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 ...
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.
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.
If you remove the Ballot Box all you have left is the bullet box.
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.
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.
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?
White Crackers.
Hmm. So laws against allowing child molestation can’t be challenged by those who aren’t doing any molesting?
The Hell we can’t. Molon labe to the whole stinkin’ bunch of traitors.
That’s what I was thinking. Who does this guy think he is?
He is wrong.
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.
The phrase “Mr. and Mr.” will never pass my lips.
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...
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.
Bingo.
Moonbeam and Arnold’s utter dereliction of duty.
Impeach Arnold, and Pre-Impeach Moonbeam.
Now.
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.
Glad that we’ve dispensed with that silly “sovereignty resides with the people” nonsense.
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.
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.
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."
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.