Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/16/10 | Lisa Leff - ap

[NormsRevenge]

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, trumps 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 Supreme Court.

[NormsRevenge]

A man opposed to same sex marriage carries signs outside City Hall prior to a judge lifting the Proposition 8 stay on same sex marriages at City Hall in San Francisco, California August 12, 2010... REUTERS/Robert Galbraith

[San Jacinto]

Color me shocked!

[Captain PJ]

I don’t mind those pole smokin, rump rangers, just don’t think they should get married. That’s just plain F#@ked up!

There is nothing funnier than an angry effeminate gay man, especially when it’s two of them fighting.

[freedumb2003]

Thank God SOME adults are watching the shop.

This is the only proper course of action while the will of the people (meaningless, according to the court so far) has to defend itself against liberals out to wreck our society.

If I wasn’t married I would buy a hamster and apply for a marriage license. People in Utah should be RUSHING to the courthouse to get sanctioning for polygamy and polyandry.

[upchuck]

I have zero use for the 9th Circus of Appeals.

But I gotta give them credit. They got this one right.

Hopefully they’ll also get Arizona right when that comes up shortly.

[Minn]

Wait a minute. I distinctly remember that Judge Vaughn Walker had decided that this issue was over, and that no questioning of his wisdom would be allowed, or was even necessary. Gender has nothing to do with marriage. He said so in plain English. If that’s true (and it undoubtedly is, because he said so), then no appeal could possibly succeed. So it makes no sense to stay the implementation of his most beneficent ruling.

[Seeking the truth]

They will merely hold this over until after the November elections....they probably got the memo.

[1035rep]

Good news!

[Brytani]

Walker’s ruling was absolutely pathetic - a political statement wrapped up in a court ruling.

All I could think while reading it and the 9th circus appeal was he wrote is so ridiculous it would have to be overturned but he’d still get his point across.

[Cementjungle]

The 9’th circus did this???? wow.

[Republican Wildcat]

All depends on what combination of 3 judges you get. It’s possible to get good rulings out of this court - albeit with low probability.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

It must be tough being a gay couple and having to wait so long to get married so you can have sex.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Thank God!
Let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing!

[AU72]

I hope a judge I know is on the 3 member panel. She would not be inclined towards gay marriage. She was in the majority when the 9th ruled in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance.

[donhunt]

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals can go fry their ass too.

[Nervous Tick]

>> There is nothing funnier than an angry effeminate gay man, especially when it’s two of them fighting.

I’m gonna have to take your word for that. I don’t tend to hang out where such a thing would ever happen.

Otherwise, your post is quite, uh, *colorful*. After you’ve been around awhile, maybe you’ll come out of your shell and tell us how you REALLY feel. :-)

[Nervous Tick]

>> It must be tough being a gay couple and having to wait so long to get married so you can have sex.

ROFLMAO!

Actually, if what I’ve read is correct, they want to get married so they can visit each other in the hospital when they’re dying from the diseases they catch while having unmarried backdoor sex. :-)

And so they can draw survivor’s benefits at taxpayer expense.

[fifedom]

Color me cynical but there are multiple (political) reasons for this ruling.

If they did not issue a stay the Prop. 8 proponents would appeal to the Supremes. Who would hear the appeal?? None other than King Anthony (Kennedy), the man in black who will ultimately decide this issue. Kennedy is most likely on vacation or otherwise indisposed so he would be none too pleased to be dragged away to hear the appeal.

As someone else mentioned, this will lower the impact of the ruling on the election this November. If they had not stayed the ruling and Kennedy had gone along it would (a) have tipped Kennedy's hand and given conservatives time to mount a movement against this. And, (b) the pictures of the lovey-dovey gays cooing at the altar would be plastered all over the news media and would further motivate conservatives this November.

The Supremes will probably not hand down their unappealable order to the rest of us until sometime in 2012. I think the chances are a lot better than even that they will force the re-definition of marriage to include homosexuals.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Actually, if what I’ve read is correct, they want to get married so they can visit each other in the hospital when they’re dying from the diseases they catch while having unmarried backdoor sex. :-)

Precisely ... read my tagline!