Spokane7
49°
August 17, 2010 in Nation/World
Court halts California gay marriages
SAN FRANCISCO – 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, trumped a lower court judge’s order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples 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 U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.
“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. “Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books.”
Attorneys for sponsors of the voter-approved measure applauded the decision. In seeking the emergency stay, they had argued that sanctioning same-sex unions while the case was on appeal would create legal chaos if the ban is eventually upheld.
“I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it’s gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed,” said Douglas Napier, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.
“Rather than have this kind of ping-pong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it’s better to have this kind of decision,” he said.
Under the timetable laid out Monday, it was doubtful a decision would come down from the 9th Circuit before next year.
A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday’s decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question that many believe will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and further delay a final outcome.
Ancient Roman wrecks found in deep water 
Whitemaleoppressor on August 17 at 8:48 a.m.
I wish this would just go to the supreme court already. I don’t know about alot of you but I am personally sick of hearing about gay marriage. Get the supreme court to give it a up or down vote so we can all move on to more important things. I mean really does gay marriage actually affect most peoples lives in any way?
misjustice on August 17 at 9:23 a.m.
@ oppressor; no, “gay” marriage does not affect most people’s lives. Unless those people are the ones being denied equal protection under the law, as in gay people being denied the right to enter into a marriage contract. So, if MOST people are not damaged by gay people marrying why are we continuing to deny equal access to a small fraction of the population that is being discriminated against?
I agree with your wish that SCOTUS would grant Cert to this Constitutional question in controversy; it is past time to stop discriminating against gay people that wish to marry!
Jeffrey on August 17 at 1:37 p.m.
Why are Homosexual groups opposed to Civil Unions which will give all the same benefits and legal status as Marriage? The reason is they don’t care about Equal treatment they want to try and tear down the God that Condemns their Behavior. Marriage was created by God. Since God condemns Homosexuality, He will never allow a marriage before him.
It’s good to see that even the 9th circuit don’t want to see the fight again of married not married, legal not legal again. That was distressful to both sides. If you want a Civil union for atheists and homosexuals go for it, but Marriage was granted by God long before America was born. I will give onto the government what is theirs to give (civil unions), But will never give them want is GODS (Marriage).
JayNW on August 17 at 2:06 p.m.
why is the gov’t even in the business of marriage? this shouldn’t be a law, for or against. there shouldn’t be fees for marriage licenses. The gov’t should have no place in marriage. if you want to get married, go to your church or have a ceremony somewhere.
if you need someone to be a beneficiary- there’s other paperwork for that and you can choose who you want.
misjustice on August 17 at 3:01 p.m.
Jeffery; I think that gays are opposed to civil unions because of the concept of ‘separate but equal’ which, as we saw during Jim Crow, is NOT equal. I’m not sure, it’s just my best guess.
Jay; I agree that the Gubmint shouldn’t be in the business of marriage. But they are. And as long as they are there should not be discrimination based on race, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation.
I say let gay people marry; they have every right to be as miserable as straight people! Seriously, though, Gubmint (and ‘voters’) should not be attempting to legislate whom to love or whom should be able to enter into the marriage contract.
Jeffrey on August 17 at 3:35 p.m.
Misjustice,
That is were your logic fails. If Sexual orientation becomes a protected class, then if I am sexually oriented to doing little puppies or children, it would be discriminatory to not to allow me to do them.
Race, Gender, and national origin, are what you are you can’t change or modify that. Sexual Orientation is what you do. Creed (?) that is a belief and can’t be change by anyone but you so like sexual orientation have no need for special protections. Government has no business in the bedroom or mind.
I assume you installed creed for religion because your atheist. Religion is not a protected class, the constitution only says that the federal government can not name a national religion. State can if they want but I doubt any could get an agreement on just one, like some states had after the founding of the US.
misjustice on August 18 at 8:24 p.m.
…And the homophobes come out to post…
“Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered “Protected Classes” and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class