Judge Won't Stay Prop 8 Ruling

Special Report - August 13, 2010
Unless an appeals court intervenes, marriage licenses will once again be issued to same-sex couples in California next week, after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker denied a request by Proposition 8 supporters to stay his controversial ruling that struck down the state’s marriage amendment as unconstitutional until Proposition 8 supporters could appeal. Judge Walker issued his order denying the motion for a stay on August 12—handing homosexual activists and their allies another victory in the ongoing battle over the definition of marriage in the United States. But same-sex couples in California will not be able to legally “marry” right away, as Judge Walker’s ruling does not take effect until August 18. As we reported last week, Judge Walker issued his long-awaited decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger on August 4 in which he held that Proposition 8, the marriage amendment that was adopted by a majority of Californians in November 2008, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it “disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification.”

In his 11-page order issued late Thursday afternoon, Judge Walker said he was denying the motion for the stay, in part, because the likelihood of a successful appeal of his ruling is uncertain because the California Attorney General has refused to defend Proposition 8. “As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal,” Walker wrote. “In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the Governor or the Attorney General to file an appeal to ensure appellate jurisdiction. As regards the stay, however, the uncertainty surrounding proponents’ standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success.” He also argued that Proposition 8 supporters had not proven that they would be harmed if a stay is not issued, but he contended instead that the marriage amendment “harms the State of California.” Additionally, he wrote that, “a stay would force California to continue to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and would demonstrably harm plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California…”

In a statement responding to Judge Walker’s order, Alliance Defense Fund Staff Counsel Jim Campbell said, “The Protectmarriage.com legal team will appeal immediately to the 9th Circuit to stay the trial court’s decision until this case is concluded. This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.” Campbell added, “It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard. If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending.”

Related articles:
Judge Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional - August 5, 2010
The Issue That Will Not Go Away - FNC Spring 2010
California Court Upholds Marriage Amendment - May 26, 2009
California Court To Rule On Proposition 8 - November 24, 2008
California Amendment Not Retroactive - August 8, 2008

Copyright © 2010. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.