iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Judge Walker: I Doubt Prop 8 Ruling Can Be Appealed

PAUL ELIAS and LISA LEFF   08/13/10 10:19 PM ET   AP

Gay Marriage

SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Jerry Brown urged a federal appeals court Friday to waste no time in allowing gay marriages to resume in California now that a lower court has overturned the state's same-sex marriage ban.

The brief legal papers came in response to efforts by same-sex marriage opponents to get the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals to block a lower court judge's ruling striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect next week.

If the 9th Circuit refuses to intervene, it would clear the way for same-sex couples to marry starting after the close of business Wednesday.

Brown, the Democratic nominee for governor, said there was no reason for the appeals court to stay Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision because the potential inconvenience to state and local agencies pale in comparison to the harm suffered by gay couples whose civil rights are being violated.

"While there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by the district court's conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," he said.

Theodore Olson and David Boies, the high-profile lawyers representing the two couples who successfully sued to get Proposition 8 invalidated, were scheduled to file a separate motion on the issue later Friday.

Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8, has appealed Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that found the voter-approved law unconstitutional.

After Walker said on Thursday that he planned to finalize his ruling on Wednesday at 5 p.m., the group's lawyers also asked the 9th Circuit to prevent any gay marriages while the appeal is pending.

They argued the appeals court should grant an emergency stay "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages."

Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could begin tying the knot in California as early as next week or have to wait while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

Walker, however, has expressed doubts over whether Protect Marriage has the right to challenge his ruling if neither the attorney general nor the governor elect to do so. Both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and have since said they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now.

Although he allowed the group to intervene in the trial, the judge said the appellate court would have to make its own determination that same-sex marriage opponents would be injured if gay couples could wed, a claim Walker explicitly dismissed in his decision invalidating Proposition 8.

The ban's backers addressed the potential for such a roadblock in their emergency stay request, saying California's strong citizen initiative law permits ballot measure proponents to defend their interests if state officials will not.

"Proponents may directly assert the state's interest in defending the constitutionality of its laws, an interest that is indisputably sufficient to confer appellate standing," they said.

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer with the legal team representing same-sex couples, said that keeping Protect Marriage from moving forward with an appeal was not necessarily the top priority of the plaintiffs.

"We believe that Chief Judge Walker's ruling last week on the merits provides a powerful record on appeal, and we want the appellate courts to address the merits of Proposition 8," Boutrous said. "The standing issue that Chief Judge Walker identified provides another potential weapon in our arsenal that will be part of the appellate arguments."

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Jerry Brown urged a federal appeals court Friday to waste no time in allowing gay marriages to resume in California now that a lower court has overturned the sta...
SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Jerry Brown urged a federal appeals court Friday to waste no time in allowing gay marriages to resume in California now that a lower court has overturned the sta...
Filed by Nico Pitney  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,175
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (37 total)
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
10:13 PM on 08/14/2010
Sad. When I catch a glimpse of a headline about someone wanting to limit the rights of some other group, I can count on those wanting to limit others rights to be conservatives.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
suec03
10:48 PM on 08/14/2010
Judge Walker is not wanting to limit their rights. He is just pointing out that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing to appeal under Ninth Circuit rules. He allowed them to intervene in the district court case to defend it when the governor and attorney general declined to defend Prop 8. Judge Walker does not have the power to give the Prop 8 proponents standing to appeal. The Prop 8 proponents neither seek to marry someone of the same sex, nor are they issuers of marriage licenses. The burden will be on them to show the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals why they should be specially permitted to appeal. It may beyond that court's power to allow them to appeal since they are not directly affected by the district court ruling. Disagreeing with a ruling is not enough to grant you standing. Judge Walker's power to allow them to intervene was limited to the district court only.
07:33 PM on 08/15/2010
I don't think Javalation mean Judge Walker. I think he meant the people trying to appeal the judge's decision.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
08:32 PM on 08/14/2010
" How [Tea Party] Dummies Protect Marriage

The Dummies recall how they've fought to protect marriage throughout American history. "

http://www.youtube.com/user/MockTheDummy1?feature=mhw5#p/u/4/ASsJQY5jgmk

"Dummies, wake up!"
10:43 PM on 08/14/2010
Funny
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:44 PM on 08/14/2010
Hubris alert. Time for Walker to let his decision do the talking.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
suec03
10:41 PM on 08/14/2010
It isn't hubris on his part. It is HP writing sensational headlines again. The natural named defendants declined to defend Prop 8 in the district court. Rather than allow the plaintiffs to win by default, Judge Vaughn used his discretion to allow the Prop 8 proponents to intervene to defend the suit. Now on appeal, the proper appellants would be representatives of the state wanting to avoid issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. The state officials have declined to appeal, as they support the ruling. The Prop 8 proponents are not proper appellants as they are not directly affected by the ruling (do not seek to marry someone of the same sex and are not issuers of marriage licenses). The burden will be on the Prop 8 proponents to show the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals why they should be allowed to maintain the appeal when they are not directly impacted by Judge Walker's ruling.
07:35 PM on 08/15/2010
Not hubris. He worded the ruling in such a way that it would be extremely difficult to successfully appeal. He was very detailed in the 138 pages as to exactly why and how he ruled on all of the points of the case. THAT is why is will be so hard to appeal - if that's even possible. He made sure of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vikingdave
Treat friend like it's your last time together.
07:14 PM on 08/14/2010
Are Rethugs trying to spontainiously combust?http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbytopic.asp?topic=National%20news&id=2088
07:06 PM on 08/14/2010
I love that Prop 8 was overturned, but it is so hard for me to understand how this is even an issue in our legal system for several reasons:

1. If "marriage" is something we're going to "religiously" define, why is it even part of a legal definition? It should either be all civil unions, or take legality out of it altogether. If people need contracts, then do contracts, but the government should not be legislating religious matters.

