Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Judge says Gay Marriages Can Start, But Gives Time for Appeal
A San Francisco federal judge today ruled that same-sex marriages should resume immediately in California, but put his decision on hold to give an appeals court an opportunity to consider whether to allow the marriage licenses to be issued while the legal challenge to the state's gay marriage ban proceeds.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who a week ago struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, found there is no longer reason to bar same-sex couples from the equal right to wed, particularly in view of the fact that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown -- the state's top officials -- agree that the marriages should be legal right away.
The judge put his order on hold until Aug. 18 for the appeals court to review the matter. Otherwise, he ordered the state to cease enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage.
The decision came as gay and lesbian couples lined up at San Francisco city hall, a few blocks away from the federal courthouse, hoping the judge would permit them to get married today.
Walker's ruling invalidating the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage has already been appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Proposition 8 proponents have indicated they will seek an emergency stay from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit of any order from the judge that would allow same-sex marriages to take place while the broader legal challenge proceeds, a process expected to stretch for another year or two and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
While gay and lesbian couples have been hoping for the past two weeks to start marrying, the legal realities suggest many obstacles remain in the short term.
Legal experts predict that either the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court is likely to put Walker's ruling on hold while appeals hash out the larger question of whether Proposition 8 tramples on the equal rights of the state's same-sex couples. Lawyers for the two same-sex couples who sued to overturn Prop. 8 argued that they should be able to marry immediately, but Proposition 8 lawyers have argued that allowing same-sex marriages in the interim could foster legal confusion across California.
And if there is a window of time when same-sex couples marry while the Prop. 8 legal challenge is on appeal, there is no guarantee those marriage licenses will remain in force if Walker's decision is ultimately overturned. Gay and lesbian couples who marry now are in a different legal posture than the approximately 18,000 couples who married during the months before voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008 -- marriages that remain valid.
In that situation, the California Supreme Court in May 2008 had struck down the state's prior laws banning same-sex marriage. Between May 2008 and November 2008, there was no law in California barring same-sex couples from marrying and the state Supreme Court had in fact legalized gay nuptials. As a result, even when the state Supreme Court later upheld Proposition 8 in 2009, the state's high court found that the law could not be applied retroactively to those 18,000 couples who married before voters effectively wiped out the court's prior ruling.
Legal experts say marriages that would take place now are on different legal footing because while Walker has declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, that law, which amended the state constitution, does exist on the books. If the 9th Circuit or later the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, legal experts say any same-sex marriages that occur after its passage would be on shaky ground.
Nevertheless, county officials across the state have been bracing for the possibility that same-sex couples will seek marriage licenses if Walker gives them the go-ahead. Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder Regina Alcomendras said this morning her office ready for any type of marital crush.
"I've got extra staff all ready to deploy," she said, adding that she is authorized to have up to 20 employees to perform marriages. "We will be prepared for anything. We will move quickly. I'm trying to make concessions if there's a spike in volume."
- Posted in
23 Comments so far
Show AllPerhaps soon the tempest in a teapot,that is gay marriage will fade into acceptance by us all. It has only been on the front burner because of opposition to it,by politicians to use it as a red herring,by the Catholic church to deflect criticism away from it's handling of the pedophile priest scandals.It has always been a civil rights issue.Not a marriage issue.We must all be free or none of us are free.
How about "NO MARRIAGES OF ANY KIND !" HETEROSEXUALS GO HOME-Do
not procreate-do not hold hands- do not show any affection of any kind ANYWHERE! We/ I am tired of your physical obliteration of women as respectable people and the condescending attitudes and misogynistic profiles you display so blatantly throughout public domains.
This is so important and so overdue. It is simply wrong to have a legal relationship that can exist between some adults and not others. Totally discriminatory. Long past due.
To all of you anti-gay, anti-same-sex marriage people: get out of the closet and start enjoying the faaabulous gay lifestyle!
Dear crazy religious people :
Lots of you do keep saying that God makes no mistakes. O.K. I'll give you that if you want.
Therefore, if you believe that God made people, then gay people are people, and if God makes no mistakes, and God wants people to marry, as one of those biblical guys said,
:..it's better to marry than to burn."
If God makes, no mistakes, and God makes all people...if you believe that then , of course, gay people can marry too. Gay people couldn't possibly be a mistake and neither could marriage for them !
Actually God wasn't much into civil rights, with all of those slaves and all, and women seem to be dissed a lot, and remember, poor Job. God made a deal with the Devil on that one. This god doesn't seem very 'holy" at all!
According to Sophia ( Wisdom) that Old Testament guy god just thought he was the only god, and apparently Wisdom helped the, whatever real creator, to make all life. As near as I can figure out, god's name would be "singularity."
And , oh yes, Pat Robertson, maybe God is angry at the freaky ," Us against them, "marriage people, and all the heat, fires, floods and earthquakes are signs for YOU people to get behind that "Do unto others" stuff.
