Gay marriages could resume Thursday if judge lifts stay in Prop. 8 case

Gay marriages in California could resume as early as Thursday if a judge lifts the stay to his decision to invalidate Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage in California.

Local officials said they have been waiting for the decision before deciding whether to start issuing marriage licenses again.

U.S. District Court in San Francisco has announced that Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker will issue his decision on a stay in the Proposition 8 case before noon. Walker ruled last week that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

In response to a request by Proposition 8's sponsors, Walker granted a temporary stay of his ruling and permitted all the parties to argue whether he should postpone the effect of his ruling permanently.

Foes of gay marriage want the stay extended -- saying they will take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

 

 

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown joined the challengers of Proposition 8 in urging Walker to reject a request to put his decision on hold pending appeals.

Schwarzenegger said the state was well-equipped to handle the marriages of gays and pointed to the fact that an estimated 18,000 gay couples were wed in California before Proposition 8 passed.

"Government officials can resume issuing such licenses without administrative delay or difficulty,”  Schwarzenegger’s office said in written arguments to the court.

The governor called Walker’s repudiation of Proposition 8 "consistent with California’s long history of leading the way in recognizing the rights of gay and lesbian families to order their relationships and manage their day-to-day lives."

Brown also told Walker that possible administrative difficulties should not be used as an excuse for denying gays the right to wed. Brown said his office last year opposed a pretrial request to block Proposition 8 only because the legal and factual issues had not yet been explored.

"That has now occurred," Brown's office said. " And 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 constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

-- Maura Dolan and Shelby Grad

Comments

[Married in 5 States]

“By the Power Vested In Me By…”

A common phrase heard within many marriage ceremonies. Have you ever stopped to listen to what is being said? “By the power vested in me BY THE STATE OF _____”. Secular or “legal” marriage status is granted by the states governments. The states decide who may solemnize marriages. There may be restrictions on who is “permitted” by law to “legally” marry 2 people. In two states, notaries public may solemnize marriages, 48 other states do not allow this. There are some states which place limitations or rules on clergy that may make marriages “legal” such as obtaining Certificates of Authority (Nevada), Non-Resident Clergy Petition to Solemnize Marriage (Massachusetts) or similar documentation. Clergy are granted (or “vested” with) the power the solemnize marriages which are recognized by the state to be “legal” and recognized by the laws of the state and country. Imagine being in Las Vegas, having a member of the clergy from any other state perform a wedding ceremony. Would the two people married be married “in the eyes of God”? Absolutely. Would they be legally married in Nevada? Not without a Certificate of Authority issued to the clergyman by that state.

Coming at this from a different angle… Does the state require that a church MUST perform a wedding ceremony for two people? Not if it falls outside the beliefs of that church. Can the state compel a Buddhist priest to marry a Wiccan and a Baptist and have that marriage recognized by the Catholic Church? Absolutely not. That’s the beauty of the separation of church and state. The constitution guarantees the freedom of religion. It does not, however, guarantee the unalienable right of clergy to have authority over secular matters such as “legal” marriage. That right is granted by the state.

The government does not force churches to recognize “civil” or “City Hall” marriages as those are conferred by the state but try taking a church issued marriage certificate to any government office and have it “legally” recognized without the presence of a state issued marriage license. Let me know how that works out for you.

The government encourages everyone to have their own religious and moral beliefs. Isn’t it time for everyone to recognize the rights of the state? Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops blogs that the Constitutional freedom for religion “... precludes government from weighing in on the 'acceptability' of religious beliefs.” When will she recognize that the Constitution also “precludes religious belief from weighing in on the acceptability of government”?

[McCrazy]

Let them marry. Why should heterosexuals be the only miserable ones?

[Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace]

Jezz, lets hope the marriage ban is repealed. Kudos to Judge Walker.

Onward to full civil and marriage equality rights in 21st century America.
Joe Mustich & Ken Cornet, Justices of the Peace & Universal Ministers
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

And kudos to CT for being a marriage equality state since 2008, and now it looks like I might be officiating in CA!! It's a great place to spend the winter....beats New England.....

