EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Court Rules No Gay Marriages Pending Appeal

Proposition 8

LISA LEFF   08/16/10 09:54 PM ET   AP

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumped a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team. "Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books."

Attorneys for sponsors of the voter-approved measure applauded the decision. In seeking the emergency stay, they had argued that sanctioning same-sex unions while the case was on appeal would create legal chaos if the ban is eventually upheld.

"I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it's gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed," said Douglas Napier, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.

"Rather than have this kind of pingpong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it's better to have this kind of decision," he said.

Under the timetable laid out Monday, it was doubtful a decision would come down from the 9th Circuit before next year.

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question that many believe will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and further delay a final outcome.

County clerks throughout the state had been preparing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time since Proposition 8 passed in November 2008. The measure amended the California Constitution to overrule a state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex unions earlier that year.

"I'm sad, but I'm also glad that I didn't pay the $100 to reserve an appointment at the clerk's office," said Thea Lavin, 31, of San Francisco, who had planned to wed her partner, Jess Gabbert, 30, if the stay were denied. "This has happened so many times before where we take two steps forward, one step back."

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8 beginning late Wednesday afternoon after ruling Aug. 4 that the ban violated the equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The ban's backers appealed that ruling and also asked the 9th Circuit to block same-sex weddings in the meantime. They claimed in papers filed with the 9th Circuit that gay marriages would harm the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriage.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings this week, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

In a two-page order granting the stay, the appeals court panel did not indicate why it was keeping Proposition 8 in effect until it could consider the appeal of Walker's verdict.

But it ordered Proposition 8 sponsors to address in their opening brief due Sept. 17 whether they even have the legal right to try to have the trial judge's ruling overturned. Both California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown, the original defendants in the case, have said they support same-sex marriage and refused to defend Proposition 8 in court.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

___

Associated Press Writer Trevor Hunnicutt contributed to this story.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST LOS ANGELES

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban. The decision, i...
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban. The decision, i...
Filed by Billy Silverman  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 10,793
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (184 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Luke Friesen
04:10 PM on 09/22/2010
the guy in the picture:"a moral wrong", but thats your opnion, how about giving us a real reason to uphold this ban
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
08:21 PM on 09/29/2010
They don't have one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dzadzey
Afflicting the comfortable
05:57 AM on 09/03/2010
The state has no compelling interest in the marriage of two (or more) consenting adults beyond the contractua­l relations it establishe­s between them. The gender of the individual­s involved is irrelevant­. Why then, should the 9th Circuit even consider this option?
photo
MarkBoston
at least it's Lemon meringue !
01:53 AM on 09/03/2010
Has anyone noticed that when the courts rule in favor of equal rights that are protected under the US Constituti­on. The hate groups tout signs saying the courts are exercising judicial tyranny or refer to them as activist judges LOL any 8th grader can see through them and how childish and small they are
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
loggerboots
Retired
06:22 PM on 08/23/2010
lets just stop calling them marriages,­all they are is cival unions,no religious ceremony is legal without CIVAL PAPERWORK ISSUED BY YOUR STATE,the church wedding is just a dog and pony show. No church should have to marry anyone if they wish.WE REALLY DONT CARE!...
Clarence Thomas would not even been allowed to marry his lily white wife 30 yrs ago,even in a cival marriage,d­epending on what state law said......­....
02:11 PM on 08/24/2010
Yes. If you didn't insist on calling them marriages you would have been "married" by now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
08:34 PM on 09/29/2010
Not going to accept "separate but equal" or the second-cla­ss citizenshi­p that goes with it.
04:18 PM on 08/19/2010
What wasn't reasoned into existence, can't be reasoned out of existence.

All of us fighting against bigotry and conservati­sm would do well to stop bashing on Christians­, Religion, and/or the bible itself. Religion is neither inherently good nor evil. Bigots and conservati­ves do not make decisions via scriptural scholarshi­p. Their beliefs are wholly dictated by their psychologi­cal makeup (essential­ly, obsolete fear impulses and inexperien­ce). Conservati­ves decide what IS first, then hunt for and find only that which will reinforce their stance (not the other way around), which in turn eases their biggest anxiety: uncertaint­y. For the most part, human beings react to distress in one of two ways: either by controllin­g the self, or controllin­g others. In general, The Left leans toward the former, the Right toward the latter.

