Los Angeles Times
Washington Post
San Francisco Chronicle
Judge Allows, but Delays, Gay Marriage in California
New York Times
By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: August 12, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — Same-sex marriage is legal again in California. Sort of.
Eight days after ruling that Proposition 8 — a 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage — was unconstitutional, a federal judge on Thursday denied a motion to stay his decision, opening the door for untold numbers of gay and lesbian couples to wed in the nation’s most populous state. But the judge delayed the effective date of his order until Wednesday.
Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco, issued a temporary stay last week when he invalidated Proposition 8, in order to allow arguments for and against same-sex ceremonies being performed while supporters of the ban appealed.
On Thursday, Judge Walker declined to extend that stay, but built in the delay to allow the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the case has been appealed by proponents of Proposition 8, time to consider the matter.
In the ruling, the judge wrote, “The evidence presented at trial and the position of representatives of the state of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest.”
News of the ruling set off a joyous eruption at San Francisco City Hall, where several dozen gay couples had lined up outside the county clerk’s office in hopes of getting marriage licenses and a large crowd of supporters had slowly built on the City Hall steps during the morning. Several ministers had arrived to perform ceremonies and rainbow flags were being waved. But that mood soon turned to disappointment as couples realized that same-sex ceremonies would still be delayed.
One couple — Adrian Molina, an artist for Pixar, and Ryan Dooley, a Latin teacher, both 24 — were among those feeling mixed emotions.
“We’re excited, but we’re also sad,” said Mr. Dooley, who said he wanted to marry as soon as possible. “At least we’ll have a little more time to prepare and dress up.”
Supporters of Proposition 8 were confident, arguing that they would win in the long run, which is likely to be before the United States Supreme Court. Jim Campbell, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which had helped defend Proposition 8, said that “the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.”
“It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,” Mr. Campbell said in a statement. “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.”
Opponents of Proposition 8 expressed hope that gay men and lesbians would soon have the same marriage rights as opposite-sex couples.
“It would be delightful to have marriages resuming this afternoon, but it is understandable why Judge Walker would want the Ninth Circuit to have an opportunity to review,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “We look forward to the resumption of marriages next week, not only based on principles of equality and fairness, but as affirmations of love and basic humanity.”
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who had asked the court to lift the stay, said that he was pleased with the decision. “Today’s ruling continues to place California at the forefront in providing freedom and equality for all people,” he said in a statement. Any decision from the appellate court would come from a three-judge panel.
If it holds, Thursday’s ruling will make California the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage, joining Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and the District of Columbia. California briefly allowed such ceremonies in 2008 after a decision by the State Supreme Court struck down two laws that had limited marriage to opposite-sex partners. Over the next five months, some 18,000 gay couples wed.
In November 2008, however, California voters passed Proposition 8 by 52 percent, amending the State Constitution to establish marriage as only between a man and a woman. The ballot measure was challenged in state court, but in May 2009 it was upheld, though the State Supreme Court allowed the 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand.
Shortly after that, two gay couples filed a federal challenge — the case settled by Judge Walker, who agreed with their argument that Proposition 8 violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Judge Walker wrote in his opinion, issued Aug. 4.
Supporters of Proposition 8 denounced Judge Walker’s reasoning, saying that it defied the will of the voters of California.
For many gay couples, the possibility of marriage, even while delayed, seemed tantalizingly close. Roger Hunt, 52, and Rod Wood, 56, were the first in line outside the clerk’s office at City Hall here on Thursday.
A couple for the last seven and a half years, the two men said the time had come to tie the knot, buying a pair of inexpensive stainless steel wedding rings until they can get something fancier.
“I’ve wanted to get married for a while now,” said Mr. Wood, who works for a publishing company. “There was a window, and we missed it. I did not want that to happen again.”
Malia Wollan contributed reporting.
Prop. 8 hangs by a legal thread
LA Times
August 12, 2010|6:40 p.m.
Walker's comments were the first public airing of a possibility that has been increasingly under discussion by legal experts — that the fight over the constitutionality of Proposition 8 might not be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, as many have expected. Instead the case could be brought to an end by the strict legal rules about who is allowed to pursue a dispute in federal court.
Walker's remarks came in a ruling that would allow same-sex marriages to resume in the state after Aug. 18 unless an appeals court puts them on hold longer.
Last week, Walker declared Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional, saying it violated the gay men and lesbians' right to equal protection and due process.
The defendants in that case were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, but they declined to defend the law. As the losing parties, they have authority to appeal Walker's ruling. But both Brown and Schwarzenegger hailed Walker's decision and said they would not appeal.
"The governor supports the judge's ruling," spokesman Aaron McLear said Thursday.
A private group that opposes same-sex marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, defended Proposition 8 during the trial Walker held earlier this year. The group wants to appeal but may lack legal standing to do so.
To have standing in federal court, a party must show that it has suffered an actual injury, and Walker said no evidence suggests that the campaign would meet that test.
Several outside legal experts have voiced a similar opinion in recent days.
"Proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction," Walker wrote.
The first test of the standing issue could come as the groups supporting Proposition 8 go the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to keep Walker's ruling on hold — something they vowed to do quickly.