[Alice]

I never understood what the big problem was with letting gays marry. I mean, it's not like we straight folks have done a bang-up job of "protecting" marriage. It's bigotry and prejudice - and the history books will remember it that way.

I'm ashamed of my beautiful state.

[NikonGirl]

DO IT! Let's get this show on the road. We need to put an end to this inhumane discrimination and put our time, money, and energy into taking care of the long list of legitimate problems in the world. It's the right thing to do.

CHECKLIST:

1. Hunger
2. Child Abuse
3. Elder Abuse
4. Animal Abuse
5. Alternative Energy

etc......

[christine]

I have long been of the opinion the prop 8 is a conservative red herring, something to distract people while our economy tanked and our rights were whittled away. WAKE UP!!

[Warren]

"Justice delayed is justice denied!"

The court has ruled that prop 8 is unconstitutional. Let them wed! Most likely the opinion of the court will be up healed. Let them wed! Until a higher court hears and rule on prop 8 or the issue of the letting gays wed while the case move through the system, Let them Wed!

[cat]

May this LAW PASS in favor of Gays!

Who are we to make judgements?

Life is short~ let all people enjoy life to it's fullest!

We pass laws for Illegals faster than we can pass laws for our own citizens.!!!

For the pursuit of happiness may it pass.

[watever]

AMEN!! Let people choose their own path, I don't pay their bills so I don't care, let em marry!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TRADITIONALIST]

why do we vote when one judge with his/her own agenda and can overturn millions of voters. in this case a gay judge ruling on a gay proposition. is that a conflict of interest which was swept under the carpet by the liberal press? Yes, you could argue why should a married judge rule on this, i understand that too. maybe these things shouldn't go to the polls until they are found constitutional. me personally, i've given up on going to the polls. it seems like any kind of perversion is accepted in our society now and those of us who think this is disgusting are bigots and racists, etc. The people voted, a gay judge overturned. soon we will be marrying our dogs and horses etc.. why not right? who's to say who someone can love? isn't that the arguement?

[BILLY BOB]

REALLY..I thought the California voters voted this down twice already...

[JDasilva]

As I'm holding in one hand the keyboard and in the other the marriage license application, I have to say that this is a moment in which everyone in California (and America) should be proud of.

The people that are afraid Gay marriage might "harm" their children and their education, let me tell you this:

1. There will be no changes for you or your family with the fact that a piece of paper is signed by two people of the same sex. We have been and we will continue to have the same lifestyle we have now.
2. "Protect the children" has been a slogan that has never been specific to what is the "harm" that gay marriages would cause them ( the children). They only portrait that children would be taught at school about gay marriage. People... really!!?? They already know that gay marriage is out there, and if not, do you want them to be ignorants? why so much tabu, is it because you don't want to spend time with your kids and explain them about tolerance, and diverse ways of life, and that we are not all the same? Is it that you find it easier just to send them to school to learn everything there so you don't have to worry about giving them quality time?
3. We are not interested in profanate your religion. On contrary, we want to stay as far as possible from all the things that don't have an open mind and accept that men are not GOD, and for so they cannot judge other men. You can explainthat to your kids ;)
4. Your kids might learn to be more respecful (let alone tolerant) with other kids at school. Do you want to protect your kids only or also those kids that are being bullied by your kid at school because they are called names like "f*g" ?
5. Your kids will end up having more to enjoy of CA once Gay marriages thrive, because it will be a boost to the state economy, ergo, more money to spend in schools, parks, child hospitals, etc. We are also going to have more money as a consecuence of a tax break we will enjoy, and we can now spend more in YOUR business, so you can give a better live to your children.

PROTECT THE CHILDREN...SAY NO TO PROP 8!

[busytimmy]

"What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No not just for some but for everyone."

[jackie]

let them marry they deserve to happy too and find there soul mate !

[1B48]

Let them appeal it so we can go to Federal level and get the same rights for everyone in the US!

