Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Californian appeals court will not rehear arguments for Proposition 8

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case. If they do this, it means Judge Walker Vaughn’s original ruling will stand and same sex marriage will become legal.

    If the SCOTUS does decide to act, it’s going to drag its feet because of the election.

    Millions of dollars spent and 4 years of the lives of LGBT people waited because the the putrid, vile disgusting sadism prompted and paid for by religions to enforce their dogmatic cr@p on everyone else.

    Frankly? It’s been a bloody obscenity.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 6 Jun 2012, 2:24pm

      Here Here…………..

    2. TomTallis 6 Jun 2012, 9:05pm

      Unfortunately, you’re not quite correct. The 9th Circuit ruling from February of this year was much narrower than Judge Walker’s ruling, which was crafted to, if it were to be upheld, create marriage rights nationwide.

      The 9th Circuit ruling is much narrower and doesn’t address US Constitutional right to marry at all. It simply says that you can’t take away an existing right by popular vote based on animus. That’s all. It’s crafted to limit it’s application to California only, since California is the only state in the union that had equal marriage and then took it away.

      1. TomTallis 6 Jun 2012, 9:10pm

        I should add that because the ruling is so narrow and raises no real federal question for the Supreme Court, that I find it very unlikely that the Supreme Court will accept the case. If they do not accept the case, the 9th Circuit ruling stands and equal marriage will be the law in California.

        If that should happen, and Illinois institute equal marriage (which now seems likely), then three of the five most populous states will have equal marriage.

  2. Cardinal Capone 6 Jun 2012, 1:40pm

    As 22 out of 25 9th circuit judges support the decision, you’d think that it would be possible to lift the stay on the marriages.

  3. This is the second of two significant Appeal Court wins. Gill v OPM, in which a 3-judge panel of the First Circuit affirmed the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was ruled on last week. There is now a debate on which case SCOTUS may or may not take. It takes 4 SCOTUS judges to decide, and we won’t know until October what the outcome will be. Even legal authorities seem to be split on possible outcomes; some feel Gill should be given precedent, and that Perry may be refused a hearing since its outcome only affects LGBTs in California (and marriage would once more be legal in CA).

    For an interesting discussion and blog on the issues:
    Proposition 8 and DOMA Cases: Would It Be More Favorable for One to Reach SCOTUS First?
    http://www.towleroad.com/2012/06/aewprop8.html

  4. David Waite 6 Jun 2012, 3:14pm

    Stephen Gray, it requires a majority vote of all appellate judges in U.S. Appeals Court Circuits to accept a case en banc. That means, in the case of the Ninth Circuit with 25 judges, 13 of them (not 11) would have had to affirm their willingness to re-hear the case.

    Had 13 affirmed, the en banc panel would have been 11 judges of the 25, randomly chosen. In a smaller Circuit, with 12 or fewer appellate judges, the entire Circuit participates in an en banc hearing.

    Note also that the 3 most conservative of the 25 judges, O’Scannlain, Bybee and Bea, wrote a (very weak) dissent to the decision not to re-hear, but none of the three were the dissenting judge, N. R. Smith, in the original three-judge Ninth Circuit hearing.

    1. I read the dissents – what a load of illogical bunk they spouted, repeating the meme that marriage is damaged somehow and that it shouldn’t be changed as it had existed for a long time. Arguments that we could debunk in ten seconds bloody flat.

  5. I hope the SCOTUS end this nightmare once and for all, and don’t drag its feet for the next few decades…

    1. Miguel Sanchez 6 Jun 2012, 4:21pm

      Here, here. I couldn’t agree more.

  6. America is free and we need to keep it free by stopping the anti-gay religions who want to make slaves out of LGBT people like the Catholics, Mormons and Evangelical Christians who want to keep gays down and oppressed.

    1. Sorry, Juan. How does one “stop a religion?” Overly broad – and a First Amendment violation.
      However, a way to “delay” anti-gay “religious organizations” is to keep going after their violations of 501(c)3 status through politicking. Right now, several Catholic dioceses AND the Mormon Utah HQ have stacked up political fines – time to lower the boom that way, definitely.

  7. Damn right! Why should they hear any bigot speaking for their f:d up values!?

  8. And I always had California down as an ‘open society’, gay Hollywood, the summer of love in the 60s.

    At least many celebrities are publicly supporting gay marriage now. People like Pauley Perrette (Abby) from NCIS etc., have refused to marry until Proposition 8 is lifted and gay couples can marry.

  9. Lumi Bast 6 Jun 2012, 9:43pm

    EQUAL MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE VOTED ON. I don’t see how in the US it isn’t legal….. pathetic

    1. Oh, give it a rest you sanctimonious bigot.

  10. Hopefully some of these judges got wise… decided to pull the rug from under “father time” who the opponents of equal marriage hope would stall the case in the court for the advantageous and foreseeable future.

    Here’s hoping this move not shift into gear fast forwards and we can finally hear the wedding bells ring out loud for the Californians living in life denied their rights and living life in limbo!

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