Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal

[JEDIYoda]

This keeps getting better and better all the time!! In fact I like this judge!!
He appears to be out spoken and very gutsy!!
In fact you could infer from this judge that those who oppose gay/lesbian marriage don`t have a leg to stand on!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

SAN FRANCISCO – The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's backers: He doubts they have the right to challenge his ruling that gay couples can begin marrying next week.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision barring Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.
By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed a request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday.

They argued the appeals court should grant a stay of Walker's order requiring state officials to cease enforcing Proposition 8 "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages."

Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could begin tying the knot in California as early as next week or be put off while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

 

[PokerGuy]

Wow, I must say I'm shocked, a gay judge saying that opponents of gay marriage have nothing to stand on. Yawn.

 

[ayabe]

Wow, I must say I'm shocked, a gay judge saying that opponents of gay marriage have nothing to stand on. Yawn.

The law isn't in your favor, all the rest is just useless whining.

 

[her209]

Wow, I must say I'm shocked, a gay judge saying that opponents of gay marriage have nothing to stand on. Yawn.

Why does it matter if he's gay? What if it were a straight judge who was pro-gay marriage or a gay judge who was anti-gay marriage?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Wow, I must say I'm shocked, a gay judge saying that opponents of gay marriage have nothing to stand on. Yawn.

What makes that any different from a stright judge?
It is really petty and freaking moronic to believe that the judges personnal life had anything to do with his ruling!!

It would also be stoopid if the judge was hetrosexual and the rulling was the opposite for gay people to say well mthe judge is hetrosexual.....

But in this case you opened your mouth and inserted your foot!!

 

[PokerGuy]

What makes that any different from a stright judge?

You'd have to be very very very very naive and silly to think that someone is going to rule that 1) their own lifestyle is bad 2) that there is ground for appeal to his ruling re item 1. Duh.

 

[xj0hnx]

What makes that any different from a stright judge?
It is really petty and freaking moronic to believe that the judges personnal life had anything to do with his ruling!!

It would also be stoopid if the judge was hetrosexual and the rulling was the opposite for gay people to say well mthe judge is hetrosexual.....

But in this case you opened your mouth and inserted your foot!!

You'd be posting threads whining about it if it were a straight judge saying the opposite and don't try to pretend you wouldn't.

 

[GoPackGo]

I think the state has the right to appeal no matter what...this will end up at the USSC

 

[Mursilis]

This keeps getting better and better all the time!! In fact I like this judge!!
He appears to be out spoken and very gutsy!!
In fact you could infer from this judge that those who oppose gay/lesbian marriage don`t have a leg to stand on!!

It would also be "outspoken and gutsy" if John Roberts attempted to declare martial law, but it would also be very wrong. I'm not sure I like those attributes in a judge. And I actually have no problem with gays getting married. Regardless of my views, Judge Walker is on dubious legal grounds to question whether the ban backers can appeal - of course they can! And if the appellate court doesn't think they have standing, that's a call for the appellate court to make, not him.

 

[PokerGuy]

And if the appellate court doesn't think they have standing, that's a call for the appellate court to make, not him.

But... but.. that would require logic, not something liberals excel at.

 

[ZzZGuy]

From my understanding the judge was selected at random by a computer system for this case.

I have also noticed that those who imply that the judge was bias fail to follow up with any comment on wrong legal decisions he has made.

The most common argument by the anti gay marriage group has been either A- "I want to stuff my religion down your throat whither you like it or not" and B- "This country (USA) is based on mob rule". Not very sound arguments.

 

[Craig234]

But... but.. that would require logic, not something liberals excel at.

You're like a KKK member saying liberals don't excel at racial tolerance.

Mursilis: It would also be "outspoken and gutsy" if John Roberts attempted to declare martial law, but it would also be very wrong. I'm not sure I like those attributes in a judge. And I actually have no problem with gays getting married. Regardless of my views, Judge Walker is on dubious legal grounds to question whether the ban backers can appeal - of course they can! And if the appellate court doesn't think they have standing, that's a call for the appellate court to make, not him.

Like any strong quality, it's good or bad depending who's using it for what. Hitlers talents were bad because of his actions. Had he done good, they've have been good.

Earl Warren was 'outspoken and gutsy' in the way that he went to war against the rule of the land for 60 years, 'separate but equal', that was popular with the majority.

And that was a good thing. One that had him right on morality and justice and the law.