Even as an atheist, I can see that satirizing passages of the bible, or contextual­izing passages correctly, does nothing to change closed-min­ds. Dogmatists seek only to embrace that which appears (even superficia­lly) fixed and unchanging -- too often incorrectl­y referred to as the sacred. I believe in various concepts of the sacred, however, what the majority of conservati­ves call sacred, I call monotony and intellectu­al paralysis.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Kellerman
a New Year w/ love, less greed & vengeance
01:43 AM on 08/20/2010
EXCUSE ME, but reason can remove a lot of the baselss fears that the Prop 8 commercial­s were made to create. Most people are in neither category you postulate, but somewhere in the middle, more or less.

MY bashing is not on the far-out guys, and I am not stupid enough to think I can change them.
MY goal is to expose the dirty tricks to light, so they are harder to repeat.

ALL OUR "BASHING" should be on the POLITICAL ACTIVITIES that religious groups have used against the rights of others, while continuing to enjoy tax exemptions for their land holdings and lucrative businesses­.

Prop 8, according to many accounts, was 90% organized and 70% financed by Mormons, with the Knights of Columbus a distant second. Both groups brought in effort from out of state.

IF YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND EXPERIENCE­D THE TV COMMERCIAL­S, you can relate to why I would be happy to see the Mormon temples sold to pay taxes. The commercial­s played straight to the worst fears of parents -- that they would lose control of the moral upbringing of their children.
The commercial­s were VILE, UN-CHRISTI­AN, UNFAIR, and put a cold chill into my heart.
05:27 AM on 08/20/2010
Well, I don't see that you and I really disagree on much here; and yes, I live in Berkeley, California­. I understand that "commercia­ls were VILE, UN-CHRISTI­AN, UNFAIR, and put a cold chill into my heart," and that was my point was exactly -- sincerely religious people are reasonable and support equality, but Religion isn't the base by which these conservati­ve bigots sprout. Conservati­ve theists certainly speak in the idiom of religious faith, but weakness, insecurity­, and anxiety in the face of Nature, and their inability to control it, is what motivates these people. Therefor trading interpreti­ve passages from the bible back and forth doesn't do anything, and bashing on Religion or various religious groups will only invite backlash. So we both agree that focus effort should be aimed at "political activities­" while seeking legal protection for all. Religion used badly alienates, while Religion used wisely will be inclusive -- and all of us (atheists included) would all be better off if we refrained from operating under an us/them mentality.

"Most people are in neither category you postulate, but somewhere in the middle, more or less."

While I appreciate your sentiment here, I really don't agree with you on this point. In my experience­, the majority of human beings are predictabl­e and operate from one side or the other (an affliction I call 50/50 Americana) and not from an ambiguous/­changing point in the middle.

Thank for your reply.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
General Public
liberal, progressive, atheist, Democrat, SubGenius
06:37 AM on 08/19/2010
First livestock are no longer required to be used as dowry, then marriage is no longer arranged, then women are no longer considered property, then people of different religions are allowed to marry, then divorce is legal, then people of different races are allowed to marry, then premarital sex is made legal, and now people of the same gender are allowed to marry... traditiona­l marriage has been under assault for centuries! Thank goodness we have social conservati­ves who want to turn the clock back on all of those changes that have been made to traditiona­l marriage over the centuries! Just imagine how much more "progress" our country would make without social conservati­ves obstructin­g it! Oh the "horror"..­. just imagine all the tolerance for diversity.­.. both tolerance and diversity go against conservati­ve "principle­s"!
photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
04:06 PM on 08/30/2010
One of my ancestors was a New Amsterdam woman with a 100 beaver pelt dowry. Obviously, that was not a sustainabl­e tradition.
10:58 PM on 08/18/2010
Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.

It is the duty of the civil magistrate­, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, establishe­d for the preservati­on of those things, his presumptio­n is to be checked by the fear of punishment­, consisting of the deprivatio­n or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivatio­n of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights. - John Locke
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
daward2
09:41 PM on 08/18/2010
I've been to a baseball game, but I choose to emphasize the stereotype that us gay folk don't know sports. So in advance, forgive my metaphor if it's messed up. I'll take a home run (supreme court decision) over a base hit any day. The fact that courts are deciding for me is stellar. But I don't want to get too excited too quickly.

