Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal
Associated Press ^ | August 13, 2010 | PAUL ELIAS and LISA LEFF

Posted on 08/13/2010 8:35:47 AM PDT by reaganaut1

SAN FRANCISCO – The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "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," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed an request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday.

They argued the appeals court should grant a stay of Walker's order requiring state officials to cease enforcing Proposition 8 "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: bostonglobe; homosexualagenda; improperexecauth; judicialsupremacy; margaretmarshall; newyorktimes; nytimesmanipulation; romney; romneyvsclerks; vaughnwalker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
I want to live in a Free Republic, not a judicial tyranny. The day may come when politicians, including the President, may need to openly defy judges and ignore orders that they think are unconstitutional. If Congress strongly disagreed with a president's overruling of a court, it could impeach him. I know this is playing with fire, but so is a situation when judges can make up their own laws or strike down existing, constitutional ones with impunity.
1 posted on 08/13/2010 8:35:50 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Who died and made him and Obama kings?


2 posted on 08/13/2010 8:39:10 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Take away the Ballot Box and there’s only one left your Honor....


3 posted on 08/13/2010 8:39:20 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

WE ARE DOOMED.


4 posted on 08/13/2010 8:40:00 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

When do we shift our method to pitchforks and torches? It needs to be done. Sadly, I don’t believe it will happen in my time.


5 posted on 08/13/2010 8:42:56 AM PDT by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Federal Judge in La. ignored by DOE.
Federal Judge in CA ignors voters.

Are we sseeing a trend yet.

I can’t wait for a Judge to say Islamist have the RIGHT to marry a 12 year old.
Then men on boys.
According to this Judge all bets are off.


6 posted on 08/13/2010 8:44:56 AM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

Ya think?

7 posted on 08/13/2010 8:46:57 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

“Take away the Ballot Box and there’s only one left your Honor....”

Precisely. I guess the judge has not read much history.


8 posted on 08/13/2010 8:48:25 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Why do they keep lying? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. CA did not create a ban on gay marriage...they defined what marriage is. Words have actual definitions...except where the courts are concerned...then they can revise the definitions of words by judicial fiat.
9 posted on 08/13/2010 8:48:44 AM PDT by highlander_UW (Education is too important to abdicate control of it to the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

What rhymes with “ban’s backers”?

Oh, wait...


10 posted on 08/13/2010 8:49:03 AM PDT by Ayn And Milton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Meanwhile the State of California went down in this fight faster than a mob paid boxer. I wonder whether it even put up a real fight to defend its citizens right to a referendum or if the state attorney general let his kids fill out the legal briefs defending prop 8 in crayon.
11 posted on 08/13/2010 8:49:41 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

We have evidence already of this Judge’s sharp legal mind. Bwahahaaa. How could he be wrong?


12 posted on 08/13/2010 8:50:47 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

Cutting to the chase - the only way to effectively avoid this result is passage of an affirmative prohibition as an amendment to the Federal Constitution. I see absolutely no activity moving in that direction. So, whether a successful appeal is started in this case or not - absent an amendment to the Federal Constitution - gay marriage is a certainty, because it is a certainty that some federal judge will interpret equal protection under the Federal Constitution in exactly the same way.


13 posted on 08/13/2010 8:51:55 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

That is the height of hubris, arrogance and several other words. How can he say that his ruling cannot be appealed? That just does not make any sense at all. If his ruling can’t be appealed then how does he have the authority to make a ruling to start with?


14 posted on 08/13/2010 8:53:13 AM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (If I weren't afraid of the feds, I would refer to Obama as our "undocumented POTUS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
I will never recognize two people of the same sex as being married. All employers should do the same.
15 posted on 08/13/2010 8:56:04 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (I believe in man-made political climate change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Judge Walker and his District kangaroo court does NOT have jurisdiction. Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

16 posted on 08/13/2010 8:56:33 AM PDT by Natural Law (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

He is probably right. It’s pretty clear the courts are moving in that direction. It’s like speed/traffic light cameras, the people don’t want them but the politicians of both parties are determined to put them in place anyway. And now with public opinion seemingly shifting towards supporting gay marriage, the courts will feel like they can rule in the way they’ve always wanted to rule. Kennedy will be the swing vote if it goes to the Supreme Court, and it is pretty clear what kind of decision he really wants to make on the issue.

Gay marriage can’t be stopped at this point. Half the country will oppose it, but will do nothing to stop it other than whine for awhile - most don’t even know how these judges get into power anyway. The next fight over forcing churches to perform gay marriages will come quickly and we will probably lose that fight over time as well.


17 posted on 08/13/2010 8:56:55 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If citizens there cannot get this judge removed/impeached, rulings like this will continue to escalate beyond control.

IMPEACH HIM!


18 posted on 08/13/2010 8:57:40 AM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The day may come when politicians, including the President, may need to openly defy judges and ignore orders that they think are unconstitutional.

Are you kidding? That day came a while back, vis-a-vis campaign laws, immigration laws, RICO laws. It's not a question of "politicians." What does the current crop do except lie, appease, deceive, and collect their retirement? It's a question of authoritarian enforcement on the citizen, citizen resistance, and outright violent revolution if elections are manipulated.