If an opponent is 'outspoken and gutsy' in the cause of bringing back legal racism, that's a bad thing.

In this case, the judge was outspoken and gutsy in standing up for justice against majority bigotry, rather than quietly letting the majority win, and it's a good thing.

Pokerguy: You'd have to be very very very very naive and silly to think that someone is going to rule that 1) their own lifestyle is bad 2) that there is ground for appeal to his ruling re item 1. Duh.

No, you would have to be for such an ignorant view.

By the way, this guy had his intended appointment by Reagan challenged for reasons including a legal bias *against* gays in his previous rulings.

Time for you to get a clue that you have nothing but bigotry on your side, fighting against gay equal rights.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It would also be "outspoken and gutsy" if John Roberts attempted to declare martial law, but it would also be very wrong. I'm not sure I like those attributes in a judge. And I actually have no problem with gays getting married. Regardless of my views, Judge Walker is on dubious legal grounds to question whether the ban backers can appeal - of course they can! And if the appellate court doesn't think they have standing, that's a call for the appellate court to make, not him.

You are plain goofy!!
The judge is on no such dubious legal ground.
That was his opinion and he is entitled to his opinion!
His reasoning for his opinion are founded on very a sound understanding of the law....
As such do we believe you or the judge?? I think the judge wins hands down....hehehe

 

[Mursilis]

In this case, the judge was outspoken and gutsy in standing up for justice against majority bigotry, rather than quietly letting the majority win, and it's a good thing.

My quibble is not with the result (as I've said plenty of times here, I have no problem with gay marriage), but with his reasoning - he questioned the standing of the ban backers. Now I'd really like to read his opinion itself, and not some reporter's interpretation of it, which is frequently wrong, but if the judge is actually questioning whether an appeals court will actually take an appeal of his decision, I think he's overstepping his bounds. The appellate court will make the call re its jurisdiction and the appellants' standing, not the district court judge. There very well may be very good reasons why the judge shouldn't stay his ruling pending appeal, but the one given in the article isn't one of them.

In legal cases, like in life, the ends don't always justify the means, and torturing the law to reach a result one considers "just" isn't a wise path, as that same dubious reasoning can then be used by all sides. See the USSC case of J.E.B. v. Alabama for a good example of this.

 

[Mursilis]

You are plain goofy!!
The judge is on no such dubious legal ground.
That was his opinion and he is entitled to his opinion!
His reasoning for his opinion are founded on very a sound understanding of the law....
As such do we believe you or the judge?? I think the judge wins hands down....hehehe

If the judge's opinion is that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, can he issue an order seeking to enforce that opinion? Or is he bound by the law?

BTW, which law school did you attend?

 

[PokerGuy]

By the way, this guy had his intended appointment by Reagan challenged

That means nothing. His lifestyle was not yet known at that point. Now that it is, he can more freely express his opinions.

 

[Craig234]

My quibble is not with the result (as I've said plenty of times here, I have no problem with gay marriage), but with his reasoning - he questioned the standing of the ban backers. Now I'd really like to read his opinion itself, and not some reporter's interpretation of it, which is frequently wrong, but if the judge is actually questioning whether an appeals court will actually take an appeal of his decision, I think he's overstepping his bounds. The appellate court will make the call re its jurisdiction and the appellants' standing, not the district court judge. There very well may be very good reasons why the judge shouldn't stay his ruling pending appeal, but the one given in the article isn't one of them.

In legal cases, like in life, the ends don't always justify the means, and torturing the law to reach a result one considers "just" isn't a wise path, as that same dubious reasoning can then be used by all sides. See the USSC case of J.E.B. v. Alabama for a good example of this.

You know a couple things that are missing from your reasonable-sounding post:

- He DID issue a stay to give time to the appeals court to issue a stay if they want to.

- He said, the article says, he's not sure of their standing to appeal; it was just one factor in his decision, and the other side had CLEAR ongoing harm if there was a stay.

It's perfectly appropriate for him in weighting the impact to each side.

You then just engage in hyperbole about 'ends and means' and 'torturing the law'.

 

[Craig234]

That means nothing. His lifestyle was not yet known at that point. Now that it is, he can more freely express his opinions.

The point is your idiocy in your views about how his sexual orientation will control his rulings, but even in your twisted nonsense, if he had a predisposition for pro-gay rulings because he's gay, he had *better* cover to issue them when he was assumed to be heterosexual, back when he was issuing the anti-gay rulings. Your logic is so bad, it's embarrassing.

