August 12th, 2010
03:49 PM ET
8 years ago

Prop 8 stay lifted by judge

Los Angeles, California (CNN) - A federal judge ruled on Thursday to allow same-sex couples to marry in California, starting on August 18, handing another big victory to supporters of gay rights in a case that both sides say will likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Walker had issued a temporary stay on his decision, which on Thursday he said he would lift.

The high-profile case is being watched closely by supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage, as many say it will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Same-sex marriage is legal in five U.S. states and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. The five states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire.

Read the ruling in its entirety here [pdf]

Filed under: California • Same-sex marriage
soundoff (58 Responses)
  1. Sniffit

    "Can you believe people once thought like that? How ignorant and retrograde. Well, it's 2010, and now we know better."

    Insert "1954" and you've basically just paraphrased Brown v. Board of Education. Idiot.

    August 12, 2010 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  2. 8 Years of having a drunken driver at the wheel put America in the ditch, why would working Americans return the keys to the crowd drinking at the same bar?

    "favor of a stay because of the “uncertainty” surrounding marriages
    performed before a final judicial determination of the
    constitutionality of Proposition 8. Doc #705 at 11. Proponents
    also point to the public interest as reflected in the votes of “the
    people of California” who do not want same-sex couples to marry,
    explaining that “[t]here is no basis for this Court to second-guess
    the people of California’s considered judgment of the public
    interest.” Id at 12.
    The evidence at trial showed, however, that Proposition 8
    harms the State of California. Doc #708 at 92-93 (FF 64).
    Representatives ofthe state agree. The Governor states that
    “[a]llowing the Court’s judgment to take effect serves the public
    interest” in “[u]pholding the rights and liberties guaranteed by
    the federal Constitution” and in “eradicating unlawful
    discrimination.” Id at 5-6. Moreover, the Governor explains that
    no administrative burdens flow to the state when same-sex couples
    are permitted to marry. Id at 7. The Attorney General agrees that
    the public interest would not be served by a stay. Doc #716 at 2.
    The evidence presented at trial and the position of the
    representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest.
    Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels
    against entry of the stay proponents seek"

    Posted for all the Lush Limprick lemmings and Fake News trolls that are paid to blog on CNN.

    It is not something you will hear or see on Fux the News.

    August 12, 2010 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  3. floyd

    Dale, your comment is incredibly ignorant. Judge Walker is a Conservative... closer to Liberterian than Liberal.

    August 12, 2010 04:43 pm at 4:43 pm |
  4. Sniffit

    "Why the quick lesson?"

    You need to actually inform people of something, not say things that make them stupider for having read, if you want to call something a "lesson."

    August 12, 2010 04:43 pm at 4:43 pm |
  5. Sniffit


    Look it up.

    BTW, what's with the crazy blather about the judge being biased simply because he's gay? He was appointed by Reagan and had a hard time because some felt him too conservative. Moreover, the argument is just plain ridiculous: under the theory that a homosexual judge is automatically biased in favor of same-sex marriage, a heterosexual judge would automatically be similarly biased against it. It's foolishness. Are these morons arguing that we needed to find an asexual judge? A eunuch? Triple XXX syndrome? Maybe we shoudl have just propped up a Ken doll behind the bench and stuck a miniarture judge robe on it?

    August 12, 2010 04:44 pm at 4:44 pm |
  6. Lauren

    The only reasonable argument against gay marriage is one based on a flawed concept of Christianity.

    If you oppose same-sex marriage that is your right. That being said, it is also my right as a tax-paying citizen to be given the right to the benefits of marriage. You may call it whatever you want if "marriage" is between a man and a woman. I don't want your language I want your rights.

    August 12, 2010 04:46 pm at 4:46 pm |
  7. Sniffit

    "Why the quick lesson? Because "marriage" is a spiritual term identifying the purpose of the union is to pro-create."

