponement.

Walker, who heard 13 days of testimony in January, said in his ruling Wednesday that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. He ruled that moral disapproval was not enough to deny gays what courts have determined is a fundamental right to marry.

Walker’s ruling will be reviewed by the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a majority of Democratic appointees. If the 9th Circuit upholds Walker’s decision, opponents of same-sex marriage said they would take the case to the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on matters of federal constitutional law.

--Maura Dolan and Lee Romney in San Francisco

If it wasn't pointless because of this being an election year, I'd be trying to impeach Schwarzenegger and Brown because they are absent in protecting something that was a part of the (then legal) California Constitution.

[Farnhamia]

The word is that the stay has been lifted. Nothing on the Court's website yet, though.

Edit: Denial of stay order (pdf)

Crucial bit:

"That judgment shall be STAYED until
August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all
persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or
enforce Proposition 8."

So no indefinite stay is granted, but a little time is given for the proponents to appeal.

Yep.

Just a week after ruling that Proposition 8 – a 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage – was unconstitutional, a federal district judge lifted a stay on his decision on Thursday, opening the door for untold numbers of gay couples to marry in the nation’s most populous state. But he delayed implementation of the order to lift his stay until Aug. 18.

Linky

[Soheran]

No, it doesn't.

Well, it does for six days. Small peanuts, I think, for you "traditional marriage" supporters.

[Ashmoria]

so does this mean that the parties havent filed papers with the 9th circuit yet or that he is giving the court enough time to decide for itself about the stay?

[Soheran]

so does this mean that the parties havent filed papers with the 9th circuit yet or that he is giving the court enough time to decide for itself about the stay?

The Prop. 8 proponents have appealed Walker's decision, but since he had not yet ruled on his stay motion, they have not yet appealed on the specific stay issue. He's giving them time to do so (and for the Ninth Circuit to decide, too.)

[Free Soviets]

actually, he has ordered everyone in california to get gay married by the end of september. the 6 days is so the gay bars have time to prepare for the new influx of customers.

[Ashmoria]

so does this mean that the parties havent filed papers with the 9th circuit yet or that he is giving the court enough time to decide for itself about the stay?

The Prop. 8 proponents have appealed Walker's decision, but since he had not yet ruled on his stay motion, they have not yet appealed on the specific stay issue. He's giving them time to do so (and for the Ninth Circuit to decide, too.)

unless the 9th has already made up its mind (does only 1 judge have to decide to temporarily extend the stay?) then a week isnt really enough time to get all the paperwork in and make a decision, is it?

[Soheran]

unless the 9th has already made up its mind (does only 1 judge have to decide to temporarily extend the stay?) then a week isnt really enough time to get all the paperwork in and make a decision, is it?

Because it is only a stay, it's substantially less time- and effort-intensive than a full ruling on the merits. I mean, Judge Walker dealt with this stay issue within only a little more than a week. And the Ninth Circuit can always extend his stay preliminarily if they like.

[Ashmoria]

unless the 9th has already made up its mind (does only 1 judge have to decide to temporarily extend the stay?) then a week isnt really enough time to get all the paperwork in and make a decision, is it?

Because it is only a stay, it's substantially less time- and effort-intensive than a full ruling on the merits. I mean, Judge Walker dealt with this stay issue within only a little more than a week. And the Ninth Circuit can always extend his stay preliminarily if they like.

thanks for the info.

[Cannot think of a name]

So, what...is he supposed to hold it forever because someone yelled 'backsies' before they even lost? If they can't get their shit together and (apparently) get a defendant why should the decision be put on hold? Just because they 'say' they're going to take the fight all the way doesn't mean they can, why do we have to wait around for them to find their shoelaces?

[Tekania]

I find it humorous that someone would consider this "Judicial Tyranny"... A tyranical judiciary, protecting peoples rights... I can only assume someone who takes that position is a complete fucking moron, a total blithering idiot. It's not tyranny when courts tell you you can't disenfranchise people... It would be judicial tyranny if the courts ruled it was ok for others to disenfranchise you.... Of course, these are the same type of idiots who scream oppression when they are told they can't use public schools to proselytize their religion on others kids.

[Wilgrove]

Here's the latest, and most accurate.

When I first Googled, there were a number of "Dewey Defeats Truman" type articles.

