Judge set to rule whether gay marriages can resume

A federal judge will decide Thursday morning whether to extend a hold on his ruling that overturned Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage in California.

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.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

 

Comments

[Warren]

"Justice delayed is justice denied"

[MikeP]

Prop 8 is unconstitutional, so extending the stay is a good idea because... of why? Does anybody know?

[Jorge]

gay marriage hurts children. Every child has a right to a mother and father.

[Brian]

This is crazy, announce that he's going to announce. Just release the decision. Haven't these couples been through enough? They want to get married, not rob a bank. Come on people.

[misanthropicus]

No hold on ruling - justice by fait accompli is the way the liberals inflict their way upon this population. After all, Walker has in this matter the mighty honorable precedent established by Ronald George, his buddy, who when asked to hold on his ruling since it was clear that the incoming vote will invalidate his ruling, ignored this absolutely legitimate reques, and let gay marriages happen.

The baseness of these liberal "judges" is bottomless - anyway, the affair will go quckly to the court of appeals, which will, of course, support Walker, then to SCOTUS - where, probably it will be wisely re-routed to the electorate, since no Court in the world can or should single-handedly change 3000 years of justified tradition, i.e. marriage = man+ woman, oppression theory notwithstanding.

[gerard]

maura...maura...maura. permanently? try re-reading your posts before you hit send: your reputation is always on the line, and now it has spiraled downward. hope you can recover.

[Tom]

Banning same sex, tax-paying, law abiding Americans from the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage is NO different than the laws that prevented blacks from marrying whites as recently as 1968. No matter what religious fairytale one belongs to, it is unconstitutional to single out a particular group of people and prevent them from marrying one another. That is why there is the Equal Protection Clause -- ie: Equal treatment under the law.

Regardless of how many voters voted in favor of Prop 8, the whole point of a Constitution is to prevent people from the majority -- Hence women's rights, civil rights, etc. If we lived in a country where the majority got whatever they wanted, we'd still have slavery, women would not be allowed to vote, and many other liberties we take for granted would be non-existent.

Prop 8 is nothing more than typical American bigotry. Just like times past, it will be overturned, and 25 years from now, people will have a hard time believing we ever forbid it. Loud sustained applause to you Judge Walker -- You got this one right!

[Greg Maragos]

Justice Walker must have a sense that his decision is likely to be overturned, since there is NOTHING in the United States Constitution that guarantees a right to gay marriage. For Walker, this "hearing of final arguments" is a mere formality to be gone through for the sake of maintaining appearances before reaching the predetermined conclusion that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, to be carried out quickly and defiantly in much the same spirit as Gavin Newsome's the-law-be-damned-I-AM-THE-LAW ethos.

[Wilbur Post]

Let them marry. It is a foregone conclusion anyway. Just another notch on the wall that marks the fall of the United States. Just watch as kids books now promote mom and mom, dad and dad or will it be parent and parent? Just watch as sex education classes talk about sodomy as "normal behavior" and how to protect yourself. This country is going down the drain.

[este]

This is so silly. Seriously? A "stay" on a ruling. All this rhetorical nonsense isn't necessary.

[Cris Ranston]

The government has no business regulating marriage for gays or for anyone. It is not a function of any government to sanction the marriage of one person to another.

[Rocco]

I'm guessing he allows the unions to go forward.

[ptvoice]

Really, I wonder what he will do?
Why would this nut postpone his ruling?
He has already decided it was about civil rights and due process.

What due process are gays and lesbians being denied?
None.
But, the judge has declared they are so there you have it.
Question: How can't marry who? How many spouses can I have?
Congrads judge, you have opened the box.

PTVoice from http://www.thussaithme.blogspot.com

[Terry]

I'm hoping Judge Walker will lift the stay. I'm finally seeing the tide turn. The equality supporters are outnumbering the National Organization for Marriage supporters on NOM's national tour, we've got a republican governor and democratic AG both supporting resumption of marriage equality, and even Glen Beck and Fox News seem to think the Supreme Court is likely to uphold Judge Walker if/when it gets there. I think more folks have been forced to re-think their prejudice by reading the judge's thoughtful and compelling ruling.

[erik self]

...this would not be a problem if people were less hypocritical but they are they will eat cake while telling you not too...get real, minding ones own business does wonders when you dont like something not going your way- if you dont like gay marriage get a life ...mind your own bees wax!!!

[Carmen]

I would think that if he had good, solid legal reason to NOT allow gays to marry, that he would not have overturned Prop 8. But, that is not the case. If he allows the stay today, it seems like he'd be going against his ruling from last week.

[me]

Stop the demoralization of America. Gay people are an ibomination.
Leviticus 18:22 22
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination

Leviticus 20:13;
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Why do they want to get married anyway, Marriage was is a religeous act between two Christians? That makes gay people hypocriticle. They should only seek a "Union" for their "relationship". I wonder how many churches will show their hypocracy by actually preforming a marriage in a place of worship? Under mans law, yes gay people should be able to be added to their partners insurance. But then, Friends should be able to add freinds to their insurance.