Proposition 8 Remains During Appeal On Gay Marriage Decision

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court has refused to allow gay marriages to take place in California while it considers the constitutionality of the state's ban.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling Wednesday in San Francisco.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris had joined gay marriage proponents in urging the appeals court to lift a stay that had been placed a lower court ruling to strike down Proposition 8.

Lawyers for two same-sex California couples argued that gays and lesbians are being hurt each day the ban remains in effect.

The lawyers sought again to lift the stay after the California Supreme Court recently said it would take at least until the end of the year to consider a legal question asked by the appeals court in the case.

Comments

[Bob Wood]

10:27 AM on 03/28/2011

The whole opposition to gay marriage is purely emotional...there's no factual opposition to it. Someone starts quoting ancient mythological texts...written by men who knew nothing about the world they lived in...let alone biochemistry. Those writers were wrong then and they're still wrong now. These texts do not qualify as rational reasons. It's just emotion. If millions of people benefit from gay marriage...and no one is harmed...why the opposition? Gay people are no different than the rest of us. They're just people...with the same genius, or lunacies, as the rest of us. Nobody shoud have to endure discrimination...on the job, in housing...or in marriage. It's sufficient that two people care enough for one another that they wish to share their lives together. There should be no other requirement. The religious prohibitions are wrong and always have been. Recognize the obvious...do the right thing...end the opposition...(sigh)

[Ioan Lightoller]

05:47 PM on 03/28/2011

Good luck on that, Bob. The haters will keep this up until the bitter end. Why? Because they feel that their religious beliefs trump the rights of GLBT people. Of course it's just emotion. Most of those who post here show that they don't know any GLBT people or if they do, their religion still trumps our rights. Very sad.

[Bob Wood]

10:11 AM on 03/30/2011

I live in hope...if I die in despair. All we can do is continue to beat them with reason until all begin to see how ridiculous they really are. One day, maybe, we can all view one another as...just human...(sigh)

[ZeldonGilroy]

03:27 AM on 03/26/2011

Obviously, the right-wingers don't know their Bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cockAce7opo

[Neechie]

02:30 PM on 03/24/2011

I love how to some marriage is something that has to do with religion. And it's something God gave them or it's something that is sacred to their religion. Forgetting along the way that people all over the world get married. This is not something specific to one religion.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:31 PM on 03/25/2011

Fanned and faved. If anything marriage is both secular and religious. GLBT people don't care about the religious part (for those who do there are plenty of churches and faiths that will marry them), they care about legal CIVIL marriage. Why are religious being allowed to interfere in the secular sphere?

[MovieGuy2010]

11:25 AM on 03/24/2011

I have done this on most of the equal marriage rights threads, as usually you get the

"Boy, you liberals keep focusing on these side issues, the electorate voted on jobs..."

I will NOT comment on the fact that the new Teabagger Republicans are doing NOTHING about jobs anyway, but seem to be spending all their time defunding Planned Parenthood and torturing women with abortion restrictions. (oh, wait, I just did!)

But I will comment that companies in the marriage support industry estimate that the pent up demand for gay marriage would increase their industry by potentially billions?

Hotels, airlines, caterers, tux and gown rentals, florists, musicians..and all our brothers and sisters WAITING to have a joyous cermony for their friend and family? CACHING! I can see the dollars flowing now!

I think we should propose it this way

"The 2011 marriage industry job act" and sell it as jobs programs!

What? You conservatives hate JOBS, do YA!

[xenas mom]

02:29 PM on 03/24/2011

Oh, you're good! ;) & fanned

[Concerned Citizen in CA]

06:03 PM on 03/24/2011

Excellent points MovieGuy. F & F

[PrinceO]

11:22 AM on 03/24/2011

Well its true a Man was made for a woman that’s why were born with penises and women with vaginas. However you can’t stop people if they choose to defy Gods law and go their own way. People shouldn’t be denied the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t negatively affect to commonwealth of the whole society.

[blueplano]

11:37 AM on 03/24/2011

I'm sure that they are happy for your permission.

[PrinceO]

11:57 AM on 03/24/2011

i just want to be fair you know. I dont believe its moraly right to be homosexual but on the flip side its a waste of time and energy trying to stop a large population of people from doing what their going to do anyway. same argument stance i have on drugs in america.

[MovieGuy2010]

11:45 AM on 03/24/2011

So, people ONLY can marry for procreation? We should ban marriage for anyone past the age where they can have kids?

And, this is a country of MAN's laws, not Gods laws.

Anyone that wants to live in a country where God's laws rule (or some old cranky mans opinion of God's laws) is free to move to Saudia Arabia.

I prefer to stay in the land of Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of the Founders.

But, I respect your final decision on this. Correctly you state, it's not your of the governments business to enforce one particular theological point of view.

