Posted on 08/13/2010 4:15:28 AM PDT by xzins
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 12 (UPI) -- California will not appeal a U.S. judge's decision to lift a stay on his injunction blocking the state's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, officials said.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Thursday he would lift the stay and allow same-sex marriages to proceed, but not until Aug. 18. Such marriages would be permitted after that unless an appeals court, possibility the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, issues a stay beyond the date.
Walker warned the amendment's sponsors may not have standing, or status, to make the appeal because they were not affected by the stay.
"As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," Walker wrote. "In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown had urged the judge to immediately lift the stay, allowing gay and lesbian marriages to go on during the legal process, and a spokesman for the governor indicated Thursday Schwarzenegger will not appeal the ruling, the Los Angeles Times reported.
"The governor supports the judge's ruling," spokesman Aaron McLear said.
If higher courts concur with Walker on the standing issue, they would not decide the issue on its merits, the newspaper said. However, the case could still get further hearings on procedural issues, during which time the ruling overturning Proposition 8 would stand in California.
In issuing a preliminary injunction Aug. 4 against the ban, a state constitutional amendment called Proposition 8, the judge said it "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."
The Times said the sponsors had warned they would go to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay if Walker allowed same-sex marriages to continue.
California voters approved the ban in November 2008 by a 52.3 percent majority six months after the California Supreme Court ruled laws against same-sex marriage violated the state Constitution. The state court later upheld Prop 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.
By not choosing to stand with and defend the law as passed by the voters he should suffer worse.
There most certainly is damage. There is the additional cost to support the contradictory arrangement ‘gay marriage’. Also there is there is a cultural cost just as if a state were forced to license polygamy or any other alternative union. Also there is the legal cost which sets precedence that if a state licenses one thing that they must also be compelled to grant licenses for anything that a person or person might want.
No one has ever been discriminated against. The state offered licensing for anyone who wanted to marry a person of the opposite sex. There was no discrimination and there never has been. No more than a place that specializes in selling pies is discriminating because it doesn’t serve the flavor of pie someone wishes. Just because someone chooses to live a gay lifestyle does not mean they were prevented from marrying they just didn’t like the terms.
So much of this debate is based on such a degree of intellectually dishonest crap.
No it is not marriage. It is a mockery of it.
I am beginning to think that is true. When the people have their say taken away by a judge through what is clearly unreasoned made up bullshit the people have one option left.
This is not a govt of the people for the people it is a govt for those in positions of power. It is time to pull the plug on their power.
It’s weird, but I actually find myself thinking that it’s better for California to have same-sex marriage ....(theThe USSC deciding that same sex marriage is a constitutionalright in all 50 states.”
AAAHHHH Camel’s nose > tent....
No way this should stand....If Jerry Brown wasn’t the AG it wouldn’t stop until it hit the USSC.
Think this is bad? If Jerry gets elected Governor it’ll get way worse.
“I do not care if they receive everything a married couple receives, and tht include alimony,but it isnt a marriage.”
Why not? Their marriage is worthless. There is a zero percent chance they’ll add any further members to the workforce. None. Their marriage is a sham compared to your average heterosexual marriage. Why should they receive equal benefits?
“. The government is becoming so non-responsive to the people that it makes you wonder if things will eventually force people into civil disobedience”
Civil disobedience would have happened a long time ago in another era. Or from the left.
“agreed and we still have so called conservatives saying well I know a homosexual and they are nice so I have no problem if they get married etc.”
This has nothing to do with love. Any homosexual can hold a ceremony to declare their lifelong love for any persversion they so choose. There are absolutely no laws against any such private and personal expression in any state in the union.
This is purley about forcing the state and all members of society to recognize their sham marriages. This is about redefining marriage to exclude any aspect of forming a family. This is about taking over instituations and forcing their perversions upon the general public—on “coming out.”
And the housewives of American squeeled as they watched their favorite stuffed gay male perform for them on televsion in cutesey and utterly ridiculous outfits. Soon, of course, to leave for his gay bar, where teenage boys were handed around to 50 year old men like candy. And n’ere a word about the “chickenhawks” be spoken...
Ah, yes, thanks, that makes sense.
They should file a lawsuit suing Arnie and Jerry for failing to fulfill the duties of their office. They have failed to defend the constitution of the State of California. Moreover, they should also sue the legislators for failure to perform the duties of their office as well if they do not impeach Arnie and Jerry. Furthermore, if you are a citizen of California (registered voter) you should have standing in this case. It is a violation of your civil rights that your vote and thousands of others are being overturned and invalidated (no longer counted) by two men, Arnold and Jerry, who choose to flout the will of people of California by making this decision not to pursue this matter in Federal Court for all the people of California who voted for Prop 8. Would it be ok for Jerry to decide that he no longer wants to prosecute the laws because he personally disagrees with them? Of course not, For instance, what if Jerry decided that Pedophilia is ok? Would that be acceptable? The voters of CA. decided that was illegal therefore he is required to prosecute and defend that law. Only the court gets to decide the constitutionality of the law. BTW that is a law based on the mores of society. Therefore, a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only, is a law based on the mores of society and is not a violation of civil rights. The only reason that marriage has never been defined by law previously is that it has been UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD (Common Law) for centuries as being between a man and a woman. I challenge anyone to find a quote from one of the founders of this great nation stating that marriage is acceptable between members of the same sex. You won’t find any references because they do not exist.
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
I’m there now.
Another example of the uselessness of Governor Ahnold and his liberal Republican faction
Also, people in CA really don’t know what they are doing about much of anything.
Many CA voters are so uninformed that they don’t even know who “Jerry Brown” is because the name is so common.
It was long ago time for the cartridge box. It is the only thing tyrants understand. They have no problem with death and destruction wrought by their actions or inactions, they weep in public while planning the next stage of the conquest of “Humanities soul”.
Nail on head.
We all love things and other people but do not feel the need to have sex with them or that.
To say that it is about love is a crock and you hit the nail on the head.
We’re starting to pay for decades of apathy.
I agree.
“the judge said it “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” “
Isn’t that nice that they
1: Think we have a “fundamental right to marry” if that were the case we should have the “right” to marry our dog, cat, or even ourselves. What meaning is there to this thing they call Marriage in California?
2: and the injustice things it “creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” As if your sex had nothing to do with your ability to reproductive capabilities.
I would assert this 1 simple truth Marriage is NOT just about love it is indeed mostly about procreation. That’s why we have laws against marriage between close family members, the underages, between us and non-humans, and historically the inability of your partner to provide you with a child was grounds for a diverse.
This basic and historic propose of the union known as marriage is also why marriage was said to be consummated only after you had sexual intercourse with your spouse.(An act the Catholic Church historically condemned for any other propose then procreation).
Indeed all the evidence both historic and traditional in the world points to the simple fact that marriage is about procreation, not just love, or really even necessarily love at all.
This is why churches correctly say that people of the same sex cannot marry unless they are capable of having a child with each other. It has nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals and everything to do with the basic propose and function of Marriage.
If the judge who ruled on this is a homosexual, then the ruling is biased!
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.