Same sex marriage on hold in Calfiornia

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 11:43 PM GMT
    Today a a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely while it considers the constitutionality of the California’s gay marriage ban.

    http://thequeertimes.com/2010/08/sex-marriage-stay-hold-indefinitely/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:07 AM GMT
    viveutvivas saidFuck.

    Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck it.


    What he said.

    ====

    edit - 8/16/10 8:00 PM:

    From: http://prop8trialtracker.com/

    Appeal scheduled December 6

    Three things:

    First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December.

    Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants' opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it's a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn't want it to linger.

    Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here's a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don't know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:07 AM GMT
    I just posted this link........
    I guess that "bello guy" is right... everyone ignores me. icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:09 AM GMT
    Do NOT go to your hetero friends marriages, or give them gifts, until there is full equality. Seriously, and tell them why.

    Also, turn down business from str8's, or raise your price. Tell them all of the gays have voted, and we believe you need to pay more. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:13 AM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/08/16/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Trial.html?hp

    California Gay Marriage on Hold as Case Is Appealed
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: August 16, 2010
    Filed at 7:26 p.m. ET

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

    The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

    Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the Supreme Court.

    In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.

    ''We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule,'' said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

    A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question.

    Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling the ban violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

    The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in the case many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

    Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

    Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

    Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

    Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

    Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:16 AM GMT
    A1EX saidI just posted this link........
    I guess that "bello guy" is right... everyone ignores me. icon_redface.gif


    Don't feel ignored, just find it important to post links to small gay sites instead of bigger companies since we've just been recently bitten in the ass by Target
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:26 AM GMT
    To me, that is surprising. This IS the ninth circuit we are talking about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:33 AM GMT
    I'm not at all surprised that they've issued a stay. These judges know that Fox is just waiting to attack them, list their home addresses or whatever these crazy right-wingers do these days. This way, they can get some cover from the inevitable smears that will come. It's unfortunate, but not expected.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Aug 17, 2010 12:34 AM GMT
    The case is being "considered" for appeal. Until then, why wouldn't they hold it? Not surprised here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:35 AM GMT
    This is not a surprise.....any court doing a review wants to take its own sweet time and its own schedule to do it...not happy , but not surprised either...icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Aug 17, 2010 12:40 AM GMT
    ATLTED saidTo me, that is surprising. This IS the ninth circuit we are talking about.



    I wasn't a bit surprised because the courts are loathe to change the law unless there is an urgent need to take immediate action. They prefer to let a case wend its way through the various courts of appeal until a final decision is made. Even though we lost this round, it was the legally correct thing to do. It wasn't right, but it was correct...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:46 AM GMT
    Suprise, surprise, surprise, are you really. You guys really need to move away from the word marriage, it's a heterosexual instertution, with founding roots in religion.

    Our I hope to be New prime minister Tony Abbot has stated he has no issues with gay unions, nor do I. But He dose not support them under the banner of marriage, nothing new, and I agree. You guys really do need to move away from the word marriage, if you want to see advancement, in many ways it's the gay activists who want move away from it, are the ones holding you all back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:48 AM GMT
    "You guys really do need to move away from the word marriage"

    You really need to stay away from the Fosters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 12:53 AM GMT
    If there's any upside to this it'll be watching the cognitive dissonance going on over at FreeRepublic.com. Those people are the lunatic fringe of the insane fundamentalist right. They love to bash on the 9th Circuit (or 9th Circus as they're fond of calling it).

    I imagine some of their tiny brains are exploding at the prospect of now praising the 9th Circuit for issuing this stay.
  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Aug 17, 2010 12:57 AM GMT
    I figured as much. One step forward, three steps back. Unfortunately, this is the way of the world we live in. All we can do is to remain vigilant for our opportunity to deliver a knock-out blow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 1:01 AM GMT
    aunty_jack saidSuprise, surprise, surprise, are you really. You guys really need to move away from the word marriage, it's a heterosexual instertution, with founding roots in religion.

    Our I hope to be New prime minister Tony Abbot has stated he has no issues with gay unions, nor do I. But He dose not support them under the banner of marriage, nothing new, and I agree. You guys really do need to move away from the word marriage, if you want to see advancement, in many ways it's the gay activists who want move away from it, are the ones holding you all back.


    I completely agree with you, however I do believe that the legal institution of marriage should be done away with for heterosexuals as well. It should be a strictly religious institution and everyone should be open to unions with equal benefits under the law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 1:06 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidI'm not at all surprised that they've issued a stay. These judges know that Fox is just waiting to attack them, list their home addresses or whatever these crazy right-wingers do these days. This way, they can get some cover from the inevitable smears that will come. It's unfortunate, but not expected.


    politically speaking, they should have nothing to worry about given they are appointed "during good behavior"...in other words, "for life."

    and is it really that easy to find out the home address of a federal judge??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 1:13 AM GMT
    aunty_jack saidSuprise, surprise, surprise, are you really. You guys really need to move away from the word marriage, it's a heterosexual instertution, with founding roots in religion.