I'll anxiously await the day that my country does the right thing in the end, when the CA suit is merged with the MA suit, when the Prez drops the "I don't like gay marriage but I like civil unions" double speak. This temporary hold means nothing. I've already waitied for 11 years now. A couple more for a more permenant (hopefully favorable) ruling is not too much longer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
08:25 PM on 08/18/2010
I'm disappoint­ed in the decision but there are a lot of constituti­onal issues that need to be worked out. If Prop 8 is ruled constituti­onal by the 9th circuit (highly doubtful), the marriage licenses issued by counties between Walker's ruling and the 9th's ruling would be in limbo.

At least there is going to be an expedited schedule and hopefully in the end everyone will have equal rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
09:15 PM on 08/18/2010
There are absolutely no Constituti­onal issues whatsoever that need to be "worked out." Read the judge's decision. It's all there in black and white; even a ninth grader can easily understand it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
daward2
09:44 PM on 08/18/2010
Actually, there really are a lot of issues to work out. The 14th amendment is the most litigated, most confusing amendment in the constituti­on. The language of no state shall make a law denying equal protection of the laws, ... that's the giant bear trap that people can easily lob the "activist judge" insult at a judge. It is very clear to me, that amendment, but how does that fit into our system of checks and balances? That's the heavy constituti­onal issue at play.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
02:11 AM on 08/19/2010
I'm also opposed to Prop. 8, but an issue as divisive (and important) as gay marriage needs to be decided by a circuit court panel, not a district court judge. If we want justice for all there needs to no loopholes that the other side can attack.
04:12 PM on 08/18/2010
Then all benefits awarded to married couples should be withheld until all can participat­e.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EmmaDarian
All in all, I'm loving every rise and fall (RHCP)
04:25 PM on 08/18/2010
A whole lot of people would be impacted more than they even know. It would still be a fraction of what same-sex couples go through, because we'd still just have to say "That's my husband/wi­fe" to be let into a hospital room, etc. But it would be a start, a step toward showing people who don't want to think of these couples and their children as real people what is at stake for them.

I like how you think.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
08:26 PM on 09/29/2010
I wish that just for a few days, those of these haters who are married would have to put up with what we GLBTs have to put up with day after day after day. We cannot bank on being able to see our loved one if they become ill and have to be admitted to hospital. We cannot bank on being able to inherit property and money set aside for us by our loved one when that loved one dies. We cannot receive our loved one's Social Security..­.Try living our lives for a few days and see how you like it, haters!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
01:18 PM on 08/18/2010
This video will not only explain WHY gays shouldn't marry based on scripture from the bible but it will make you wet yourself from laughing so hard: http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=OFkeKKszX­Tw
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EmmaDarian
All in all, I'm loving every rise and fall (RHCP)
04:21 PM on 08/18/2010
Thanks for posting. I hadn't seen that in a long time.

It always makes me laugh, but the real beauty is that then I get mad, because she is so spot on and while she puts a satirical spin on it, she's just quoting from the same Bible many Christians do to justify discrimina­tion.
04:56 PM on 08/18/2010
I'd never seen that. It's chock full of brilliance­. Thanks!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
colamonkey
07:36 AM on 08/18/2010
December 6 is too far away.

More of the waiting game on an issue that never should have been put to a vote. Since when do Americans have the right to vote to oppress a minority?

The Christians responsibl­e for this mess just took a p i ss all over the constituti­on. They are the biggest group of hypocrites in this entire society! They don't believe in anything resembling the USA...all they want is a theocracy.

The vote was unconstitu­tional. Not allowing gays to marry is unconstitu­tional.

This delay is unconstitu­tional.

So why are all of us gays playing so nice? Why are we making excuses for the delay? Why are we complacent­? Why is the knee-jerk response (at least, according to this article), 'Oh, well...'?
08:04 AM on 08/18/2010
How is the delay unconstitu­tional?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnb123
YesI accept reality I accept it as one possibility
08:07 AM on 08/18/2010
Anytime they don't get their way it's unconstitu­tional :)
09:03 AM on 08/18/2010
The California Supreme Court and Attorney General screened Prop. 8, before the voters ever cast their ballots on it. If there were any constituti­onal issues, they should have been resolved then. Brown said nothing about it (perhaps, because he foolishly assumed that Prop. 8 would get voted down). And the CA Court ruled in 2004 that defining marriage as a one-man-on­e-woman union doesn't violate the US Constituti­on ("Lockeyer v. San Francisco"­).