2. The whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" crap - according to... whom? I see people citing the bible and whatnot. But really, then are we going to legislate what religion people can and cannot get married under? Make it such that an agnostic can't marry an atheist because their marriage might be defined differently? Make it such that a pagan can't marry a christian, because their marriage might not hold the same "sanctity". And then the whole bearing of children argument... what of people who get married who don't want kids or can't have kids?

Legislation should have nothing to do with it - people should be able to get married (or not) under their own religions (or lack thereof) and the government should have nothing to do with it. If the religious nuts are so worried about the sanctity of "marriage", then get married in your own bigoted church and discriminate against people there. And let others be within their own beliefs. Freedom of religion - crazy
07:50 PM on 08/14/2010
Well, as to the government angle of marriage....that would correctly be interpreted as "civil" marriage (as in, "We are going to have a civil ceremony") and the other would be "religious" marriage (As in "You're invited to my Wedding at St. Pat's on the 24th, RSVP.") I think the confussion began long ago, when just about everyone was married in a church or temple, and so there wasn't a need for a new institution for people who just wanted to be married by the state.

If you read the trial transcripts, there have been compelling reasons throughout history justifying the state (or government) being involved in marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
palisades02
Keep Calm and carry on
08:43 PM on 08/14/2010
True but the State is not the church and we would like to keep it that way in all decisions.
09:40 PM on 08/14/2010
When we had the "divine right of kings" marriage insured the inheritance of the throne.

This resulted in politically arranged marriages, court intrigue, back stabbing, murder and what we call "history".

It also resulted in a whole collection of social manners and expectations regarding what might happen when two people "tied the knot".

The gentry expected each other to follow "the rules" while competing nobles and members of the "royal family" were at each other's throats.

The ensuing chaos was often noted and turned into theatre, literature, and art; useful to entertain the masses while the "rulers" sorted things out.

In our era this "grand tradition" has devolved into the "Bill and Monica" affair.

Though any of the above may contain significant reasons to consider avoiding the institution, historically renewed interest in marriage has occurred.

This next generation seems more keen on the institution than their parents, and is even opening the door for some eager newcomers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Kellerman
Let's have more sanity toward each other
05:33 PM on 08/14/2010
If you guys don't mind, I am repeating my suggestion, made in the middle of that overload of posts Saturday

I took my own advice and stopped by the Church of JC of the Hater Day Saints last evening in LA, to their lavish visitor center with fancy indoctrination booths, and collared a few groups of the MooCows wearing badges and scrubbed faces.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I see nothing wrong with airing our greivances against the folks who paid for the disgusting TV commercials, and so on.

SPEAK UP at work, etc, if it is safe for you to do so
STOP BY your local Mormon joint, or Catholic, or Pentacockstal, or whatever, and say

"I AM A HUMAN BEING, I AM SAD THAT YOU TRIED TO HARM ME, I WILL NOT ALLOW IT"
(but keep your car keys in your hand)
05:48 PM on 08/14/2010
Or go to your windows! "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFSNpjbVN4
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Kellerman
Let's have more sanity toward each other
06:36 PM on 08/14/2010
Gay folks going to their OWN windows, while the Whormons went around scaring parents effectively, was EXACTLY WHY WE LOST in 2008
--- so, sorry if your retort is unfunny to me
photo
cmdr hlamb
Ditch digger elite......
03:53 PM on 08/14/2010
how embarrassing that entire countries are approving of gay marriage yet one of our most progressive states are having to fight tooth and nail to be brought into the twentieth century...... the state sure takes gay taxpayers money quick enough.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sita001
mocking the afflicted since 1966
11:28 AM on 08/15/2010
great except that we are trying to bring ourselves into the Twenty FIRST century now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IndependentMeans
Some people are wise, and some are otherwise.
01:12 PM on 08/14/2010
Here is a video of David Boies regarding the decision, terrific watch.

http://fora.tv/2010/08/05/overturning_Prop_8_David_Boies
02:03 PM on 08/14/2010
Just finished listening to it. Absolutely terrific.
06:16 PM on 08/14/2010
Thank you so much for posting that link. It should be required viewing for everyone. I choked up myself as Mr. Boies did.
I don't know if he always litigates with the passion and conviction that is on display at this speech.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IndependentMeans
Some people are wise, and some are otherwise.
01:09 AM on 08/15/2010
You are welcome. I am glad you watched it.
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
12:56 PM on 08/14/2010
Tell me, hp - are there certain words that push your button? Why? Scared of the family research council? If not, STOP IT !
11:06 PM on 08/14/2010
You people crack me up. It's all about "the fear" with you. If someone doesn't behave the way you want them to it's obviously because they are afraid of you, some organization, some religion, etc.