[lde10475]

In response to Traditionalist: Why do we vote is one judge can overturn it? We vote because people put it on the balance. A judge can over turn it because our founding fathers were very careful to build in "checks and balances" so no one person has too much power. In this case, those same checks and balances are preventing "the people" from voting in a law that is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Congratulations to all of those couple who have waiting far too long to be treated with the equality that should have been their unalienable right!

[Richard]

Here is the thing, while I personally voted against prop 8, I still
recognize the right of states to have such things. Until a JUDGE (one person)
decided that marriage was allowable between people of the same sex
there was no confusion as to what it was. A legal state recognized by the
government. A contract with a set of rights , responsibilities and privileges as
defined by the state. Marriage has a varying set of these from state to state.

What I also know is that currently the state does offer an option, a civil union,
which grants the same STATE rights. Even if marriage is suddenly recognized
as legal, the FEDERAL government does not at this time treat it as a marriage
under federal law. Try it with your taxes and feel free to correct me if I'm
wrong about this.

What I am disgusted with is when politicians, like Arnold and Brown, choose
to oppose the will of the people. At least a judge is supposed to interpret the
laws. They are supposed to defend the laws passed by the people, especially
when it is a state constitutional amendment. This is just like prop 187 where
Gray Davis chose to not fight for what the people so clearly wanted. This
one more reason why the illegal alien problem got so much worse, but I
digress a bit here.

In the end, it is my hope that the people of the united states will choose to
allow gay marriage, but it should spring forth from the people if it is going
to mean anything. Something forced down the throats of the people is not
likely to engender good feelings or true acceptance.

I do have to wonder though. If gay marriage is allowed, why not polygamy?
I don't pretend its something for me, but seriously, what's the legitimate
reason why when already have men who have children with multiple women
who he is not married to. If the guy is not married, there is no law against
doing so. Admittedly, it makes things a bit more complex, but anyone who
has seen the legislation passed by congress knows it is simple in comparison.
We could learn enough from other countries experiences to formulate
something that can work.

[concerned voter]

I am sorry but didnt the voters from state of california vote for prop 8 ? why bother voting if it is going to get turned over by some judge that doesnt understand the differance between man and woman..husband and wife.. what will the next thing a judge will overturn from the voters.

[Nick]

@Traditionalist: You're not much of a traditionalist if you think that a judge has no business deciding the constitutionality of a law. Our forefathers created THREE branches of the government (executive, legislative, AND judicial) to protect us from tyranny from the government AND from the people, not just the government. Also, were you this upset when Chicago passed a law banning guns in the city and a federal judge ruled that unconstitutional and struck down the law? Hmm? What happens to the will of the people in that case?

Finally, you say how can a gay judge rule... blah blah blah. So who is to say that a straight judge would be unbiased? Perhaps a straight judge hates gays?

You have no argument and it saddens me that there are actually people in this country who believe that a judge has no business overturning a law. You clearly don't even understand how this great country you claim to love so much works.

[MikeP]

A lot of clueless people don't know how our system of government works. "How can one judge overturn the will of millions of voters?" It's called "The Judicial Branch" folks, and it is intended to make sure laws are actually in accord with the constitution. We don't live in Mob Rule.

[Monica]

Sure, go right ahead and take our "Fair" vote from our beautiful american people that voted YES!

[DK]

Its a good thing that slavery, women's voting rights, integrated schools, and mixed-race marriages were not put to a vote as they all would have FAILED.

What is it about these neo-con small government types that love to tell other people how to live despite them wanting the government out of every aspect of their lives.

What happened to live and let live? What happened to civil rights?

America shows itself to be a laughing stock amongst developed countries. We are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[Pornouy]

Homosexuals: please step off the soap box and crawl back in your hole so all of this can go away already!

[Pornouy]

McCrazy - Don't let them marry! Why should we give in to the minority? Because they can scream louder than the majority?

[Carmen]

The problem with public opinion on this, I think, is that people are not seeing how it matters to them. They have to be shown the big picture, which is: that crime and all other sources of social instability are rooted in family stability, not economics; that gender makes a very great difference when it comes to child-rearing and that marriage is an institution that involves all of us giving economic and social support to those who are getting married.