Crime | Government | Medical marijuana | Education | Prop 8 | Traffic | Westside

L.A. NOWSouthern California -- this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home

Judge who overturned Prop. 8 extends temporary hold on gay marriage [updated]
August 12, 2010 | 12:39 pm

A federal judge today refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Walker said that same-sex marriages may resume at that time unless a higher court blocks them.

Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it.

[Updated, 12:50 p.m. "As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the Court of Appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," Walker wrote.

"In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the govenror or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."

Walker said there was no evidence tht the sponsors of Proposition 8 "face the kind of injury" required to have standing to file an appeal.

"The uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily againist the likelihood of their success," he wrote.

The campaign for Proposition 8 said it would immediately appeal Walker's ruling.

"If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," the sponsors said in a prepared statement. They did not address Walker's contention that they may not having standing to appeal.

In front of San Francisco City Hall shortly before Walker's ruling was released, a phalanx of Prop 8 supporters wearing yellow plastic ProtectMarriage vests held their ground in front of dozens of jubilant same sex marriage backers.

"A Moral Wrong Cannot Be a Civil Right," said one. Another proclaimed "Pervert Judge, Pervert Ruling." Others yet called for an end to "Judicial Tyranny."

But in this gay rights bastion, the weight of public opinion became clear when an open air double decker tourist bus passed. Cameras snapped as same sex couples festooned with marriage equality stickers hooted and waved.]

Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

The high court already has slapped down Walker once in the case. Lawyers for Proposition 8 appealed a pretrial decision to permit some broadcast of the trial proceedings, and the high court overturned Walker’s decision on a 5-4 vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown had urged Walker to permit same-sex marriages to resume, arguing the state was well-equipped to handle them.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during the six months it was legal in California in 2008, and the California Supreme Court later ruled that those marriages would remain valid.

The sponsors of the anti-gay marriage initiative told Walker that gay nuptials now would be clouded by uncertainty. The challengers countered that gay men and lesbians were capable of deciding for themselves whether to marry now or wait until the appeals conclude.

In weighing whether to put a ruling on hold, judges consider the likelihood that higher courts would uphold their ruling and whether irreparable harm would be caused by a postponement.

Walker, who heard 13 days of testimony in January, said in his ruling Wednesday that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. He ruled that moral disapproval was not enough to deny gays what courts have determined is a fundamental right to marry.

Walker’s ruling will be reviewed by the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a majority of Democratic appointees. If the 9th Circuit upholds Walker’s decision, opponents of same-sex marriage said they would take the case to the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on matters of federal constitutional law.

--Maura Dolan and Lee Romney in San Francisco

If it wasn't pointless because of this being an election year, I'd be trying to impeach Schwarzenegger and Brown because they are absent in protecting something that was a part of the (then legal) California Constitution.

My my, this doesn't seem very tolerant of you Yougi.

[Farnhamia]

Here's the latest, and most accurate.

When I first Googled, there were a number of "Dewey Defeats Truman" type articles.

Crime | Government | Medical marijuana | Education | Prop 8 | Traffic | Westside

L.A. NOWSouthern California -- this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home

Judge who overturned Prop. 8 extends temporary hold on gay marriage [updated]
August 12, 2010 | 12:39 pm

A federal judge today refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Walker said that same-sex marriages may resume at that time unless a higher court blocks them.

Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it.

[Updated, 12:50 p.m. "As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the Court of Appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," Walker wrote.

"In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the govenror or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."

Walker said there was no evidence tht the sponsors of Proposition 8 "face the kind of injury" required to have standing to file an appeal.

"The uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily againist the likelihood of their success," he wrote.

The campaign for Proposition 8 said it would immediately appeal Walker's ruling.

"If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," the sponsors said in a prepared statement. They did not address Walker's contention that they may not having standing to appeal.

In front of San Francisco City Hall shortly before Walker's ruling was released, a phalanx of Prop 8 supporters wearing yellow plastic ProtectMarriage vests held their ground in front of dozens of jubilant same sex marriage backers.

"A Moral Wrong Cannot Be a Civil Right," said one. Another proclaimed "Pervert Judge, Pervert Ruling." Others yet called for an end to "Judicial Tyranny."

But in this gay rights bastion, the weight of public opinion became clear when an open air double decker tourist bus passed. Cameras snapped as same sex couples festooned with marriage equality stickers hooted and waved.]

Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

The high court already has slapped down Walker once in the case. Lawyers for Proposition 8 appealed a pretrial decision to permit some broadcast of the trial proceedings, and the high court overturned Walker’s decision on a 5-4 vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown had urged Walker to permit same-sex marriages to resume, arguing the state was well-equipped to handle them.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during the six months it was legal in California in 2008, and the California Supreme Court later ruled that those marriages would remain valid.

The sponsors of the anti-gay marriage initiative told Walker that gay nuptials now would be clouded by uncertainty. The challengers countered that gay men and lesbians were capable of deciding for themselves whether to marry now or wait until the appeals conclude.

In weighing whether to put a ruling on hold, judges consider the likelihood that higher courts would uphold their ruling and whether irreparable harm would be caused by a postponement.

Walker, who heard 13 days of testimony in January, said in his ruling Wednesday that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. He ruled that moral disapproval was not enough to deny gays what courts have determined is a fundamental right to marry.

Walker’s ruling will be reviewed by the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a majority of Democratic appointees. If the 9th Circuit upholds Walker’s decision, opponents of same-sex marriage said they would take the case to the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on matters of federal constitutional law.

--Maura Dolan and Lee Romney in San Francisco

If it wasn't pointless because of this being an election year, I'd be trying to impeach Schwarzenegger and Brown because they are absent in protecting something that was a part of the (then legal) California Constitution.

My my, this doesn't seem very tolerant of you Yougi.

No, it doesn't. It's just YGO not looking before he leaps. None of the government officials named in the suit defended because they felt Prop. 8 was a bad law. It was their right to do so and they were in no way obligated to defend it.

[Tekania]

Here's the latest, and most accurate.

When I first Googled, there were a number of "Dewey Defeats Truman" type articles.

Crime | Government | Medical marijuana | Education | Prop 8 | Traffic | Westside

L.A. NOWSouthern California -- this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home

Judge who overturned Prop. 8 extends temporary hold on gay marriage [updated]
August 12, 2010 | 12:39 pm

A federal judge today refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Walker said that same-sex marriages may resume at that time unless a higher court blocks them.

Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it.

[Updated, 12:50 p.m. "As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the Court of Appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," Walker wrote.

"In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the govenror or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."

Walker said there was no evidence tht the sponsors of Proposition 8 "face the kind of injury" required to have standing to file an appeal.

"The uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily againist the likelihood of their success," he wrote.

The campaign for Proposition 8 said it would immediately appeal Walker's ruling.

"If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," the sponsors said in a prepared statement. They did not address Walker's contention that they may not having standing to appeal.

In front of San Francisco City Hall shortly before Walker's ruling was released, a phalanx of Prop 8 supporters wearing yellow plastic ProtectMarriage vests held their ground in front of dozens of jubilant same sex marriage backers.

"A Moral Wrong Cannot Be a Civil Right," said one. Another proclaimed "Pervert Judge, Pervert Ruling." Others yet called for an end to "Judicial Tyranny."

But in this gay rights bastion, the weight of public opinion became clear when an open air double decker tourist bus passed. Cameras snapped as same sex couples festooned with marriage equality stickers hooted and waved.]

Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

The high court already has slapped down Walker once in the case. Lawyers for Proposition 8 appealed a pretrial decision to permit some broadcast of the trial proceedings, and the high court overturned Walker’s decision on a 5-4 vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown had urged Walker to permit same-sex marriages to resume, arguing the state was well-equipped to handle them.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during the six months it was legal in California in 2008, and the California Supreme Court later ruled that those marriages would remain valid.

The sponsors of the anti-gay marriage initiative told Walker that gay nuptials now would be clouded by uncertainty. The challengers countered that gay men and lesbians were capable of deciding for themselves whether to marry now or wait until the appeals conclude.

In weighing whether to put a ruling on hold, judges consider the likelihood that higher courts would uphold their ruling and whether irreparable harm would be caused by a postponement.

Walker, who heard 13 days of testimony in January, said in his ruling Wednesday that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. He ruled that moral disapproval was not enough to deny gays what courts have determined is a fundamental right to marry.

Walker’s ruling will be reviewed by the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a majority of Democratic appointees. If the 9th Circuit upholds Walker’s decision, opponents of same-sex marriage said they would take the case to the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on matters of federal constitutional law.

--Maura Dolan and Lee Romney in San Francisco

If it wasn't pointless because of this being an election year, I'd be trying to impeach Schwarzenegger and Brown because they are absent in protecting something that was a part of the (then legal) California Constitution.

My my, this doesn't seem very tolerant of you Yougi.

No, it doesn't. It's just YGO not looking before he leaps. None of the government officials named in the suit defended because they felt Prop. 8 was a bad law. It was their right to do so and they were in no way obligated to defend it.

Indeed, Arnold was against the measure from day 1.

[Sarzonia]

Only under Christian marriage (and only non-Anglican churches), there are tens of other religions in america that allow gay marriage and would be affected by the bill.

I think you misunderstand my point. To put it simply, while I'm not a fan of homosexual marriage I think a religious body should follow the tenants of that body with no government interference one way or the other. Essentially, it's my opinion that any legal document or decision infringing upon any basic right is unconstitutional.

I would suggest something different (not surprisingly, it's how I RP Sarzonia handling the issue).

Confer all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage onto civil unions. Make that the legally recognised partnership between two adults. If someone still wants to get married, that's between them and their religion, but as far as legal rights are concerned, they would not get any for being married.

To address your point more specifically, is the freedom of religion more important than the right to equal protection and due process? The judge's decision specifically deals with denying the right of two consenting adults to get married to the person of their choice because they happen to be female or they happen to be male. To cite precedent, Proposition 8 does what Justice Kennedy wrote that Colorado tried to do in Romer v. Evans, "make a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

It is from that perspective that I will continue to insist on full equality for same-sex couples. Whether that comes in the form of marriage for same-sex couples or making civil marriage or civil unions the legally recognised platform is up to interpretation. But full equality is a must, and it will come eventually whether bigots want it to or not.

[Farnhamia]

Only under Christian marriage (and only non-Anglican churches), there are tens of other religions in america that allow gay marriage and would be affected by the bill.

I think you misunderstand my point. To put it simply, while I'm not a fan of homosexual marriage I think a religious body should follow the tenants of that body with no government interference one way or the other. Essentially, it's my opinion that any legal document or decision infringing upon any basic right is unconstitutional.

I would suggest something different (not surprisingly, it's how I RP Sarzonia handling the issue).

Confer all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage onto civil unions. Make that the legally recognised partnership between two adults. If someone still wants to get married, that's between them and their religion, but as far as legal rights are concerned, they would not get any for being married.

To address your point more specifically, is the freedom of religion more important than the right to equal protection and due process? The judge's decision specifically deals with denying the right of two consenting adults to get married to the person of their choice because they happen to be female or they happen to be male. To cite precedent, Proposition 8 does what Justice Kennedy wrote that Colorado tried to do in Romer v. Evans, "make a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

It is from that perspective that I will continue to insist on full equality for same-sex couples. Whether that comes in the form of marriage for same-sex couples or making civil marriage or civil unions the legally recognised platform is up to interpretation. But full equality is a must, and it will come eventually whether bigots want it to or not.

You're both missing the point that all marriage in the US is essential a civil union. No religious element is required or even necessary. All that is necessary is the proper paperwork and payment to the state. No one in the mainstream of the gay rights movement has proposed forcing churches to marry gay people. With Prop. 8, however, religious people have conspired to deny gays the right to legal unions that they falsely claim are religious in nature.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Here's the latest, and most accurate.

When I first Googled, there were a number of "Dewey Defeats Truman" type articles.

Crime | Government | Medical marijuana | Education | Prop 8 | Traffic | Westside

L.A. NOWSouthern California -- this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home

Judge who overturned Prop. 8 extends temporary hold on gay marriage [updated]
August 12, 2010 | 12:39 pm

A federal judge today refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Walker said that same-sex marriages may resume at that time unless a higher court blocks them.

Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it.

[Updated, 12:50 p.m. "As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the Court of Appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," Walker wrote.

"In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the govenror or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."

Walker said there was no evidence tht the sponsors of Proposition 8 "face the kind of injury" required to have standing to file an appeal.

"The uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily againist the likelihood of their success," he wrote.

The campaign for Proposition 8 said it would immediately appeal Walker's ruling.

"If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," the sponsors said in a prepared statement. They did not address Walker's contention that they may not having standing to appeal.

In front of San Francisco City Hall shortly before Walker's ruling was released, a phalanx of Prop 8 supporters wearing yellow plastic ProtectMarriage vests held their ground in front of dozens of jubilant same sex marriage backers.

"A Moral Wrong Cannot Be a Civil Right," said one. Another proclaimed "Pervert Judge, Pervert Ruling." Others yet called for an end to "Judicial Tyranny."

But in this gay rights bastion, the weight of public opinion became clear when an open air double decker tourist bus passed. Cameras snapped as same sex couples festooned with marriage equality stickers hooted and waved.]

Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

The high court already has slapped down Walker once in the case. Lawyers for Proposition 8 appealed a pretrial decision to permit some broadcast of the trial proceedings, and the high court overturned Walker’s decision on a 5-4 vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown had urged Walker to permit same-sex marriages to resume, arguing the state was well-equipped to handle them.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during the six months it was legal in California in 2008, and the California Supreme Court later ruled that those marriages would remain valid.

The sponsors of the anti-gay marriage initiative told Walker that gay nuptials now would be clouded by uncertainty. The challengers countered that gay men and lesbians were capable of deciding for themselves whether to marry now or wait until the appeals conclude.

In weighing whether to put a ruling on hold, judges consider the likelihood that higher courts would uphold their ruling and whether irreparable harm would be caused by a postponement.

Walker, who heard 13 days of testimony in January, said in his ruling Wednesday that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. He ruled that moral disapproval was not enough to deny gays what courts have determined is a fundamental right to marry.

Walker’s ruling will be reviewed by the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a majority of Democratic appointees. If the 9th Circuit upholds Walker’s decision, opponents of same-sex marriage said they would take the case to the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on matters of federal constitutional law.

--Maura Dolan and Lee Romney in San Francisco

If it wasn't pointless because of this being an election year, I'd be trying to impeach Schwarzenegger and Brown because they are absent in protecting something that was a part of the (then legal) California Constitution.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but be amused that you dismissed accurate stories (as "Dewey Defeats Truman" falsities) in order to find one that was misleading -- and then drew the wrong conclusion.

As I explained a few posts above, Federal Rule of Civl Procedure 62(a) already delayed (or stayed) the court's judgment and injunction of August 4, 2010 from going into effect for 14 days -- until August 18, 2010.

The District Court's ruling today (11p pdf) unequivocally rejects the defendants' (Prop. 8 proponents') motion for a stay. Thus, the injunction on Prop. 8 will go into effect on August 18th per normal procedure.

Anytime after the District Court announce its ruling on August 4, 2010 until 30 days after the judgment is entered the defendants can file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Having asked the District Court for a stay of the injunction and lost, they may ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay. FRAP 18. I'm not sure about their chances, however, as they will face the same standards applied by the District Court -- and the District Court's reasoning makes a great deal of sense.

Talk of impeachment -- particularly on the grounds you mention -- are too absurd to respond to with anything but laughter.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Hey, TCT, I've a question. How exactly does the appeals process work? Is it like a blank slate for the party appealing to get what it wants or do they have to present some sort of error in procedure? I've been a little confuzzled and a clarification would be awesome.

[Hammurab]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but be amused that you dismissed accurate stories (as "Dewey Defeats Truman" falsities) in order to find one that was misleading -- and then drew the wrong conclusion.

As I explained a few posts above, Federal Rule of Civl Procedure 62(a) already delayed (or stayed) the court's judgment and injunction of August 4, 2010 from going into effect for 14 days -- until August 18, 2010.

The District Court's ruling today (11p pdf) unequivocally rejects the defendants' (Prop. 8 proponents') motion for a stay. Thus, the injunction on Prop. 8 will go into effect on August 18th per normal procedure.

Anytime after the District Court announce its ruling on August 4, 2010 until 30 days after the judgment is entered the defendants can file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Having asked the District Court for a stay of the injunction and lost, they may ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay. FRAP 18. I'm not sure about their chances, however, as they will face the same standards applied by the District Court -- and the District Court's reasoning makes a great deal of sense.

Talk of impeachment -- particularly on the grounds you mention -- are too absurd to respond to with anything but laughter.

Unfortunately, You Gi Owe is correct, as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their appellate counterparts are overruled by the famous decision in Kindergarten v. Cop, UP, 1.33:1, 111 min, Univ. Pic. (1990), which the Justice clearly states: "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". (Although I'm sure a lawyer like you will claim this is merely dickta.)