After all, there are 10 of those "Thou shalt NOT commandments... if this god was anti-gay, wouldn't there have been an 11th commandment about that? Checkmate! Game over, so, focus on throwing those money changers out of the temple of democracy.
The New Testament position has always very clearly been "marriage without the possibility of divorce" taking the "till death do us part" quite literally (viz Henry VIII). The fact that these religious groups opposing gay marriage are not opposing divorce just as vehemently shows they are not Bible-based in Love, but hate-based in Pride. Opposing loving relationships is as Christian as suicide bombers are lslamic.
The judge doesn't seem to have a lot of confidence in his ruling if he's making it contingent on what the appeals court does or doesn't do. A shame, but not unexpected.
Those prop8 peeps are a bunch of A-holes.
Why do they care if gay folks want to get married? They should mind their own damn business.
Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?
Congrats! Hope it's lasting.
I don't understand the Pro-8 folk: my townhouse neighbor is a gracious, nice, retired gentleman. Last year, he and his wife (the wife we avoid at all costs....jabber, jabber, jabber) had "YES On 8" signs posted in their yard (non-HOA approved and removed). I'm convinced that they are brainwashed by their church--some Sundays he is at the church for 12 hours. Anyway, he is such a nice, caring person, yet seems to hold so much hate for gay people.
The gay marriage movement has taken such a strong hold in the religious sector, that I think it's going to become as emotional as abortion.
If gay marriage is legalized, will my kind, gentlemanly neighbor be arrested for threatening to blow up ministries?
meanwhile, back in pakistan 14 million people are affected by devastating floods caused by 'gay' people............
'ctrl-z August 13th, 2010 1:27 am
Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?
'
tsk
~
down....
' The fact that these religious groups opposing gay marriage are not opposing divorce just as vehemently shows they are not Bible-based in Love, '
The bible isn't based in love. The god of the bible has been aptly described by Dawkins... and, for reference : The bible atrocities' and similar (lots of sources, verbatim from the bible) via google.
stardust... logic?
Here's some :
The Argument from Evil :
.God cannot do the logicilly impossible.. he could not, for example, have made two plus two equal anything other than four... given the meaning of the words.
(That would be a logical impossibility and god can't do the logically impossible)
.God cannot do the logically impossible.. he cannot make a circle be at the same time a square.
(That would be a logical impossibility and god can't do the logically impossible)
.God could not have created Man to be all good AND have free will.
(That would be a logical impossibility and god can't do the logically impossible)....
On the other hand.... GOD is all good and GOD has free will... So, 'God is a logical impossibility.'
'Gay marriage'.. what a ridiculous thing to be occupying the minds of the masses.
~
Is all the attention it's given a distraction from other stories? I think sometimes it's more important to the media to create a stir, rather than report the news.
of course...........that's their 'raison d'etre'............
Good job Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker,
A brave Judge who honors his oath to protect constitutional rights.
Religious lunatics are allowed to have the invisible man in the sky run their lives, thats their constitutional right, but they can not force their beliefs on the rest of America, thats our constitutional right.
Now, we need to help our elected officials and the Supreme court to grow a back bone.They need to honor their oaths and protect our constitutional rights to privacy one step further, shut down the Patriot Acts, and all government contracts to company's collecting data on Americans without probable cause.
Data collection done without signed warrants from judges who have seen evidence of probable cause , is unconstitutional, period.
Living in fear of attacks and allowing data mining is not acceptable, period.
And , their are two choices, and they are clear, if you allow warrant less surveillance by private contractors at tax payer expense with out checks and balances you must allow law suits for damages caused by abuse.
Remove immunity, and impunity.
Thats called ," The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals."
If the government can have 2000 private company's and 800000 annalists collecting data on Americans, using warrant less surveillance, then our legal checks and balances are freedom of information acts, and law suits for damages. Period.
I am no Judge or lawyer, but I do believe it is the supreme courts job, sworn by oath to protect the constitution, therefore, you must remove immunity from our data mining surveillance spy network.
This is not the United Stazi of America.
After all, if tax dollars are paying for it, I have the right to sue for damages caused by false accusations, slander and abuse.
Gays getting married is of no consequence or business to anyone but them and the law, but the Patriot Acts and warrant less surveillance with immunity sure does say alot about us as free Americans without constitutional rights.
I want the right to face my right wing religious community watch vigilante torture freaks who have stalked me for 3 years 24/7 with the intent to ruin my life by driving me insane.
I want to kick their sorry self righteous ignorant stazi torture freak asses in a court of law, and seek settlement by jury.
Going on 4 years this Dec, these assholes have been cloaked by impunity , they are torture freaks, and I want redress of grievances.
Are we a nation of constitutional laws, or biblical vigilante action.
Message to the Supreme court,
Remember , the United States of America NOT the United religious torture freak Stazi of America.
