Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Temporary ban on California gay marriages extended to end of year

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Mihangel apYrs 17 Aug 2010, 10:02am

    justice delayed is justice denied.

    Walker’s decision cancelled prop 8 which cancelled the Californian supreme court decision that exposed the previously hidden constitutional right. THAT decision should have stood, i.e the one that said that constitutionally there was a right for s-s couples to marry

  2. It’s absolutely disgusting that the right for people to celebrate their love for one another can be treated with such open discrimination. It is clear these hateful people will do anything to deny equality to others. So long as they have it all, of course!

    The right to marriage has nothing to do with religion and No-one has the right to deny people their happiness.

    All Christians, Muslims etc arguing these facts should take a good look at themselves and see what damage they do in society and the problems they cause. Maybe if they focused more on the crap they created, they’d see people should have All equal human rights. That includes a basic human right to marry.

    Religious people, not all granted, are too blind to see the fear they create, the lies and the misery they force on others.

    Enough already.

  3. Seriously, why does it matter to these people whether we marry or not? Not that I agree with or condone their points of view but seriously, is allowing us to marry really gonna make us into paedophiles etc? I don’t think that a marriage certificate creates that kind of perversion, nor does being gay. Nor does it make us anti family destroy the ethos of marriage. No, bigotism, adultery, domestic abuse, and child abuse makes all of that, and those issues don’t discriminate, they happen in all sorts of set ups, including hetrosexual families (oh, yes, it’s true!!). So, please, tell me you small minded bigots, exactly what has gay marriage got to do with you or the problems of the world? As far as I see it, we’re no different from you…..oh, except maybe a little more tolerant of every human being’s right to happiness and love in their lives.

  4. I have a fear that the deeply conservative (overall) Supreme Court in the USA, will not be supportive, in the end. That would be a dreadful disappointment. But where there would be an awful muddle is if marriage is allowed yet eventually rules unlawful – not sure how that would unravel.

    I know, just know, I am going to get fired at now – but maybe if that does happen it would demonstrate how the measure of “just” a CP, which I know has been (justifiably) called second rate, may be a pragmatic solution. I am clear in my own mind that had our cheerleaders gone for marriage here, it would have been bounced and rejected – and we would have had nothing. Let’s hope the Californians have not overreached.

  5. How can these people go around harbouring so much hate inside themselves? I hope it eats away at them. What a sad disappointment, but at least it is only a delay in the inevitable march towards equality.

  6. russell cutler 17 Aug 2010, 12:50pm

    makes me laugh, protect marriage are doing their best to make marriage exclusive.. how is that protecting marriage? if you want to protect marriage then it should be for everyone and inclusive. love is about a person not a gender! go figure. idiots!

  7. I think it’s important not to let emotion get the better of anyone here. The stay for an appeal to be considered is procedural and after this should the appeal be disallowed for Prop. 8 proponents lack of standing they will have no basis to say that their views were not fully considered (they will do so anyway of course)
    First the Prop. H8’ers must prove they have standing to make an appeal and only then will an appeal hearing be granted, so they have some serious hurdles ahead of them while lacking any factual argument even if they are granted an appeal hearing.
    I’m optimistic about the long term result.

  8. I agree with Pavlos. This is the last gasp of the thoroughly disreputable to attempt to defend the indefensible. They have no legal standing to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling and they damn well know it! What they are demonstrating for anyone with the wits to recognise it is that they are determined upon any means to cling on to their irrational hatred of gay people. I am still hopeful that this entirely shameful conduct on their parts will finally result in these so called “churches” being stripped of their charitable status and being reclassified as political organisations which they undeniably are. We will have equal rights and that is just a matter of time.

  9. Mihangel apYrs 17 Aug 2010, 2:12pm

    Dave
    CP was shot down in smoke in Hawaii

    The marriages carried out in Cali still stand.

  10. Dave, California has domestic partnerships (CPs) long before we had CPs in the UK, but the only difference is, theirs is open to both straight and gay couples, ours aren’t. They are NOT equal to marriage by any stretch of the imagination which is why California went for full marriage equality as did the five other states in the country. Even if this reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it can either choose not to hear the case or rule against the recent decision which would mean there would be a really difficult situation with the five states where it is legal. My gut feeling is if it reaches the court, it may defer to the states to make the decision. But, anything can happen. I also think come December, when the appeal is heard, the 9th circuit will uphold the decision to strike down Prop. 8, a precedent already set by Judge Walker. The opponents of marriage equality in the state must produce overwhelming evidence to justify Prop. 8, so far they’ve not come anywhere near it. Its going to be extermely hard for them to convince any court without any hard documented evidence now that a precedent has been set in favour of striking down Prop. 8 altogether. Its definitely unconstitutional to maintain it.

  11. I think my concern is that although the religeous naysayers will be against anything that smacks of normalising gay relationships, they can garner more popular support if the relationship has religeous connotations. That is why, like it or not, the proponants of CP in the House of Lords felt they had to take a pragmatic view and not push for full (church or otherwise) marriage, which they felt would fail, and get CPs. I am very aware that many consider these very second rate, and the reasons they do so, though I personally don’t have that concern. What is pretty clear is that opposition to marriage would have killed the attempt at the time. Maybe things will soon be different here.

    But in the USA I remain of the view, which I hope is unfounded, that the Supreme Court may have a hard time sanctioning gay marriage. Isnt there a risk that an intermediate appeal court takes the view that if they allow gay marriage now, and it is later ruled impermissible, there would be a mess (as has been the case with some States, hasnt it?), whereas the “lesser evil” is to make people wait and see what happens?

  12. The Ninth Circuit is the most over-ridden court in the US. They are going by the numbers on this, as they don’t want to be overruled by the Supremes. The fact that they asked for arguments to address the issue of standing means that the Court has serious doubts about the ability of defendants (proponents of Prop 8) to challenge Judge Walker’s decision. Standing is an even more important issue for SCOTUS, as the conservatives on SCOTUS have tightened the rules to eliminate “frivolous” cases. For an interesting discussion, see: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/will-the-real-appellants-please-stand-up.html.

  13. Wow, I assume they are still expecting California’s many gays to PAY ALL THEIR TAXES to the goverment, HEALTHCARE COSTS, BILLS, and GIVE TO GOOD CAUSES ACROSS AMERICA/VOLUNTEER in the time they’re dawdling on whether to ‘include’ them in another of life’s basic necessities.

  14. douglas in canada 18 Aug 2010, 2:36am

    1. I like the line “But the court also demanded that gay marriage opponents must argue why they have the legal standing to bring the case to court.” To me, that says that the court sees that it won’t stand, but wants the marriage opponents to really bury themselves, once and for all.

    2. I wish religious types would realize that they can dictate to their own members, but not to non-members.

    3. Rmember that marriage is a state institution, just as much as a religious one, and that the church can define the religious component, but the state gets to define the civil component. Fine, if you don’t want to “bless” a same-sex couple in your church, that doesn’t prevent that couple from going to city hall for a civil marriage.

  15. Mihangel apYrs 18 Aug 2010, 7:32am

    one aspect unspoken: while the courts procrastinate people are dying, and there partners receive no beneifts (while someone who drove Las Vagas,, married a hooker at an Elvis ceremony and then died would give her ALL the benefits of holy matrimony)

    Thst’s what riles me: the human face of delay

  16. The best argument to these haters is play them at their own game. if they want to legislate to ‘protect traditional marriage’ we can help. These guys have the right idea, i hope it gets on the ballots in California:

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all