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 ...
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!
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.
And Arnold won’t appeal. I hope all his groupies are proud.
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.
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.
who are the lawyers? are they this stupid?
what about the backers of referenda who now have had their right to vote eliminated.
He must be a Queen.
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?
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.
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?
Who would’ve thought that butt holing would have ever become a protected class? People have really lost their minds on this.
Actually, “live togethers” don’t have the marriage penalty, where the two individuals’ income is combined, and therefore subjected to a higher rate of taxation than two non-rmarried “roommates”.
The tax penalty can be pretty severe, too.
In a free and sane nation, this creep would be impeached at a minimum or tried for treason.
The Left has found a way to nullify California ballot proposition the people vote for but the politician's don't want...
They did the with 187 they done it with with 8 ... get a judge ..any judge to rule against it... And then the state just does not appeal
Watch the left go after Prop 13...the property tax limit
In fact this seem to be how the left plan to bypass all laws in the country now... do not enforce... or get a judge to rule against a law and do not appeal ....say the people have no standing.... see what just happen in AZ
On the Prop 8 ruling ... as it was a federal ruling that under the US Constitution it dictates you must have gay marriage
(Remember Prop 8 was an amendment to the California State Constitution..the state highest law was tosses out by this judge)
...This does apply to the whole country so other states will get drawing in to this shortly
And I have to honestly say, folks.
It's over.
This in my mind is one of the major tipping points, I thought of this years ago and if this were to come to fruition and it has. Next will be "Gay" Wedding Congratulatory cards by Hallmark in public markets right along with Wedding cards for normal people, and nobody will be able to say a thing about it without fear of being rounded up by the PC/Diversity Thought Police.
God is going to Damn the United States; the American People and particularly those in California and their unelected dictatorship, are going to be to blame.
Batten down the hatches, keep your children near and pray.
IOW california politicians have found a way to nulify equal protection.
The problem is their boxes are bigger than ours, paid for by us.
Please elaborate.
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.