Its time that lawyers be allowed to protect Americans,from government abuse, let the flood gates of class action suits fly OPEN, destroy the spy network now, DRIVE them into oblivion, and let this become the constitutional legal precedent of the new millennium.
SHUT DOWN THE PATRIOT ACTS AND ALL WARRANT LESS SURVEILLANCE, NOW!!!!!!!
Something happened to me while watching the ABC nightly news. I was eating supper with my barely 6 year old daughter, when a picture of two girls kissing flashed across the screen. Up to this point I've tried to avoid sexual discussions of any kind with my daughter. Unexpectedly, she blurted out...Bleckkk, Daddy that's yucky! My eyes popped open wide. It was clear that her reaction was visceral, almost instinctual, and totally unconditioned.
It occurred to me that anyone today with the same verbalized reaction would likely be attacked for being bigoted or whatever. I told her, whether we agree with them or not we have to be tolerant of others' choices of partners. But it also occurred to me that 'tolerance' is supposed to be a two-way street. We are expected to be tolerant of others who are often intolerant toward those who don't agree with their point of view and/or share their feelings. For those on a 'crusade,' whatever that crusade might be, I find this to be the norm.
They have no qualms with thrashing another who might disagree with them. The implication is that you must tolerate me, but I do not have to tolerate you, or your point of view. That's being hypocritical, isn't it?
" It was clear that her reaction was visceral, almost instinctual, and totally unconditioned."
Totally unconditioned? Really? She hasn't picked up any of this from you? Over the past six years?
She's been poisoned. Maybe it wasn't you. Maybe it was your church or the programs you watch on television. Maybe it was Pat Robertson.
Either way, she's been poisoned.
I notice you didn't tell your daughter that the expression of affection through kissing was normal. I notice you didn't tell her love has no gender. No, you said, "Whether we agree with them or not we have to be tolerant of others' choices of partners."
We are forced to tolerate them, even if we find them objectionable.
Fine message to give an innocent child.
Confront your own bigotry, then try to repair what you've done to your child.
As for the hypocrisy of not being tolerant of bigots, do you think the Freedom Riders should have said, "I respect your opinion that I am less than human and less deserving of respect."?
Go sit in the back of the bus and think about it.
Wow, you really prove my point here. So many assumptions. I really do have very little patience with crusaders from the left or the right. Essentially, you prove that neither side has respect for the other. You have been poisoned--prejudiced-- yourself, while accusing others of the very same thing. That, of course, is hypocritical.
Go move to the front of the bus and bash others in the back, whydontcha--you are an 'intolerant' soul, yourself, so please do not ever let me see you preaching tolerance; you clearly don't mean it.
Personally, I believe that the state should not be in the business of 'marriage' at all, and that anyone should be able to enter into a civil contract for whatever reason, heterosexual or homosexual. If you want to be gay, that is your business, but no preaching and being judgmental about it; if you do, you are as bad as the religious right. Realize that one can allow others to be without participating in what floats their boat, or did that possibility escape you.
Why do gays feel they need others to approve of and accept them anyway? If you know what you're doing is right, it shouldn't matter what others think. The answer is that you secretly, or unconsciously want to impose your will on them, as do all crusaders. Of course you'll never admit to that, neither will you live and let live, as you so vehemently preach (have you ever considered that any crusade or hard push, creates a counter-crusade or push in the opposite direction? Maybe there is another way because, whether you achieve what you want to or not, you pay the price of creating more disharmony and polarization, and will that ultimately make things better or worse for you cause? Think about it.)
I'll take an honest bigot any day to a dishonest pretender.
"So many assumptions."
Really? So which assumption was wrong?
"I'll take an honest bigot any day to a dishonest pretender."
An honest bigot? I've never come across one. All the bigots I've come across are convinced they aren't bigots.
For example, a bigot might try to show how a normal response to two women kissing is revulsion, as evidenced by his young daughters "visceral, almost instinctual, and totally unconditioned" response. But that bigot will swear up and down that she didn't get her attitude from him, it's just a normal, untaught response. It couldn't be what he taught her, 'cause he isn't a bigot.
Well, at least not an honest one.
But perhaps I've made a mistake. It happens. What if it hadn't been on television. What if it happened at your local mall? What if two women (or men) kissed, affectionately, and then went through the mall holding hands? If your daughter had the same response, what would you say to her then?
Your 6 yo is possibly a self hating lesbian. People with this kind of visceral attitude against homosexuals are very often themselves gay. She knows she's a lesbian but also knows you'd perhaps hate her for being that way, so she's hiding it by showing disgust. If she does turn out to be a lesbian, remember, half of her genes came from you. You made her that way. Maybe you are a latent homosexual yourself.
Also, according to you, gays must be tolerant of intolerant people. How could your brain come up with such fair-minded reasoning?