Latin America Ahead of U.S. on Same-Sex Marriage

August 13, 2010

Los Angeles Times editorial

As California and the United States struggle with the issue of same-sex marriage at the polls and in courtrooms, Latin America is moving more broadly toward acceptance of this basic human right. Last month, Argentina became the first nation in the region to legalize such marriages, granting wedded gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as heterosexuals.

read more


Judge Walker’s Ruling Extending Stay Until August 18— What Does It Mean and What Happens Next?

August 12, 2010

Does Judge Walker’s ruling mean that same-sex couples in California will be able to marry starting August 18, 2010?

Not necessarily. Judge Walker ruled that there is no legal reason to delay letting same-sex couples marry; however, he kept the stay on his ruling in place until August 18. That extra time will allow the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether to let same-sex couples in California marry while the appeal proceeds, or whether to continue the stay until the Ninth Circuit reviews Judge Walker’s decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

In practice, this means that the proponents of Prop 8 have a chance to file a motion for stay with the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit has a chance to grant or deny that motion, but it must do so by August 18. If it does not, marriages will automatically start again at that time. The proponents of Prop 8 filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal on August 12, 2010, shortly after Judge Walker issued his new ruling.

Does the Ninth Circuit have the final say over whether to stay Judge Walker’s ruling?

No. If the Ninth Circuit denies a stay, the proponents of Prop 8 can ask the United States Supreme Court to issue a stay. That request would be directed to Justice Anthony Kennedy, because he is the justice designated to hear requests for stays in the Ninth Circuit. If Justice Kennedy denied the motion to stay, the proponents of Prop 8 could ask the entire court to rule on that issue. Remember, this is not about whether Prop 8 is unconstitutional, but only about whether couples can marry based on Judge Walker’s ruling while the case is being appealed.

If same-sex couples in California can begin to marry again starting on August 18, will those marriages be valid if Judge Walker’s ruling is later overturned on appeal?

We strongly believe that marriages based on Judge Walker’s decision should be valid, even if the decision is later overturned on appeal (which we do not expect, given the strength of Judge Walker’s opinion). In his stay order, Judge Walker also supported that position, stating, “The court has the authority to enjoin defendants from enforcing Proposition 8. It appears, then, that marriages performed pursuant to a valid injunction would be lawful, much like the 18,000 marriages performed before the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008. See Strauss v Horton, 46 Cal 4th 364, 472 (2009) (holding that married couples’ rights vest upon a lawful marriage).”

That said, to be safe, we strongly encourage same-sex couples in California who marry based on Judge Walker’s decision to also register as domestic partners to ensure that you are protected in the event your marriage is ever challenged. California law permits a couple both to marry and register as domestic partners, so long as it is with the same person. Also, you do not have to be a California resident to marry in California or to register as domestic partners.

What if the Ninth Circuit stays Judge Walker’s decision?

If the Ninth Circuit stays the decision, then same-sex couples in California will not be able to marry until the case is resolved on appeal.

Why is Judge Walker’s August 12 ruling important?

Even though Judge Walker did not immediately let same-sex couples in California marry, the ruling provides important insight into the merits of the issues that the Ninth Circuit will consider on appeal. For example, in his stay order, Judge Walker casts serious doubt on whether the proponents of Prop 8 even have “standing” to pursue an appeal because they do not speak for the state of California, and the official representatives of the state agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Standing refers to whether a particular person has a legal right to bring an appeal.

In his stay order, Judge Walker said: “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.”

What would happen if the proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing to appeal?

That would mean that Judge Walker’s decision would go into effect and could not be appealed. Same-sex couples in California would once again be able to marry, and Prop 8 would be permanently struck down.

Who gets to decide whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to appeal?

The Ninth Circuit will have the first chance to rule on that issue. No matter which way the Ninth Circuit rules, either side could appeal that decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can then choose whether to rule on the issue or let the Ninth Circuit’s decision stand.

Would it be unusual for a federal court opinion striking down a state law not to be appealed?

Not particularly.  For example, in 1997, a federal district court struck down most of Proposition 187, a California ballot initiative that tried to exclude undocumented immigrants from many basic rights.  The State of California ultimately decided not to appeal the court’s ruling.


Official Prop. 8 Plaintiffs’ Statement on Today’s Stay Ruling

August 12, 2010

from the American Foundation for Equal Rights

The Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, who last week rendered a sweeping decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, today denied the proponents’ motion to stay that decision pending a full resolution of the merits on appeal, instead granting only a short stay until August 18, 2010 “solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner.”  This means that unless the Court’s decision is stayed by a higher court, Californians who were denied equality by Proposition 8 will soon, and once again, enjoy their fundamental right to marry.  Today’s order can be found here:  http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/ruling-on-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal/

“The overwhelming evidence at trial established beyond any doubt that Proposition 8 denies gay men and lesbians the fundamental right to marry and treats them unequally, without any rational basis for doing so, and that it causes them irreparable and immediate harm,” said Theodore B. Olson, who together with David Boies led the legal team in this lawsuit.  “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.”
“The unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 is comprehensively and unequivocally demonstrated by the Court’s 136-page ruling, and so we are confident that we will continue to prevail,” said Chad Griffin, the Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Our nation was founded on the principle that every American is equal in the eyes of the law. This case is about affirming that principle.”

The American Foundation for Equal Rights and plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo challenged Proposition 8 in federal court for violating the U.S. Constitution. After a three-week trial (including the testimony of 17 plaintiffs’ witnesses, among them the foremost experts on the relevant issues, and thousands of pages of documents and a wealth of other evidence) the Court ruled last Wednesday, August 4, that Proposition 8 violated the rights to equal protection under the law and due process that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to every American.


Judge Walker Rules Marriages Can Begin Aug. 18 Unless Court of Appeals Intervenes

August 12, 2010

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that there was no basis to stay his Aug. 4 ruling that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws. However, Walker also ordered that marriages cannot begin until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. in order to give the United States Court of Appeals time to review his decision to deny the stay.

A Statement from NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell:

“It is clear that there is no basis for a stay of Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Prop 8. We hope that the Ninth Circuit will agree that no stay is warranted and will allow marriages to resume. The chance for same-sex couples to marry again is not only fair and just, but an affirmation of love and basic humanity.”


Judge Who Overturned Prop 8 Extends Temporary Hold on Gay Marriage

August 12, 2010

from the Los Angeles Times

A federal judge Thursday refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8′s ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling.

read more


Judge to Rule on Stay Thursday in Prop 8 Case

August 11, 2010

from the Associated Press

The federal judge who overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban says he is ready to rule on whether gay marriages should resume immediately in the state or await an appeals court’s input.

read more


Costa Rica’s Constitutional Court Orders A Stop To Same-Sex Marriage Referendum

August 10, 2010

from Inside Costa Rica

The Sala Constitucional (Constitutional Court) has ordered the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (TSE) to suspend the process of the referendum on same sex marriages that was to have been included in the December 2010 municipal elections.

read more


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53 other followers