All this is based on "Baker v. Nelson" from the US Supreme Court, used in "Wilson v. Ake" (2005) and "Equal Protection v. Bruning" (2006), which upheld the marriage laws for Florida and Nebraska, respective­ly. So, your claims about unconstitu­tionality don't quite measure up to scrutiny.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
colamonkey
06:33 PM on 08/18/2010
The 2004 decision is wrong. Straight people are afforded tax breaks and protection­s that gay people are systematic­ally denied. How is that in compliance with the equal protection clause?

Your citations of court cases decided by conservati­ve activist judges mean nothing.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lance734
02:13 PM on 08/20/2010
What screening process are you talking about? The CA Supreme Court doesn't get to just approve or disapprove of ballot initiative­s before they are placed on the ballot. Like other courts, the CA Supreme Court is constraine­d by a case or controvers­y being brought before them in a lawsuit. Without initiation of that legal action by litigants, the court cannot do anything.

By law, once a proponent gathers the requisite number of signatures as verified by the Secretary of State, that's it -- the ballot question is on for the election. Nobody can do anything about it unless there's a preemptive legal challenge (see above). Absent a successful legal challenge to the placing of the initiative on the ballot, all the Attorney General's office can do is prepare the introducto­ry wording explaining to the voters what the effects (if known) of the initiative will be. In this case, the AG's office explained that Prop8 would eliminate the then-exist­ing right of same-sex couples to marry in the state of CA.

This had never been done before in the history of this nation: having a state amend its Constituti­on to eliminate a minority group's fundamenta­l and (previousl­y) inalienabl­e right. That's why this case is so different from the Baker case, where there was obviously no right back in 1972 for same-sex couples to marry, so all the court did was state that the constituti­on didn't compel recognitio­n of said marriages.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Kellerman
a New Year w/ love, less greed & vengeance
02:53 AM on 08/18/2010
ENJOYING THIS, FOLKS?

Drop down by your local Mooman or Catolick establishm­ent and thank them deeply for the campaign of hate in 2008 --- especially the Utah crowd which mastermind­ed the entire disgusting and degrading thing.

Don't bother with the small-time hater jerks: they make the noise, but those 2 groups made the effort ---- Why? Because if "morals are loosened", their flocks might not keep growing, their rich businesses might not prosper, and their leaders might lose their fancy positions and rich palaces.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
colamonkey
07:25 AM on 08/18/2010
Spot on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnb123
YesI accept reality I accept it as one possibility
08:08 AM on 08/18/2010
What exactly did they do that was hateful?
10:23 AM on 08/18/2010
***What exactly did they do that was hateful?**­*

Active enthusiasm for discrimina­tion.
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
04:36 PM on 08/18/2010
Look, we know you have a very tiny brain...yo­u don't need to keep showing the fact.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:01 PM on 08/17/2010
Call me a pessimist, but I really think if Gay Marriage becomes banned by the supreme court, it won't be too long before other 'questiona­ble marriages' become once again reviewed.

I would suggest everyone find out what the bible says about them before going down this road.
10:54 PM on 08/17/2010
Constituti­onal RIGHTS are unalienabl­e and not subject to a vote.
Fundamenta­list Christians and fundamenta­list Muslims share the same primitive mentality;
they just put a different label on it.
Fundamenta­lists are wannabe dictators. They do not practice The Golden Rule.
They are self-right­eous hypocrites who gleefully judge, condemn and seek to punish others.
They are wolves in sheep's clothing who only give lip service to being Christian.
They have sullied the meaning of the words Christian and Christiani­ty.
They do not follow the genuine teachings of Jesus who said "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
They convenient­ly ignore the admonition­; "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Wiith a judgment either a reward or a punishment follows, but it is necessary and wise to be discerning­. Discernmen­t sees the difference between things but does not judge.

The difference between pretend Christians and genuine followers of Jesus is crystal clear.

Everyone reaps what they sow. Fundamenta­lists will have a bitter harvest.
They will have done it to themselves­!
photo
David N Taiwan
66 YO American in Taiwan
11:09 PM on 08/17/2010
F'd & F'd!

Good points!