[Sumsanity]

10:50 AM on 03/24/2011

This isn't about rights. Nobody has unqualified rights. Homosexuals want to eliminate the heterosexual qualifications for marriage to include themselves. In order to do so the sexual orientation qualifications must be eliminated entirely. To expand them to only include them would 'discriminate' against all other sexual orientations and that would expose the hypocrisy of their "my constitutional rights are being denied" argument.
Life is full of things for which you need to qualify.. Marriage is one of them.
Get a civil union and you will have all the "rights' you need as a couple. Stop trying to force the majority of society to change to fit your desires.

[MovieGuy2010]

11:08 AM on 03/24/2011

SCOTUS already decided Marriage is a right.

Read Loving V Virgina, the case that overturned the Miscegination laws.

So, from a legal point of view, you are wrong.

And, it is a basic premise of our republic that rights CAN'T be qualified, based on
the desires of the majority.

Otherwise, the south would STILL be segregated.

Besides, you are also wrong about the majority of Americans opposing equal marriage rights
for all?

The Majority of society NOW disgrees with you, including Catholics, it seems

http://blog.timesunion.com/libbypost/catholics-speak-out-for-marriage-equality/546/

[Sumsanity]

11:50 AM on 03/24/2011

Loving vs Virginia was about race not sexual orientation. It is not a basic premise of the United States that rights cannot be qualified based on the will of the majority. Can you name one that isn't?
The Prop 8 vote was a clear referendum on the subject no matter what poll you quote. I wouldn't get my opinion from an organization that shields child molesters to bolster your cause if I were you.

[bannorhill]

04:58 PM on 03/25/2011

Movie...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamenta­l to our very existence and survival....a right which is basic to the perpetuati­on of a race the right to have offspring.­"

[blueplano]

11:37 AM on 03/24/2011

How would the majority of society change if gays were allowed to marry?

[cwebster]

02:49 PM on 03/24/2011

Happier people?

[Jude Brown]

03:15 PM on 03/24/2011

It wouldn't, except to be more fair to all American citizens.

[ncsteeler]

10:00 AM on 03/24/2011

Marriage should be legally divided into two parts. One civil which would basically entail getting a licence and getting certificate signed by an approipriate authority (could be a JP or a minister). This should be opened to all gay and straight. The second should be the ceremony and if a church wants to refuse to marry gays or blondes or whatever so be it. They just need to find a different official to preform the ceremony if they even want one. Once you've complete the first half the second is optional. Churches should keep their noses out of the civil part.

[MovieGuy2010]

10:46 AM on 03/24/2011

Churches are NOT required to marry anyone they don't want to NOW!

If you want to be married in the Catholic Church, you have to be Catholics. They don't have to marry you if you are Jewish?

So, marriage RIGHT NOW is divided into two parts? I'm not sure what you are getting at.

The second part of your caveat already exists and NO ONE is suggesting it change.

The first part of it, the LEGAL and CIVIL part is what is illegal right now in most states.

[Flip75]

10:49 AM on 03/24/2011

People keep saying things like what you've proposed as though it's some sort of new idea - but it's not! That's already the way the marriage system works in the United States. ALL marriages are civil in that they require the license from the government. NO marriage requires a religious ceremony to make it valid, and at present, any church can refuse to perform any wedding (heterosexual or otherwise) for whatever reason it chooses. A clearer separation between the civil and religious confirmation of marriage would be to remove the rights of all clergy to validate marriage licenses, but that seems an unnecessary step (so long as religious organizations stay out of the way of impeding the civil rights associated with marriage).

[ncsteeler]

12:05 PM on 03/24/2011

It is set up like that in many other countries. In most states, you need to be hetero to get a license or to have a JP marry you. That is the civil part and should be open to all gay or straight who meet some vague general requirements (over a certain age, not related, not already married). If you want a more elaborate ceremony then the church or whomever could have some more requirements fine.

[Atwill]

06:55 AM on 03/24/2011

Gay marriage hurts no one. It is unconstitutional to not allow gays to marry.

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:06 PM on 03/25/2011

Fanned and faved! I cannot get one hater on here to give me a cogent answer to my questions: how will the right of a same sex couple to civilly marry affect their lives? What have GLBT people done to harm them?

[democratbob]

06:19 AM on 03/24/2011

There are several different types of God-sanctioned marriage in the Bible. Why pick only one? Are the others wrong? Why?

[JohnFromCensornati]

12:24 PM on 03/24/2011

The buybull isn't relevant.

[surferbuoy]

12:58 PM on 03/24/2011

Maybe to you .

[democratbob]

01:09 PM on 03/24/2011

Completely agree, just pointing out the fact that many people opposed to allowing gays equality in marriage claim to be upholding marriage as created by God, and they miss out that there are several forms of God-sanctioned marriage in their holy book.