 

[sactoking]

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision barring Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.[/B]

1. It's not up to this judge to decide. The appellate court is the only one that can make this decision. In fact, by stating this, the judge gives ammo should the pro-Prop 8 crew decide to appeal the ruling on judicial misconduct grounds.

2. As mentioned by Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota Constitutional Law professor who supports same-sex marriage: "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court. And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

3. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15770593?nclick_check=1
9th Circuit Court of Appeals is already considering whether or not to stay Walker's ruling.

 

[Moonbeam]

That means nothing. His lifestyle was not yet known at that point. Now that it is, he can more freely express his opinions.

Not only did the attorneys for prop eight know the judge was gay, they didn't seek to dismiss him for that reason because all in all he is well respected by the legal community and was considered to give a fair opinion regardless of his personal orientation. He is a Republican appointment and gave a Republican decision, fair, wide ranging, deeply thorough, and solidly Constitutional. Those same lawyers admitted in court they didn't really have a case, that their reasoning was irrational.

 

[classy]

This judge is sadly mistaken and this going to get overturned no doubt. Last year the Calif State Supreme Court upheld Prop 8.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/prop-8-decision-upheld-by_n_207697.html

In a 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George, the court rejected arguments that the ban approved by the voters last fall was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state's governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution.

In California, gay rights activists argued that the ban was improperly put to the voters and amounted to a revision _ which required legislative approval _ not an amendment. But the justices disagreed.

The court said that while the ban denies gay couples use of the term "marriage," it does not fundamentally disturb their basic right to "establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children within the family." California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships.

In their 136-page majority ruling, the justices said it not their job to address whether the ban is wise public policy, but to decide whether it is constitutionally valid, while "setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

Not only can they appeal they have already decided that Prop 8 was legal. Marriage is not defined in the federal constitution. Marriage be may be a fundamental right, but it is governed by state law. I have said this before, gay marriage is not going to become a federally protected right. Its not gonna happen. Marriage laws are within the sole power of state governments.

I believe for many decades to come you'll have some states allow it, some recognize it, and some outright reject it. I think its a given that the US Supreme will say the right to marry is fundamental, but the the constitution doesn't usurp or define what rules are to be followed by to govern marriage. State law does and it will continue. It is separation of powers.

Many courts including here and as I posted from NY have already said that gay marriage is outside the realm of comparison to race.

 

[MJinZ]

This judge is sadly mistaken and this going to get overturned no doubt. Last year the Calif State Supreme Court upheld Prop 8.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/prop-8-decision-upheld-by_n_207697.html








Not only can they appeal they have already decided that Prop 8 was legal. Marriage is not defined in the federal constitution. Marriage be may be a fundamental right, but it is governed by state law. I have said this before, gay marriage is not going to become a federally protected right. Its not gonna happen. Marriage laws are within the sole power of state governments.

I believe for many decades to come you'll have some states allow it, some recognize it, and some outright reject it. I think its a given that the US Supreme will say the right to marry is fundamental, but the the constitution doesn't usurp or define what rules are to be followed by to govern marriage. State law does and it will continue. It is separation of powers.

Many courts including here and as I posted from NY have already said that gay marriage is outside the realm of comparison to race.

Wrong.

Look, black religulous republican bigot classy's game is fun!

 

[MJinZ]

1. It's not up to this judge to decide. The appellate court is the only one that can make this decision. In fact, by stating this, the judge gives ammo should the pro-Prop 8 crew decide to appeal the ruling on judicial misconduct grounds.

2. As mentioned by Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota Constitutional Law professor who supports same-sex marriage: "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court. And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

3. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15770593?nclick_check=1
9th Circuit Court of Appeals is already considering whether or not to stay Walker's ruling.

Wow, $40 Million dollars? That could have gone to better use in a ponzi scheme.

Oh wait, what am I complaining about, people in my profession are making off like bandits. ^_^

 

[classy]

Wrong.

Well I got bad news for you. This judge ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, but the State Supreme court 6-1 said it was constitutional. Unless they find some new law to make a decsion on you bet your house on this is going to get overturned. I am not going to argue over moral and all that stuff. From a strictly legal standpoint marriage is within the power of state governments, not the constitution.

 

[classy]

Wrong.

Look, black religulous republican bigot classy's game is fun!

Just say ownt, its easier.