It's not like that level of human reaction has not occurred elsewhere across the world, across its nations, and across history.

The current sinister cabal behind Barack Obama, primarily Jewish, has brought it on. The last laugh is the Money Game, which is their God, collapses.

Johnny Suntrade

19 posted on 08/13/2010 8:58:09 AM PDT by jnsun (The Left: the need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

So we can expect to see the ones I mentioned as a soon to be fact of life in Amer.?


20 posted on 08/13/2010 8:58:25 AM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Obama isn’t king yet, but this fag judge is. He cannot be removed, and if an appeal is rejected, his opinion is then law. This judge wields more power than Obama.


21 posted on 08/13/2010 9:00:40 AM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Karl, the AG and Gov. were complicit in this action. Neither took the side of the electorate.

They were on the side of the homos., not the voters. It was a volunteer effort to fight back against the homos.


22 posted on 08/13/2010 9:01:49 AM PDT by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If you remove the Ballot Box all you have left is the bullet box.


23 posted on 08/13/2010 9:01:54 AM PDT by teletech (Say NO to RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Very clever he says it’s none of their business because they don’t want to marry same sex partners so it’s not their problem if he gets overturned in the future.

People don’t understand how intrusive and complex federal law has become, because of leftist judges and acts of Congress.

The “average” or “normal” citizen often is viewed as a backward bigot in the way of the noble take your pick minority.


24 posted on 08/13/2010 9:03:38 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Perhaps it’s getting to be that time: when Christians avoid the STATE’s legalities and opt for a religious wedding only. Why bother with the “civil” act when such act is immoral.

Let homosexuals keep their state “marriage” license. The State has become an anathema to Christians anyway.


25 posted on 08/13/2010 9:05:50 AM PDT by eleni121 (Thank you Jennifer Lopez for canceling your Turk gig - human beings do not sing for rapist Turks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw

Not sure but I think this is called a ‘blind bluff’ in poker. Guy thinks he can con you into agreeing with him that he has what he needs, when he has exactly nothing to back it up. I say, don’t let him short-circuit the process. If it takes a while to get things put right again, that’s fine, keep on keeping on. He has a certain after-life destination which may or may not be a comfort to him (some people like it really warm, for some reason), so the issue is for those who come after: why should they have to endure the chaos his personal whim has caused?


26 posted on 08/13/2010 9:09:40 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ayn And Milton

White Crackers.


27 posted on 08/13/2010 9:11:00 AM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Hmm. So laws against allowing child molestation can’t be challenged by those who aren’t doing any molesting?


28 posted on 08/13/2010 9:14:32 AM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The Hell we can’t. Molon labe to the whole stinkin’ bunch of traitors.


29 posted on 08/13/2010 9:15:16 AM PDT by bboop (We don't need no stinkin' VAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

That’s what I was thinking. Who does this guy think he is?

He is wrong.


30 posted on 08/13/2010 9:17:27 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Good post,

but knowing how leftists operate,
they’ll figure out a way to use the State
to PUNISH Christians who don’t recognize gay “marriage”
as exactly equal to the religious weddings you’re proposing.

Leftists cannot allow anyone to exist that disagrees with their worldly ideology. This comes from their ideological father, the prince of this world.


31 posted on 08/13/2010 9:18:27 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68

The phrase “Mr. and Mr.” will never pass my lips.


32 posted on 08/13/2010 9:22:27 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The problem the judge has in this case is that California law is pretty clear on this issue. If the state refuses to defend a law that was passed by the initiative process in court, the people supporting the proposition have standing to defend the law. Otherwise, the whole initiative process would be a sham, and the state could overturn any initiatives they didn’t like by simply refusing to defend them in court. So the standing issue is not the slam dunk the judge would like to think it is...


33 posted on 08/13/2010 9:23:50 AM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

There is no fixed age of consent to marriage in California.

Marriage for those under some age (18?) requires consent of the parents or guardian and possibly approval of a court.

Single homosexuals are permitted to adopt in California.

This means that Mr. X can approve the marriage of his adopted 8 year old boy to his best friend Mr. Y’s adopted 11 year old boy.

And if it is that approval of a Judge is needed, who now can doubt that a Vaughn Walker-type judge can easily be found to gleefully approve such a union.


34 posted on 08/13/2010 9:24:08 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Bingo.

Moonbeam and Arnold’s utter dereliction of duty.

Impeach Arnold, and Pre-Impeach Moonbeam.

Now.


35 posted on 08/13/2010 9:25:35 AM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrB

It’s a conundrum on the surface. But being “punished” by an evil state is not something Christians should be afraid of.

If we cannot make this nation into an entity for the purposes of goodness and righteousness, then it deserves neither our goodness nor support.


36 posted on 08/13/2010 9:25:51 AM PDT by eleni121 (Thank you Jennifer Lopez for canceling your Turk gig - human beings do not sing for rapist Turks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Glad that we’ve dispensed with that silly “sovereignty resides with the people” nonsense.