[JakeHanson]

04:51 AM on 03/24/2011

As a nation we vote for a bachelor to pick out a wife on TV, yet gay couples are denied equal rights and protections under state and federal law simply because religious hypocrites see gay people as a threat to the "sanctity" of marriage.

So, so sad that we view and treat our fellow human beings as sub-par.

[Seven Teenatheart]

10:51 AM on 03/24/2011

True - those TV shows are almost like "buy a bride". And yet religious groups seem to think that they are all right.
But yet, people who fall in love and want to commit to each other for their lifetimes for the right reasons are blocked from doing so.
I've never understood it.
Even if people don't agree - there's no threat to the sanctity of marriage. It's still the same loving commitment.
This ban is just another form of prejudice. One we'd be better off without.

[Ioan Lightoller]

07:26 PM on 03/26/2011

Anything seems to be fine by the haters so long as their heterosexual supremacism and heteronormativity are not challenged. Frankly if I were an Xtian woman I would be offended by something that pretty much reduces me to a piece of meat.

[Seven Teenatheart]

10:59 AM on 03/24/2011

Remember "Joe Millionaire"? Women throwing themselves at a man because they thought he was rich....

I'd far rather take my son to the weddings of many of our good friends who are currently blocked from marriage than EVER have him watch these disgraceful "reality" shows.

[JakeHanson]

01:59 PM on 03/24/2011

You are the type of mother the world needs more of...thank you. :)

[Ioan Lightoller]

07:27 PM on 03/26/2011

Amen!! Fanned and faved. We indeed need more mothers like this lady.

[ramal]

12:11 AM on 03/24/2011

A wildly generous estimate is that 10% of the population is Gay. (Let's just take that as an even number.) Of that 10% only half, or 5%, are in long-term relationsh­ips. Of that 5%, probably only half of those have any desire to get married. If 2.5% of the population could do any damage, whatsoever­, to the institutio­n of marriage then that insitituti­on is too sorry, corrupted and weak to stand on its on and should be dismantled and done away with entirely.

[Concerned Citizen in CA]

12:24 AM on 03/24/2011

Completely agree. Then there are TV shows like "The Bachelor" that reaches an audience of millions promoting marriage to a complete stranger as first prize. Which is more damaging to the institution of marriage I wonder?

[Seven Teenatheart]

10:54 AM on 03/24/2011

My vote for most damaging is the TV show......

[Ioan Lightoller]

07:37 PM on 03/25/2011

Agreed.F&F. Sadly our small numbers are what some haters use as an argument against marriage equality.

[Wile E]

12:08 AM on 03/24/2011

Ho hum. Just another day to live in discrimination. California certainly isn't as liberal as people think.

[Jude Brown]

03:18 PM on 03/24/2011

Unfortunately, there are areas of California full to the brim of bigots, and we also had Mormons (and their money) coming in from out of state to push ads full of lies on Prop 8.

[Seven Teenatheart]

11:25 PM on 03/23/2011

In this day and age it is so difficult to find another adult whose life you want to blend with yours. Who shares your values, and makes you happy.
Someone that you can trust to raise children with. Someone that you want to take care of as you both get old. Someone who makes your world a brighter place.

And it makes sense that when you've found that person, you should want to make it legal - to honor that person, and give them all the protections that marriage can confer.

And if that person is the same gender as you - nobody else should give a hoot.
People need to learn to keep their noses out of each other's business and let their neighbors be happy.

[Bob Kellerman]

11:42 PM on 03/23/2011

A lot of opponents say "make it legal via civil union" and do not get that

THE POINT IS ALSO TO MAKE IT ROMANTIC, NOT DRY AND OFFICIAL

[Seven Teenatheart]

11:55 PM on 03/23/2011

True.
As small children we're all taught to dream of "happily ever after" but not "a parallel version of happily ever as dictated by the courts"....

[Sumsanity]

10:53 AM on 03/24/2011

Have a civil union and then have any kind of cake cutting, bouquet tossing, tin can dragging ceremony you want. What's stopping you? Stop trying to force the majority to bend the qualifications for marriage to suit your selfish interests.

[Bill J4321]

11:04 AM on 03/24/2011

Sadly, heterosexuals have chosen to define their relationships solely by the genitalia of those involved.

Which might clue them in to why so many of them have been such complete failures at marriage.

[xenas mom]

12:53 PM on 03/24/2011

One would think. But many of them are not, shall we say, the brightest of bulbs on the tree of light.

[Peace Walker]

10:38 PM on 03/23/2011

Ban religious law!

[MovieGuy2010]

11:29 AM on 03/24/2011

Or, suggest all the RR move to Saudi Arabia?

They would fit right in, seems to me.

[Steve Rockett]

10:08 PM on 03/23/2011

Postponing the inevitable.