Judge who overturned Prop. 8 extends temporary hold on gay marriage [Updated]

 
A federal judge Thursday refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Walker said that same-sex marriages may resume at that time unless a higher court blocks them.

Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it. 

In addition, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s  and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the state’s highest officials and named defendants in the case, have told Walker that his ruling declaring the measure unconstitutional should be enforced immediately.

[Updated at 12:50 p.m.: "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."

Walker said there was no evidence that the sponsors of Prop. 8 "face the kind of injury" required to have standing to file an appeal.

"The uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success," he wrote.

The campaign for Proposition 8 said it would immediately appeal Walker's ruling.

"If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," the sponsors said in a prepared statement. They did not address Walker's contention that they may not having standing to appeal.

In front of San Francisco City Hall shortly before Walker's ruling was released, a phalanx of Prop. 8 supporters wearing yellow plastic ProtectMarriage vests held their ground in front of dozens of jubilant same-sex marriage backers.

"A Moral Wrong Cannot Be a Civil Right," said one protester's sign. Another proclaimed "Pervert Judge, Pervert Ruling." Others yet called for an end to "Judicial Tyranny."

But in this gay rights bastion, the weight of public opinion became clear when an open-air, double-decker tourist bus passed. Cameras snapped as same-sex couples festooned with marriage equality stickers hooted and waved.]

Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

The high court already has slapped down Walker once in the case. Lawyers for Proposition 8 appealed a pretrial decision to permit some broadcast of the trial proceedings, and the high court overturned Walker’s decision on a 5-4 vote.

Gov. Schwarzenegger and state Atty. Gen. Brown had urged Walker to permit same-sex marriages to resume, arguing the state was well-equipped to handle them.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during the six months it was legal in California in 2008, and the California Supreme Court later ruled that those marriages would remain valid.

The sponsors of the anti-gay marriage initiative told Walker that gay nuptials now would be clouded by uncertainty. The challengers countered that gay men and lesbians were capable of deciding for themselves whether to marry now or wait until the appeals conclude.

In weighing whether to put a ruling on hold, judges consider the likelihood that higher courts would uphold their ruling  and whether irreparable harm would be caused by a postponement.

Walker, who heard 13 days of testimony in January, said in his ruling Wednesday that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. He ruled that moral disapproval was not enough to deny gays what courts have determined is a fundamental right to marry.

Walker’s ruling will be reviewed by the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a majority of Democratic appointees. If the 9th Circuit upholds Walker’s decision, opponents of same-sex marriage said they would take the case to the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on matters of federal constitutional law.

--Maura Dolan and Lee Romney in San Francisco

Interactive: Gay marriage timeline | Prop. 8 donor database

Photo: Prop. 8 opponents listen to speakers during a rally celebrating the ruling to overturn the proposition on Aug. 4 in West Hollywood. Credit: Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

Comments

[drew]

Is this correct? Other websites are saying that the judge denied the stay.

[Yeson8won]

The least that homosexual Judge Walker can do is stay his flawed, biased decision and let it proceed through the process where it will hopefully be over-ruled.

[Zach]

Part of me does believe that "justice delayed is justice denied" and sees no reason not to let marriages start right now if the judge determined there is no harm. The other part recognizes this is probably the right decision, for the sake of moderation and stability while the matter works its way through the courts.
So much for whining about Walker being a militant homosexual liberal activist judge.

[ali]

this is great news! the rationality of the law triumphs over the baseless "morality" arguments of the right wing.

gay pride! desi pride!

[I'm Concerned]

Is Walker's ruling basically saying that a statewide constitutional officeholder (a la AG Brown or the Governor, who both approve of gay marriage) only has jurisdiction to bring this case forward for appeal? So anti-gay marriage folks have no redress to fight Walker's tyranny? My point is that--and Walker snidely knows this--that no statewide constitutional officeholder with the exception of Abel Maldonado or Steve Poizner would act as defendant for purposes of appeal. I'm not a lawyer, obviously, but my question is that the people who are supposed to defend our state constitution--Brown and Schwarzenegger--don't want to, so who do the Prop. 8 people ask to defend the state constitution?

It's time to pray.

[Zach]

Another thought - the AG and Governor's decision seems at least fiscally responsible. Our state's broke, these marriages would bring money into the economy, and even the traditional marriage folk admit we'll have gay marriage eventually. Maybe they should be given credit for realizing we have bigger problems than what Adam and Steve call their relationship!

[EqualityMatters]

I think it's wonderful that Prop 8 is finally being overturned. I'm not gay, and I don't have any close gay friends, but I'm of the strong opinion that they should not be denied rights simply because some people in our society are frightened or made uncomfortable by their life choices. Honestly, it's their lives, and getting married does no harm to anyone, no matter what kind of argument you try to cling to. You can't appeal when you have no injury to suffer from the ruling. Just saying you don't like it doesn't count.