If higher courts agree with Walker on the lack of standing, they would make no decision on the merits of the issue.
The case might still wend through courts on procedural issues for a considerable time, but Walker's ruling allowing gay marriage would stand as the law in California. It would not have the nationwide impact of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even backers of Proposition 8 concede that the standing issue could doom the effort to reverse Walker's ruling.
Asked if the Proposition 8 proponents feared they would be denied the right to appeal, Robert H. Tyler, founder and general counsel of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, said: "Everyone prepares for the worst."
Sponsors of Proposition 8 realized that standing was a "strategic issue, and like any lawsuit, it is rare to find a case where there are not a few bumps along the way," he added.
UC Berkeley law professor Joan Hollinger said the standing dispute leaves opponents of same-sex marriage in a "really tough spot." She said the decision last week by Schwarzenegger and Brown not to challenge Walker's order put the question of standing on "the front burner."
"This has suddenly come to center stage," she said.
Chapman University law professor John Eastman, who has been critical of Walker, said ProtectMarriage.com and its allies could try to prove standing by pointing to the fact that the California Supreme Court had given it authority to defend Proposition 8 in state court.
But UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said the effort may be difficult. "Their injury is ideological, and there is a century of precedent that ideological injury is not enough for standing. I think this lets the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court follow well-established law and avoid the hard constitutional ruling."
Ironically, the rules on standing have been toughened considerably over the last generation by conservative judges as a way to limit the types of cases that can be brought in federal court.
Backers of Proposition 8 had tried to avoid the standing problem earlier by supporting an effort by Imperial County to intervene in the case. As an issuer of marriage licenses, the county might have a better argument for standing than the measure's sponsors, some analysts said.
Walker refused to permit the county to intervene, and so far it is not part of the case.
Meanwhile, Walker's decision to extend the hold on same-sex marriage until at least next week disappointed dozens of gay and lesbian couples who lined up early Thursday throughout the state to marry.
Amanda Pentecost, 25, who waited in West Hollywood to marry Dana Millhollin, 24, said the postponement made her uneasy.
"We have to wait six more days," Pentecost lamented. "That window can close again for years."
maura.dolan@latimes.com
Times staff writers Evan Halper, Shane Goldmacher, Esmeralda Bermudez and Ching-Ching Ni contributed to this report.
Gay marriages may resume in California next week, judge rules
Washington Post
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2010
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Thursday that same-sex marriages in California may resume as soon as Wednesday, but gave opponents until then to seek an injunction from a higher court.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker last week struck down California's voter-approved ban on same-sex unions, calling it discriminatory and unconstitutional. But he delayed implementation of his ruling after opponents asked for a stay while the case is being appealed.
Walker denied their request on Thursday, but he offered a six-day delay. That gave hope to opponents who have appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
"I'm happy that the judge issued a temporary stay until next week," said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group that participated in the case. "That gives us the window we need to seek a more permanent stay as it goes before the 9th Circuit."
Gay rights groups hailed Walker's decision as a victory, although it disappointed gay couples around the state who had lined up at city halls in hopes of getting married Thursday.
"It's making the long drive home even more miserable," said Midge Detro, 45, a resident of a town about two hours south of San Francisco.
She and her partner of 16 years, Sandy Simmons, awoke at dawn to arrive at San Francisco City Hall to be among the first to marry on Thursday. Instead, they filled out forms, had lunch and headed home with plans to return on Wednesday.
"I just hope they don't try anything next week," Detro said. "That's the only scary part of this whole thing."
Last week's ruling by Walker invalidated Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The decision was viewed by both sides as a landmark moment in the battle over same-sex marriage, even though the fight is far from over. The case is widely expected to end up before the Supreme Court.
Supporters of Proposition 8 had argued that heterosexual marriage is a building block of society because of its role in procreation and that the ballot initiative, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, reflected the will of the people.
But in a meticulous 138-page ruling, Walker largely agreed with supporters of same-sex marriage that Proposition 8 violates gay and lesbian couples' equal rights as outlined in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Even before Walker handed down his decision last week, defenders of Proposition 8 had asked for an immediate stay while they pursued an appeal, arguing that allowing same-sex marriages to go forward would cause "irreparable injury" to residents of the state. They also said any marriages performed before the case reached its final disposition would be legally questionable.
But in Thursday's 11-page opinion, Walker wrote that the defenders of Proposition 8 "fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay." Moreover, he questioned whether the lawyers, who come from religious and nonprofit groups, have the legal standing to appeal.
Neither Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) nor state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) agreed to defend Proposition 8 in court, and both weighed in on the side of overturning it.
Walker wrote that it appears "at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant." He denied a stay, he wrote, "except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner."
Supporters of same-sex marriage praised the stark language of the opinion and said they regard the delay as a formality.
"The court's decision today recognizes that there is no reason to delay allowing gay men and lesbians to enjoy the same rights that virtually all other citizens already enjoy," Theodore B. Olson, one of the two lawyers who led the effort to invalidate Proposition 8, said in a statement.
Judge lifts stay of Prop. 8 ruling, but gay marriages still on hold
San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, August 12, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment