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.
The God that he does not seem to believe in will certainly disbar him.
That is an excellent point. That definition has been used to defend heterosexual marriage by pointing out marriage as a cultural norm is the binding of one man to one woman even in cultures which support multiple simultaneous marriages. The entire group does not engage in a group marriage simultaneously, and if one of the wives dies or is divorced the other marriages are unaffected.
However, it begs the question. If civil marriage in the United States is not the legal binding of one man to one woman at one time, then what is the definition? The answer is, there is none. The judge found in today's society, restrictions on marriage were based only in religion and moral norms, not in legally defensible arguments. But he did not create a definition.
Since the case in California shot down not only Prop 8, but the very idea of restricting marriage via a definition, it has to have created a legal precedent to allow challenges.
Homosexual marriage is not recognized in the Federal tax code. All civil marriage is based on state laws. So there is no reason a state could not legalize polygamy, it would just mean if all spouses worked one wife could file jointly, and the remainder if they earned money would file as an unmarried individual.
So what is to prevent a polygamist from suing the state of California under an equal protection argument citing the judge's Prop 8 decision? Likewise, since this was a federal judge, deciding on federal constitutional grounds, what is to keep gays from any state from suing on similar grounds? What is to keep polygamist fundamentalists Mormon sects in Utah from suing Utah, or polygamist Muslims in Dearborn from suing Michigan?
I wonder if Ted Olson will take up the case for the fundamentalist LDS members who have been charged or convicted of bigamy.
So the very first time a priest is told to marry a homosexual couple he does not want to marry because he believes marriage is only one man and one woman, hasn’t he then been damaged by being forced to marry people he knows should not marry. Doesn’t that damage give him standing to sue for an appeal of Prop 8?
Why would this not be the case?
Why would he be forced to? Homosexuals may be able to marry in civil ceremonies but the government can't force religions to violate their teachings.
Spreading AIDS to society at large is not “no effect on society at large”.
I voted for Tom McClintock.
Men are expected to act to cure such depravity, as a part of our duty to G-d. We are not to wait helplessly as innocents are crushed by the immoral.
There should be 49 other states that come on line and say they won’t honor California marriages.
I am just saying people may get away with many sins in this life but they will surely answer for them in the next.
“Revolution is coming, it must come.”
Let us pray it is in the form of the voting booth.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
Perhaps, because of the Godless nature of this state, God has already left California. Pray for the Salvation of those of us stuck in this nightmare.
I reject all theological interpretations which hold men should be passive before other men doing great evil and wait instead for Divine retribution.
Do not injustice or evil to cure any evil, but do not stand by — look for what cures Providence has already provided that might best be applied in the situation.
Well...at least now another state knows the pain we feel in Massachusetts.
My father had a VERY fitting saying for situations like this,but I’d be banned if I repeat it here....
Thousands of lawsuits brought by leftists over the years and never once have I heard of this rule being applied to their causes.
And the pot continues to boil over...
I see the ‘standing’ thing as the normal leftist ratchet approach.
The only people with standing are those who are damaged by the law. The only ones damaged are the people who are told they can’t marry. Therefore, the only people who can sue are the gays. Heterosexuals aren’t prevented from marrying, so they have to right to sue.
This effectively biases the legal system toward allowing gay marriage, or really, allowing anybody to do anything.
I wonder if the standing argument could be pushed so far as to even allow murder to become legal (theoretically). The only people who could sue would be those damaged by the murderer. Those damaged would only be the dead victims, who would be in no position to sue. Could be a civil vs. criminal lwaw difference, though.
Is he having an affair with Tony Villar (Villaregosa)?
Perhaps they are affected by the lifting of the stay?
-PJ
This came up in the Birther trials- citizens had no standing. When pressed, the court allowed other candidates to have standing, so Alan Keyes filed a suit, but it turned out he had no standing either.
Seems like “The System” has become rigged. Courts overturn votes, ignore important issues, rely on foreign law, the legislature ignores the constitution and the courts go along. I’m sure we could all enumerate a long list of grievances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.