It's kind of funny to see the supporters of Prop 8 throwing mud in all directions now because they didn't get their way. We live in a free country, and sometimes that means that people you don't like will have the same rights as you do. If it helps, they probably don't like you either. :p

[Chesa]

We have three equal branches of government. The ultimate decider on law is the US Constitution, not whether a majority rules, especially, when allowing majority rule results in discrimination against a minority class.

Yes on 8 was a flawed proposition. It is not surprising that it cannot stand under the weight of constitutional scrutiny. That proponents cannot even present anything more than moral outrage in a court case just goes to show that it was always bound to fail.

If you want to live in a dictatorship, go find your own island to live on. But if you live in the United States of America, we have rules that govern our freedom here.

[EqualityMatters]

I think it's wonderful that Prop 8 is finally being overturned. I'm not gay, and I don't have any close gay friends, but I'm of the strong opinion that they should not be denied rights simply because some people in our society are frightened or made uncomfortable by their life choices. Honestly, it's their lives, and getting married does no harm to anyone, no matter what kind of argument you try to cling to. You can't appeal when you have no injury to suffer from the ruling. Just saying you don't like it doesn't count.

It's kind of funny to see the supporters of Prop 8 throwing mud in all directions now because they didn't get their way. We live in a free country, and sometimes that means that people you don't like will have the same rights as you do. If it helps, they probably don't like you either. :p

[cencoast]

So much for the votes of seven million people. Just find a judge to over turn the will of the people! This crap is getting sickening.

[EthanR]

There is NO basis whatsoever against gay marriage except religious animosity. So long as freedom of religion means ANYTHING in this country, that can NEVER be sufficient reason to deny equality to fellow Americans.

The rights of a MINORITY can NEVER be determined by a vote of the majority. The tiny country of Costa Rica knows what the Supreme mucky-muck Banana Republic Court of the State of California refused to uphold.

Fortunately, unlike State Supreme Court judges, Federal judges are not subject to the politics declarations of war by the Mormons and Catholics.

Today, justice prevailed, hopefully it will also tomorrow.

[Rob]

It does seem like the Prop8 supporters should have some way to appeal this matter. Aren't they injured as voters because the elected officials are undermining the voter franchise? Can they get equitable relief ordering the state to take an appeal in this case?

I don't know the answers to these questions, I'm just asking.

[DisqusIMO]

Judge Walker's personal life should not have disqualified him from this case. How he treated the case should be reviewed. I would recommend these articles from the National Review Online:

Aug 11, 2010 Judge Walker and Supposed Lack of “Evidence” of Marriage’s Procreative Purpose

Aug 12, 2010 Judge Walker’s Phony “Finding” Versus Defendants’ Modesty About Predicting the Future

Churches and other groups that believe in gay marriage should have never stopped having their ceremonies. Even with Prop 8 they can do so and have the couple register as domestic partners. These are constitutional rights of speech, religion and assembly. With all the media and popular support, these couples could create a new word for their relationship even if the state did not give the title of marriage. Homage is my suggestion.

We will see if the CA courts are a good way to bring changes in federal laws, laws of other states and cultural attitudes. Maybe, maybe not.

[James Frazier]

• In Wisconsin, Anthony Stancl, 18, received 15 years in prison in February after prosecutors said he posed as a girl on Facebook to trick male high school classmates into sending him nude cell phone photos, which he then used to extort them for sex.

[Zach]

^Irrelevant argument is irrelevant.

[treason1917]

what ever happen to separation of state, government and religion. Now you trying to tell me that marriage is a union created by our state and federal government. The only thing they created was taxes not marriage. If the state and federal government are so concern about the treatment of homosexuals then change those laws in which you did create concerning Social Security, health care, entitlements but leave marriage alone it belongs to the church's and God.

[treason1917]

reading some of these comments one individual says those who voted for proposition a now upset and quit throwing mud. See what you forgot to mention we went through this twice before and both times the people determine that marriage was a union between man and woman. But because you and your fellow compatriots weren't satisfied with the decision, it's the minority who keeps overturning the majority. this should not even be an issue involving government is government did not create marriage God created marriage churches and no matter how you try to twist it the truth is government has no business dictating to churches, and those of you who decides to continue with your practice of homosexuality that is on you that is your business but don't force your lifestyle on me were my belief. And in this is not no matter how much you want to spin this about being homophobia concerning homosexuality is about simple belief of God and marriage as practice in churches and the Bible. And instead of asking the question where in the Bible does it show that media issue where in the Bible does it's just one time does he show marriage as a being homosexual, don't forget about Sodom and Gomorrah but it's a shame a person such as myself who is not a practicing Christian and what I mean by this who goes to church every Sunday I am a person who knows what is right in this case. do you realize that between Christians and Muslims there is a commonality in belief that be in marriage and homosexuals. But even though I am not a practicing everyday Christians I try to do what God would want me to do, many times many times over I have failed but I keep trying and hopefully one day I will get it right. But this I cannot say I'm silent while those of you try to change our Constitution so you can participate and lifestyle that is of your choosing