37 posted on 08/13/2010 9:26:51 AM PDT by denydenydeny (You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice. --Spencer Tracy, Bad Day at Black Rock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

The original intent of the institution having been erased when this all happens, perhaps it is time to start pushing for ALL government benefits relative to being married be removed. Any tax or legal advantages should go away. After all, under the way the left looks at things, aren’t people who opt to be single being discriminated against simply because they are single? Why should they be forced to be married? Don’t “living-togethers” have “rights” too? I think their reasoning MUST be turned back upon them in some way something like this. We are going to have to become very, very creative.


38 posted on 08/13/2010 9:29:54 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (If you try to fail and you succeed, what have you just done?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

If you recall, both were “disappointed” that Prop 8 passed.

Brown even gerrymandered the Prop description on the voter’s guide in an attempt to confuse people.

Scum, both of them.


39 posted on 08/13/2010 9:32:05 AM PDT by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Here's an interesting element in Judge Walkers' history. Ya think maybe he's trying too hard to compensate?

This is from Wikipedia: "Walker was originally nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".

Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor."

40 posted on 08/13/2010 9:32:58 AM PDT by downtownconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Correctamundo.

Moonbeam also abjectly refused to perform his duty to defend the state from this bogus lawsuit, nor refer the defense out to competent counsel, resulting in Walker’s sulphuric decision.

Impeach!


41 posted on 08/13/2010 9:37:00 AM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Anima Mundi

Exactly how I am thinking too. Get rid of benefits-—all kinds.

In that sense I fully agree with Marx’s end game goal of the “withering away of the state”. If you don’t have govt drones employed to “manage” the people and their lives then people will be left free to manage their own affairs.


42 posted on 08/13/2010 9:38:38 AM PDT by eleni121 (Thank you Jennifer Lopez for canceling your Turk gig - human beings do not sing for rapist Turks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

And Arnold won’t appeal. I hope all his groupies are proud.


43 posted on 08/13/2010 9:45:04 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

While I do understand the equal protection part of this, I fail to understand how you can take a practice that has been recognized as taboo for thousands of years, and suddenly by judicial fiat declare it mainstream, and equal with the man woman model of recognized relationships that have been the norm for those thousands of years.

And this despite the fact that the populace at large does not go out of it’s way to harm homosexuals, and has graciously provided partnerships that give homosexuals the legal relief aspects they sought under “marriage”.

This movement can only be seen as devious, and destructive.

One man has done this. The overall populace disagrees with him by a wide margin. He’s doesn’t give a damn.

Why is the arbitrary recognition of sex with minors being taboo, any different? It’s based on the same sort of moral distinction. It was thought to be morally wrong.

What if the homosexuals and NAMBLA chapters all get together and declare their right to have sexual relationships with little boys? They put it on the ballot, and lose by 90%.

What happens when this same judge says, “Hey, I want me some of that”, and rules the ballot initiative invalid? What happens when he puts a stay on it for a week or so, and then allows these folks to have at our children?

Same difference folks. It’s exactly the same thing. It’s just this one pervert judge’s moral equivalency up against the populace at large.

It’s the same sort of whim. His whim is more important than our moral values. This guy needs to be removed from the court, and I must say, perversion being what it is, I would suggest perverts not be able to serve on our courts.

I don’t like having to address this in this manner, but our backs are up against the wall here. If push comes to shove, I’m going to address it the way I see it, and to hell with being politically correct. I don’t really have any animus for homosexuals other than thinking them morally wrong, but I have a right to defend my definition of morality too. And since my views are not being respected, I’m not going to mince words.

You come after my morality, and I’m going to stand up and defend it just as stridently as anyone else. Some one has to for the sake of our society.


44 posted on 08/13/2010 9:48:34 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success, not failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I worked several years in the legal field and I can guarantee this will be overturned. The judge, Vaughn Walker, is an avowed sodomite and most certainly should have recused himself. 7,000,000 citizens of California made a crystal clear statement that they reject his liberal activist notion of homosexual ‘marriage’. A single judge acting as a homosexual militant has no right to deny the decision of 7,000,000 voters. After this insane ruling is overturned, Walker needs to be removed from office for malfeasance.


45 posted on 08/13/2010 9:49:16 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

who are the lawyers? are they this stupid?

what about the backers of referenda who now have had their right to vote eliminated.


46 posted on 08/13/2010 9:49:31 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The judge makes a ruling and then says "There can be no appeals against my magnificance"? What sort of country has the USA become?

Will someone tell me when the march on the District of Corruption starts?
47 posted on 08/13/2010 9:51:02 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

He must be a Queen.


48 posted on 08/13/2010 9:51:42 AM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

equal protection.

does a judge have the right to manipulate due process to protect his ruling on appeal?

Since the state ASSIGNED the appeal to the backers then do they have the right to withdraw that assignment in order to reveal they wanted to lose?


49 posted on 08/13/2010 9:52:37 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling

Is that right? Your Honor, you are not leaving many options on over-turning your verdict.

This from a judge that has an obvious bias and did not see fit to recuse himself.

50 posted on 08/13/2010 9:52:37 AM PDT by SouthTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson