Gay marriage in California won't resume for now, appeals court rules

Gay marriage won't be allowed to resume until state and federal appeals courts decide the fate of Proposition 8, the voter initiative that limited marriage to heterosexual couples, three federal judges ruled Wednesday.

Gay-rights advocates had asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the hold put on a San Francisco federal judge's ruling last year that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and said California authorities should cease enforcing it.

Interactive: Track changes in rights for same-sex couples in the U.S.

That ruling was stayed by the judge who made it, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, and the injunction was kept in place when the 9th Circuit said last fall that it would put the appeal by Proposition 8 backers on a fast track.

But the appeals court in January turned to the California Supreme Court with a question about whether those who drafted the initiative banning same-sex marriage have the right to appeal Walker's ruling in place of the original defendants, the governor and attorney general, who have refused to defend the ballot measure, which they deem discriminatory.

The state high court has indicated it won't hold hearings on the question of standing until at least September, meaning that the 9th Circuit won't address the case again until the end of the year or later.

In a terse denial of the latest effort to restore the right of gays and lesbians to marry, 9th Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins and N. Randy Smith said they had reviewed the cases cited by the gay-rights advocates but decided to maintain the injunction against Walker's ruling.

The American Federation for Equal Rights, a party to the effort to resume gay-marriage rights pending the appeal, described the denial of that fundamental right "un-American."

"It is decidedly unjust and unreasonable to expect California's gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second-class citizens while their U.S. District Court victory comes to its final conclusion," said federation founder and board president Chad Griffin.

An attorney for the Proposition 8 supporters, Andrew Pugno, said the judges' ruling on the stay should keep it in force until the case is finally decided.

"It's a victory for Proposition 8 supporters and the initiative process as a whole," Pugno said. "People need to have confidence that their vote will count, at least until the courts make a final decision."

RELATED:

California Supreme Court refuses to speed up ruling on key issue in gay marriage battle

Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris urges appeals court to permit same-sex marriage

Proposition 8 opponents urge federal court to lift order preventing gays from marrying

-- Carol J. Williams

Comments

[Apollo18]

I thought our civilization had moved past this kind of discrimination.

[Jerry Lewis]

How many gay teen suicides will it take to touch the heart and change the mind of each of those who disapprove of being gay--to finally see the importance of supporting committed homosexual relationships? The longer being gay continues to be reviled and publically controversial, and the longer gays are deprived of their equal right to marriage, including the stability marriage provides under law, the more gay youth will be hurt, their lives diminished, and worse.

[krvonl]

I agree with this decision because this issue will make its way to the Supreme Court, such as what happened with Brown v. Board of Education. When the Supreme Court rules, we'll have a definitive ruling about gay marriage one way or another.

[Mark]

Oh, good! Our culture will be saved for just a little longer, at least!

Hey - does anyone know when Jersey Shore is on?

[Alan Middleton]

@Apollo18:

This isn't discrimination; this is voting power. California voters (such as myself) voted for marriage to only be between a man and a woman and my vote along with the majority of California agrees. Those who oppose this heterosexual lifestyle are free to move to another state.

Simple ... as ... that :)

[Hyhybt]

"People need to have confidence that their vote will count, at least until the courts make a final decision."---That comes awfully close to an admission that the "final decision" won't be in their favor :)

Awful as it sounds, I think the court is right not to lift the stay, simply because of the mess it would make should Prop 8 be reinstated. It doesn't seem like marriages entered between now and then would have quite the same grounds for recognition as those from the 2008 window, and we really don't need yet another form of "sort-of-married-depending-on-who-you-ask-and-whether-you-can-go-to-court-and-convince-a-judge."

I'd still love to know why the state court scheduled hearings and so forth months from now, rather than simply issuing a statement one way or the other.

[Joe]

How many times must it be said? Gays have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that hetros have. If you people want to form a union with a member of the same sex go for it, just don't call it marriage.

[Zach]

Figured. While gay citizens shouldn't have to wait to be treated equally under the law, that's the system for you.

[Greg Maragos]

Since this is a federal case (the argument is based on the federal Constitution), and since the United States Supreme Court IS an appeal court, this will most certainly have to go all the way to Washington before the matter is settled.

When the California Supreme court created this mess by declaring that the Constitution of California guarantees a basic, human right to homosexual marriage (which it clearly does not), the genie came whizzing out of the bottle. Further complicating the matter, the court issued a royal proclamation that if gay marriage were to be illegal, then the voters needed to pass such a law, clearly defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. But if gay marriage is a basic human right, then how can it be possible to pass a law taking it away? The most logical answer is that the court probably thought (wrongly, as it turned out) that public opinion had changed so dramatically on this issue that passage of such a proposition would be impossible and that, therefore, the matter was effectively settled.

When voters passed Proposition 8, the California Supreme court, entrapped by its own words, was forced to uphold the law and declare that gay marriages were no longer legal, but those that had already taken place would be upheld. The State Supreme Court had spoken, so an appeal in federal court was filed.

Since the final authority in all matters concerning the U.S. Constitution is the United States Supreme Court, those against Prop. 8 will now have to somehow convince five justices that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage--a very tall order, indeed, since it would have the effect of legalizing gay marriage throughout the country, including various other states with laws to the contrary--for if the United States Constitution protects gay marriage as a right of all U.S. citizens, then those living in Arkansas have the same human rights as those in California.

[Maria]

Gay marriage takes rights away. Every Child has a right to a mother and father. How sad to take this fundamental right away from a child!

[Cyndy Greger]

I agree wholeheartedly with Joe:

"How many times must it be said? Gays have the same right to
marry a member of the opposite sex that hetros have. If you people
want to form a union with a member of the same sex go for it,
just don't call it marriage."

[RomanHans]

Maria, will you let me get married if I promise I won't have kids? Gosh, this seems a bit odd -- in a democracy, where everyone is allegedly equal, asking somebody I don't know (who doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the bunch) to grant me equal rights?

[Jon edward]

It is no surprise that America is known, worldwide, as the nation of ignorance. As long as you keep breeding these brainless citizens, you will remain the laughing stock of the world.

[Zach]

I want to know why Cyndy and Joe feel the need for redundant laws in this country. What function does having two separate-but-equal arrangements for government-recognized cohabition serve? Are we to clutter up our legal system every time some significant group of people objects to the use of a word on a personal level? Isn't that what some people complain about as "political correctness?"

[Marco Luxe]

Can anyone tell me why the 9th Circuit so completely ignored the four-pronged test to issue a stay described in Hilton 481 U.S. 770 (1987) ? The proponents of Prop 8 clearly fail ALL the criteria. Can the failure to evaluate a stay be appealed to the 9th en banc? For you that want to know, the Hilton standard balances the equities to determine if a stay should be issued in favor of the losing party at trial. The court considers: (1) whether prop 8 proponents are likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal [Walker's extensive rulings and finding of facts doesn't give them much of a chance to win, plus, there is a serious likelihood that they won't even have standing to appeal]; (2) whether prop 8 proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay [none of the proponent's heterosexual marriages were shown to be harmed by letting the gay neighbors with a DP use the word "married"] ; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding [gay couples are denied over 1000 fed rights that they could make a claim to if "married"] ; and (4) where the public interest lies. ["equality under the law" is a pretty big public interest in our democracy]

[Ed Barnsworth]

put their lives on hold?...daily discrimination? more than likely, today as they have been for some time now, the gay and lesbian community continues to live the lifestyle they chose as intimately as at any other time. lives on hold? hardly. daily discrimination? daily? c'mon...

[Hsin Huang]

Just like heterosexual, homosexual is not a choice. It is not up to yourself to determine your sexual orientation. They are everyday people, they have feeling and desire of pursuit happiness. If they want to marry they should can, it is human rights. Majority can not vote to take away the minority rights and continue to victimized them. If decide by votes, minority will always got victimized. Back in 60s in USA, African American's marriage cannot be recognized, and women have no voting rights before that. It is all part of discriminations. I cannot believe in the 21st century this victimized process still keep continue.