    Our I hope to be New prime minister Tony Abbot has stated he has no issues with gay unions, nor do I. But He dose not support them under the banner of marriage, nothing new, and I agree. You guys really do need to move away from the word marriage, if you want to see advancement, in many ways it's the gay activists who want move away from it, are the ones holding you all back.


    marriage is also a legal term.... a form of contract between two people. so your statement is false.

    i like dictionary.com's definition of the word marriage:


    mar·riage
       /ˈmærɪdʒ/ [mar-ij]
    –noun
    1.
    a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
    b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

    3. the legal OR religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities

    and my favorite:

    6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger

    lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 1:23 AM GMT
    I'm curious what is going to happen with the "legal standing" issue. That is going to be key when this case moves forward. If the court decides that the defendants to not have legal standing to appeal, the issue is dead right there and break out the wedding gowns and rice in California.

    The thing is, if it does go all the way to the SCOTUS, we will be shooting for all the marbles. If SCOTUS finds the ban unconstitutional it will overturn all bans in all states.

    Bird in the hand?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 1:51 AM GMT
    sdgman saidI'm curious what is going to happen with the "legal standing" issue. That is going to be key when this case moves forward. If the court decides that the defendants to not have legal standing to appeal, the issue is dead right there and break out the wedding gowns and rice in California.

    The thing is, if it does go all the way to the SCOTUS, we will be shooting for all the marbles. If SCOTUS finds the ban unconstitutional it will overturn all bans in all states.

    Bird in the hand?


    (ear-to-ear smile!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 2:07 AM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    sdgman said


    You are being overly optimistic. This is the most right-wing court we have had in decades. It is not a good time for this. It is more likely the Supreme Court will invent new law to uphold Proposition 8 (remember Gore vs. Bush, companies having free speech rights as persons, gun rights, etc., etc).

    And then gay marriage will be fucked for decades.


    You know what's f'ing incredible, it was Ted Olson (yeah, the prop 8 lawyer) who argued the 'corporations having the right to free speech & therefore campaign contributions' case.

    Anyway, the appeal is scheduled for Dec 6th.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 2:36 AM GMT
    aunty_jack saidSuprise, surprise, surprise, are you really. You guys really need to move away from the word marriage, it's a heterosexual instertution, with founding roots in religion... You guys really do need to move away from the word marriage, if you want to see advancement, in many ways it's the gay activists who want move away from it, are the ones holding you all back.


    I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Progress on civil rights doesn't come by conceding to discrimination. It comes from demanding equal treatment and fighting for it.

    Virginia vs. Loving. Rosa Parks. Lawrence vs. Texas.

    Secondly, marriage is not an "instertution" (institution, perhaps?) rooted in religion. If you want to go way back, it's an institution rooted primarily in protecting family wealth. It's also rooted in the traditional gender roles that brought division of labor to running a household (i.e. man goes to work and earns money while woman stays home and takes care of the kids).

    These roles no longer apply in large part today, and that's what makes the traditional man/woman definition of marriage irrelevant in this debate.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in 14 separate rulings that marriage is a right, not a privilege that can be granted or denied by state law or the whims of voters. And if marriage is a right it's a right being denied to gay people, just like it was being denied to mixed race couples until 1967.

    People who say gays should be satisfied with something less than full recognition of marriage are the ones who are really holding back progress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 2:48 AM GMT
    i suggest picketing around the courts and the mormon churches with the following website and slogan "Ban Divorce" to call out the hypocrisy:

    http://rescuemarriage.org/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 2:50 AM GMT
    aunty_jack saidSuprise, surprise, surprise, are you really. You guys really need to move away from the word marriage, it's a heterosexual instertution, with founding roots in religion.

    Our I hope to be New prime minister Tony Abbot has stated he has no issues with gay unions, nor do I. But He dose not support them under the banner of marriage, nothing new, and I agree. You guys really do need to move away from the word marriage, if you want to see advancement, in many ways it's the gay activists who want move away from it, are the ones holding you all back.


    Instertution? Whatever that is, if the heterosexuals can have one, than I want one also.
  • Falconcc_24

    Posts: 75

    Aug 17, 2010 5:22 AM GMT
    Here's something that many people are not stating with this technicality of whether or not to use the term "marriage." Think of the "success" from Plessy v. Ferguson where they came up with the notion of "equal but separate" and it's aftermath. It doesn't exist.

    It didn't work for race, it doesn't work for gender, so why the hell should we expect it to work for sexual orientation?