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 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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