Thus, Governor Schvitzenputter was and is guilty of an impeachable offense by not walking into courtroom and throwing the Seal of the State of California like a big lethal frisbee and decapitating that Judge, and then saying "Koort iz ah-joorned!" or something.





Dickta.


Really? Nothing?

Alright, fuck you people .

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but be amused that you dismissed accurate stories (as "Dewey Defeats Truman" falsities) in order to find one that was misleading -- and then drew the wrong conclusion.

As I explained a few posts above, Federal Rule of Civl Procedure 62(a) already delayed (or stayed) the court's judgment and injunction of August 4, 2010 from going into effect for 14 days -- until August 18, 2010.

The District Court's ruling today (11p pdf) unequivocally rejects the defendants' (Prop. 8 proponents') motion for a stay. Thus, the injunction on Prop. 8 will go into effect on August 18th per normal procedure.

Anytime after the District Court announce its ruling on August 4, 2010 until 30 days after the judgment is entered the defendants can file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Having asked the District Court for a stay of the injunction and lost, they may ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay. FRAP 18. I'm not sure about their chances, however, as they will face the same standards applied by the District Court -- and the District Court's reasoning makes a great deal of sense.

Talk of impeachment -- particularly on the grounds you mention -- are too absurd to respond to with anything but laughter.

Unfortunately, You Gi Owe is correct, as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their appellate counterparts are overruled by the famous decision in Kindergarten v. Cop, UP, 1.33:1, 111 min, Univ. Pic. (1990), which the Justice clearly states: "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". (Although I'm sure a lawyer like you will claim this is merely dickta.)

Thus, Governor Schvitzenputter was and is guilty of an impeachable offense by not walking into courtroom and throwing the Seal of the State of California like a big lethal frisbee and decapitating that Judge, and then saying "Koort iz ah-joorned!" or something.





Dickta.


Really? Nothing?

Alright, fuck you people .

If it makes you feel better, I just got stares for laughing at your citation.

[Farnhamia]

I'm sorry, but I can't help but be amused that you dismissed accurate stories (as "Dewey Defeats Truman" falsities) in order to find one that was misleading -- and then drew the wrong conclusion.

As I explained a few posts above, Federal Rule of Civl Procedure 62(a) already delayed (or stayed) the court's judgment and injunction of August 4, 2010 from going into effect for 14 days -- until August 18, 2010.

The District Court's ruling today (11p pdf) unequivocally rejects the defendants' (Prop. 8 proponents') motion for a stay. Thus, the injunction on Prop. 8 will go into effect on August 18th per normal procedure.

Anytime after the District Court announce its ruling on August 4, 2010 until 30 days after the judgment is entered the defendants can file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Having asked the District Court for a stay of the injunction and lost, they may ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay. FRAP 18. I'm not sure about their chances, however, as they will face the same standards applied by the District Court -- and the District Court's reasoning makes a great deal of sense.

Talk of impeachment -- particularly on the grounds you mention -- are too absurd to respond to with anything but laughter.

Unfortunately, You Gi Owe is correct, as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their appellate counterparts are overruled by the famous decision in Kindergarten v. Cop, UP, 1.33:1, 111 min, Univ. Pic. (1990), which the Justice clearly states: "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina". (Although I'm sure a lawyer like you will claim this is merely dickta.)

Thus, Governor Schvitzenputter was and is guilty of an impeachable offense by not walking into courtroom and throwing the Seal of the State of California like a big lethal frisbee and decapitating that Judge, and then saying "Koort iz ah-joorned!" or something.





Dickta.


Really? Nothing?

Alright, fuck you people .

Now, now. That wasn't bad. Two paragraphs, concise, no long, involved story about you watching the announcement of the decision with your son and his reaction.

[Hammurab]

If it makes you feel better, I just got stares for laughing at your citation.

What? C'mon, there are people who have beat vehicle homicide charges by citing the line "Not so tough without your car, are ya?" from the end of that steaming piece of shit.

And in Hollywood, California, anything that grossed over its production budget is controlling case law.

[Hammurab]

Now, now. That wasn't bad. Two paragraphs, concise, no long, involved story about you watching the announcement of the decision with your son and his reaction.

He's cute! Dammit! He's fucking adorable, its like owning an achondroplasiatic on uppers with a 20 word vocabulary and no shame!

He adds to every story! He does! It...he...I...

Oh, man...what have I become...