Court temporarily blocks California same-sex couples from marrying

[TotallyOz]

A federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, has blocked same-sex marriages in that state from resuming immediately, until the three-judge panel hears broader questions over the constitutionality of such marriages. The brief order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late Monday set aside a federal judge's decision earlier this month that would have permitted same-sex marriages to resume in California as early as Wednesday. That came after the judge ruled a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violated federal civil rights laws.

 

The appeals court also set a fast schedule to hear the merits of the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Oral arguments will now be held the week of December 6, meaning a decision on whether same-sex couples can legally wed likely will not be decided until sometime next year.

 

Opponents of Proposition 8 seeking to overturn the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages will not appeal Monday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to spokesman Yousef Robb with the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Opponents could ask the Supreme Court to intervene on the narrow question of whether to allow the stay to be lifted, but both sides of the debate agree the odds of the justices getting involved at this stage are very slim.

 

The case has had an up-and-down series of rulings and referendums. The state's high court had allowed same-sex marriage, but then the voter referendum two years ago passed with 52 percent of the vote. The California Supreme Court subsequently allowed that initiative to stand, saying it represented the will of the people.

 

 

For the entire article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/08/16/same.sex.marriage/index.html?hpt=T2#fbid=gYq-G8MH7vH&wom=false

 

 

And, another great article:

 

A federal appeals court has extended a stay on same-sex marriages in California until it decides whether a ban on such unions is constitutional.

 

It is just the latest turn in a protracted legal battle over Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban.

 

The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, came less than a week after a federal district judge, Vaughn R. Walker, lifted a stay he had imposed to allow proponents of the ban to argue why same-sex marriages should not proceed. On Aug. 4, Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

 

Even when lifting his stay on Thursday, Judge Walker allowed six days for the Ninth Circuit to review his ruling. That left many gay and lesbian couples and their supporters hopeful that same-sex marriages would resume Wednesday at 5 p.m., when Judge Walker

[Guest lvdkeyes]

The US Constitution is supposed to guarantee human rights, not to limit them. It just shows how the religious right have way too much power and influence.

[Guest YardenUK]

......and here in the UK, another ongoing problem with the "religious right" is them trying to avoid overseeing Same-Sex Civil Partnerships.......

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303562/Registrars-investigated-refusal-conduct-gay-weddings.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

The most uplifting part of this sorry saga is that the Judiciary has consistently stated that the legally enshrined rights of homosexuals must take precedence over any individual's religious beliefs.

[Bob]

The US Constitution is supposed to guarantee human rights, not to limit them. It just shows how the religious right have way too much power and influence.

 

While I totally agree that the religious right and the wealthy have too much political influence in this country, I can't agree with your first statement which implies that the US Constitution is supposed to guarantee human rights in general. It was specifically designed to guarantee only enumerated rights as determined to be important by the people who drafted and supported it in the first place and by those who have gone through the extremely difficult process to amend it so as to adapt it to new attitudes and conditions. The US Constitution specifically states that every power and right not expressly reserved for control by the federal government continues to belong to the states - and there have been a raft of rulings that the control of and definition of what constitutes a marriage is one of those areas where (1) the US Constitution is silent and (2) that issue is exclusively within the purview of the states. That background probably compels the Court of Appeals to overturn the District Judge's ruling but, if they don't do it, the US Supreme Court surely will.

 

If and when that happens, some will view the outcome (upholding Proposition as an attack against or as a setback for gays. I won't view it that way at all but rather as upholding the rule of law and our constitutional framework (regardless if I do or don't see the inability of gays to marry in California as a good thing or not).

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I didn't mean to imply that the constitution guarantees all human rights, but it certainly was not meant to limit or deny either.

[Bob]

it certainly was not meant to limit or deny either.

 

I certainly agree with that and so does the language of the US Constitution. But absent amendments to the US Constitution or the grant of new federal rights by the US Congress as authorized by the US Constitution, those other or additional rights can come only from the states. That's the federal system we have.

 

Legally speaking, what's going on here is somebody is trying to use the US Constitution to ultimately hold that the voters of a state can't pass a law under a process authorized by their state constitution deciding those additional or other rights. Admittedly, those same voters cannot take away or limit those rights granted by the federal constitution but, under our system, they ought to have fairly free reign beyond that.

 

It's always been hard for me to understand how gays think they have the inherent right to be married. Sure, I like the concept and it surely fits into a my notions of a fair and modern society but it's hardly a notion that was acceptable or even considered when both the state and federal constitutions were enacted. In fact, it's not acceptable to a majority of state voters anywhere (one of our more "liberal" states, California, has made that abundantly clear).

 

Marriage is in essence both a status issue and an economic issue. It's the "status" issue that the courts have been wrestling with in recent years and I'd like to see, from a gay point of view, solely the economic issues being pushed to the forefront. If somehow gay couples (perhaps those under some form of civil union or partnership authorized by the states) can attain the same economic rights (for example only, social security survivor benefits, joint income tax filing rights, etc.), the issue of whether somebody thinks (or officially proclaims) that you're either married or not married becomes rather irrelevant.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

The irrelevance can also be applied to heterosexual marriages in that case.