Give it a rest.
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
12:55 PM on 08/14/2010
Protect Marriage is another homophobic organization getting it's donations from corporation wishing to keep the confrontation going for purely selfish reasons. What reasons? C'mon!
12:54 PM on 08/14/2010
Can't wait till it get's to the Supreme Court and get this over with, one way or the other... REBT.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
01:53 PM on 08/14/2010
Not really. Look at Roe v. Wade.
12:14 AM on 08/15/2010
And if the Supremes vote it down, what then?

The Hardwick case was a loser in 1986.

It took until Lawrence in 2003 to win...a full 17 years in between.

And that was just to decriminalize sodomy.

How many people are prepared to lose this one?

What if they have to wait until 2027 or longer for a winnable case?

Some people have been waiting since the '80s for an AIDS Cure?

If this loses, which concern will come first, 2nd push for Marriage or "Hey, where's that AIDS Cure"?

An AIDS cure would not just benefit LGBT people but save millions of lives around the world.

Esp. people who can't afford the treatments.

While we are reminding people who are opposed to same sex marriage that "it's not just about you" we have to remember that "it's not just about us" either.
08:11 AM on 08/15/2010
There is a better way to deal with AIDS than the cure.

That is prevention. It is simple and cheap. Just because someone did not want to use a $1.00 condom now they expect a $600,000 treatment. If you can not afford the treatment (and who can) then use prevention or just say no.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sita001
mocking the afflicted since 1966
11:36 AM on 08/15/2010
HIV/AIDS needs research to come through with any cure. Legislation which discriminates and is struck down as unconstitutional is all that need be upheld. It's not an either/or situation. Your post reads as if we should just refocus if there is not a favorable outcome on marriage equality. There is also the ability to serve in the armed forces without having to hide oneself.
On some issues, YES, it IS just about us as it is just about US that the laws discriminate.
While an AIDS cure is beneficial to all peoples, it should not be equated with the focus of just US; no reason all these goals cannot be persued simultaneously.
photo
Holes
Proud Regressive Republican.
12:48 PM on 08/14/2010
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.
George Washington

Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.
John Adams
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LarBear
08:39 AM on 08/14/2010
Someone a few pages back was speaking of just be happy with "Hate Crimes" as Law while all this is being worked out... Isn't DADT a Congressional imposed "Hate Crime"???
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
12:57 PM on 08/14/2010
It certainly is! Well said.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ACLU Card Carrier
08:21 AM on 08/14/2010
Walker is 100% spot on.
07:26 AM on 08/14/2010
No, Judge, you're wrong. The proponents of Prop. 8 would have standing to appeal your decision that was rendered against them--if not on the merits, certainly on a procedural question, which if the appellate court answered in the affirmative would invalidate your decision.

This most calculating Judge created a right in the proponents when he permitted them to join the case as "Defendant-Intervenor" and not merely an amicus (not that they could at the trial level). Read his decision, the Judge refused to dismiss one of the proponents from the case, when that person sought to withdraw.

There was no other willing defendant, so the Judge allowed the proponents to intervene because he understood that a default judgment in this case would be meaningless (although still legally valid). If the Prop. 8 proponents had no legally cognizable interest to defend at trial, he should not have allowed them to join and put on a case. If they fail to obtain standing on the merits of his decision, they certainly have standing on the procedural question as to whether the Judge clearly abused his discretion in permitting them to join. The obvious answer is a resounding yes. As such, his decision should be overturned, because his abuse of discretion was not harmless due to its pervasiveness.
07:57 AM on 08/14/2010
I think you do examine quite and interesting can of worms Judge Walker opened in this overturning of his stay. However you error on what the remedy is. In this instance the 9th Circuit could simply rule on the procedural issue of standing and vacate his decision. This is a bit different that overturning the ruling because in essence it would be ordering a new trial. Since the Governor and Attorney General (the named defendants in the trial) refused to defend the law the judgement would still be the same of course until a new Governor or Attorney General came to office whom choose to defend the law.

With that said it is much more likely that the 9th Circuit will deem Judge Walker's standing argument invalid and hear the appeal. In all reality I think it is an attempt to give the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court an excuse not to hear the case in order to save face.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
08:23 AM on 08/14/2010
I think the majority of Republicans right now do not want an appeal. They want this to go away as quickly as possible. The handwriting is on the wall. An appeals court will change nothing, and if it gets to the Supreme Court gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states and DOMA and DADT will be dead. And the few remaining open minded republicans will turn against them.
photo
cmdr hlamb
Ditch digger elite......
03:56 PM on 08/14/2010
what a beautiful world it could be.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wolfwoman
05:49 PM on 08/14/2010
I have the same perspective. The Republicans are hungry for approval to get elected and they do not want the blemish of their beliefs about gay marriage to be an issue for them until they are elected.