Same-sex marriages can resume Wednesday, Walker rules

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Thursday that, beginning Wednesday at 5pm, California’s ban on same-sex marriage would no longer be in effect.

In an 11-page order, Walker wrote that Proposition 8 proponents had failed to convince him that the ban  should continue while they pursue an appeal to prove its constitutionality.

“An injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest,” Walker wrote.  He noted that trial evidence had shown that preventing the marriage of same-sex couples violated their Constitutional rights — while allowing them to marry hurt no one.

Walker ordered that Proposition 8 remain in force for only one more week.  This extension is intended to provide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with an opportunity to review his order before the ban is dissolved.

Please click the link below to read the order in its entirety.

Walker-Stay-Ruling

Share



2 Responses to “Same-sex marriages can resume Wednesday, Walker rules”

  1. [...] Lecturer Joan Hollinger will be on KPFA 94.1 radio tomorrow morning to discuss Prop. 8, especially today’s lifting of a stay on same-sex marriages. The segment will run 7:10-7:30 [...]

  2. Given that I come from a perspective of being an intellectual snob, I like to consider the ramifications of legislation and court rulings. I hope that is not too much to expect. If it is, please do not read the following. It will only offend people who act based upon emotions.

    If we decide as a country that marriage is only for those people who intend to have children then we have a real problem. We will have to ban marriages between the following groups of people.

    1. People who are over a certain age. Why? Two reasons come to mind. First, older people have been found to be either unable to have children. Second, the children of old people (above what age is an open question for scientists to determine) very often suffer from serious genetic problems. I for one believe that we should have children that do not suffer from life-threatening diseases if at all possible. I’m not talking about a cleft pallet. I’m talking about diseases that are 100 percent fatal and can not be cured.
    2. People who are not able to have children, such as infertile people, men who have had vasectomies, women who have had their tubes tied, people who don’t have gentiles, etc.
    3. People who, despite loving each other don’t want children.
    4. People who marry just to get out of or into another country.
    5. Oh, yes. We would have to ban marriages between two people of the same sex, but not between a gay man and a lesbian, or a gay man and a straight woman, or a straight man and a lesbian. I don’t know of any way to scientifically test someone to see if a man or woman is gay or straight.

    Notice that this list does not include rapists, pedophiles, mass murders, and other social deviants. While we are socially engineering this country, why not ban those people from marrying?

    Remember also about 10 or so years ago when a man and woman with very low IQs (don’t say mentally retarded) tried to marry? They endured all sorts of hurtles.

    Another problem arises with this list. Who in their right mind would agree to institute such fanatical laws? Who would be crazy enough to take it upon themselves to say for medical reasons, which people are fit to be married? Remember the unconstitutional laws regarding marriage between the sexes, such as blacks not allowed to marry whites? Haven’t we had enough of hypocrisy and selective amnesia?

Leave a Reply