Skip to comments.Calif. won't appeal Prop 8 ruling (and judge says regular citizen have no standing)
Posted on 08/13/2010 4:15:28 AM PDT by xzins
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 12 (UPI) -- California will not appeal a U.S. judge's decision to lift a stay on his injunction blocking the state's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, officials said.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Thursday he would lift the stay and allow same-sex marriages to proceed, but not until Aug. 18. Such marriages would be permitted after that unless an appeals court, possibility the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, issues a stay beyond the date.
Walker warned the amendment's sponsors may not have standing, or status, to make the appeal because they were not affected by the stay.
"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 governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the judge to immediately lift the stay, allowing gay and lesbian marriages to go on during the legal process, and a spokesman for the governor indicated Thursday Schwarzenegger will not appeal the ruling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
"The governor supports the judge's ruling," spokesman Aaron McLear said.
If higher courts concur with Walker on the standing issue, they would not decide the issue on its merits, the newspaper said. However, the case could still get further hearings on procedural issues, during which time the ruling overturning Proposition 8 would stand in California.
In issuing a preliminary injunction Aug. 4 against the ban, a state constitutional amendment called Proposition 8, the judge said it "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."
The Times said the sponsors had warned they would go to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay if Walker allowed same-sex marriages to continue.
California voters approved the ban in November 2008 by a 52.3 percent majority six months after the California Supreme Court ruled laws against same-sex marriage violated the state Constitution. The state court later upheld Prop 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.
That ruling ends any definition of “marriage.”
If the courts rule that a marriage doesn’t have to be between a man and woman, then why should it limit marriage between species, or more than 2 people?
Every single voter in California was disenfranchised. Their right to vote and govern themselves was stripped, and no one in California has standing? Californians’ right to a Republican form of government guaranteed in Article IV of the US Constitution was blatantly violated. The right to be governed by the consent of the governed was denied, and NO ONE in California has STANDING!? If the 9th circuit rules that, then they should all be impeached for crimes against the Constitution.
And the two candidates for governor will not appeal either.
These comments say the people don’t matter because who are the ‘people’ in the final analysis? It is government that has standing, not the ‘people’? In federal court the state government is the sole representative of its people?
It boggles the mind but this ruling can only be overturned if the people recall the governor or pass a veto proof resolution for the governor to appeal?
The people have no standing because ‘people’ is not a recognizable legal entity in federal court outside of state government standing?
Revolution is coming, it must come.
Yeah, California is a tyranny but its not California that did this. Its a tyrrnical Federal Judge that gave the pathetic politicians of California an excuse not to enforce the law of the land that didn’t like anyway. California’s government didn’t want to enforce Prop.8 but it had to because of the people. Its the Feds that forced this situation on California’s voters.
You are arguing some of the merits of Prop 8.
The current news here has nothing to do with the merits but rather a set of tactics to overturn the will of the people by a deceitful federal application of equal treatment and due process followed by a refusal to process grievances based on a lack of standing.
We are witnessing the homosexual left pulling out all the legal stops to shut down religious expression in public; people’s will be damned.
A new proposition and a different Governor might work if the case hasn’t been heard on its merits yet.
The Gov and Attorney General have shown themselves to be enemies of the people of Calif. They should be impeached immediately.
I don’t understand how they don’t have standing, since they are actual voters disenfranchised by this ruling. Their votes have been invalidated,so they were impacted.
How to fight? The two candidates for governor are supporters of gay marriage.
Pass another amendment? Not possible.
How about recall the governor, current or elected? Maybe.
Elect a prop 8 supportive state legislature? This would be the best fight strategy but hard to do and time-comsuming.
I'd call it severe damage.
Unfortunately you are right. When the people have no standing it has to come.
I was always troubled by the definition of marriage that most states were passing that said that marriage only the marriage of one man and one woman would be valid or recognized by a state. The reason being that the definition still opens the door for polygamy, because technically speaking couldn't you argue that polygamy is only the relationship between one man and one woman. After all, the woman isn't married to the other wives, just the one husband. So polygamy is really a case in which one man has many separate marriages, but each marriage is only between one man and one woman. The definition never actually says that each individual may only contract one valid marriage at a time.
how about equal protection argument? It seems the governor is denying the voters their votes?
Capable of repetition yet evading review?
The ruling class doesn’t give a damn about the vote of the people. Not one damn.
I suppose if the courts allow “standing” with this homosexual issue, it might weaken the case for “no standing” in the challenges to Obama’s natural born status.
Is is possible that one political and legal issue could be influencing another.
“Conservatives sat on their fat butts for 40 years and allowed the left to take over nearly institution.” Try since around 1900 When that POS Roosevelt was elected and started this country down the “Progressive(Socialist/Statist) Path.
Its virtually impossible to do anything with the legislature. It's so gerrymandered as to make improvement virtually impossible...and the Dems control nearly 2/3s of both houses.
I guess you could put a lot of effort into making the redrawing of the legislative boundaries next year after the census is completed come out in your favor. However, I think California has idiotically handed drawing of their Congressional districts to an elite cabal of 15 people...not even the legislature has a say anymore.
I wonder if a massive tax protest would get their attention? Californians could ask their Republican representatives to vote against ANY budget until California defends Prop. 8 and prop. 187 since it takes 2/3 of the legislature to pass the budget. All state business would stop until they follow the will of the people. Another thing to do would be to put a bill that requires the state to exhaust all legislative appeals in defense of popularly passed initiatives. So they don't scuttle them like they are doing with prop.8 and prop 187.
NutMeg won't fight it either. Whitman is just Jerry Brown in the skirt that Jerry Brown won't wear in public.
And if it doesn't - stop spending. The state needs the sales tax revenue so badly, a tax payer revolt would totally freak them out.
No spending until prop 8 becomes state law - period.