    Here's a "lesson" for you: if what you just said is true, then the 1st Amendment prohibits use of the term "marriage" in our laws. You can't have it both ways. You either interpret "marriage" as an entirely secular usage of the word when it's in our laws or, if that's 100% impossible to do, you don't put it in there in the first place. Period.

    August 12, 2010 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  8. Darth Vadik, CA


    Conservatives – a 2000+ year old mythical book tells me that being gay is a "sin"

    That is all you can say about this issue...

    August 12, 2010 04:49 pm at 4:49 pm |
  9. 8 Years of having a drunken driver at the wheel put America in the ditch, why would working Americans return the keys to the crowd drinking at the same bar?

    "Proponents point to the availability of domestic
    partnerships under California law as sufficient to minimize any
    harm from allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect. Doc #705 at
    11. The evidence presented at trial does not support proponents’
    position on domestic partnerships; instead, the evidence showed
    that domestic partnership is an inadequate and discriminatory
    substitute for marriage. Doc #708 at 82-85 (FF 52-54)".

    Orlando "patriot" just for you and your "lesson", assuming your reading comprehension is somewhat higher than a third grader.

    August 12, 2010 04:52 pm at 4:52 pm |
  10. Gunner123

    As a Conservative Homosexual (I know, quite a contradiction) I must say that marriage is a contract between two individuals. The key word is contract. What homosexuals are asking for are equal rights. Equal rights with regard to filing taxes, collecting social security, and workers compensation benefits. If there were no benefits of a legally binding marriage why do heterosexual couples go to their respective state for a license? Couldn't they just as well hold a church ceremony and declare themselves wed? If a church chooses not to marry a homsexual couple that is fine. There are churches across this country that would be willing to do so.

    I fortunately live in Iowa. There was an overwhelming majority that was against the State Supreme Court overturning a law banning same sex marriage. Only one year later 92% polled say it didn't affect their lives. 52% say they are now in favor with only 45% opposed. What's interesting is the minority is the one making the big deal and the majority just doesn't care!

    August 12, 2010 04:53 pm at 4:53 pm |
  11. Sniffit

    "In summary, we should allow a governmental definition called something else like a "civil union""

    Sorry, but you gave me lots of fodder. However, it bears mentioning that the Jim Crow laws and "separate but equal" were ruled sort of unconstitutional, so your semantic games are entierely meaningless...

    ...and Lauren, or anyone else willing to accept "civil union" instead of "marriage" on the theory of "what's in a name?"...I would caution you not to let them have even that hairy toe-hold on their self-declared moral superiority and wish to have it continue to be institutionalized in our laws. They don't deserve it and it's just plain not right. This isn't an issue to be settled via concessions. Equal rights are non-negotiable.

    August 12, 2010 04:53 pm at 4:53 pm |
  12. Victim of GOP Taliban

    What does sexuality, religion, or what someone does in their private life matter? Don't push your sexuality or religion to me. The government should not get involved and the courts shouldn't even be allowed to decide these type of disputes. More proof of taxpayer dollars being wasted to suit the needs of special interest activists on both sides.

    August 12, 2010 04:53 pm at 4:53 pm |
  13. Marcus

    Eric – How many times in this country's history what was popular was not exactly constitutional?
    How many?
    As a 'libertarian' as you claim to be, but we can see through your ruse very clearly, you should knew that popularity DOESN'T equals to justice nor constitutionality.
    You should, but obviously you don't.
    ANY law that creates a '2nd degree citizenship status', like Prop 8, goes against the Constitution, Scalia might find a way to spin his personal bias to make it look like it's not, but he'll be alone on that one.

    August 12, 2010 04:54 pm at 4:54 pm |
  14. Jennifer S

    Orlando Patriot – I didn't realize the Catholic Church is a company. Secondly, just because marriage is a term used in a religious manner, it is also a government term, and since we have separation of church and state, religion should not dictate how the law defintes marriage in a legal sense. Lastly, I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to a society consisting of entirely same-sex marriages. Who is proposing that?

    August 12, 2010 04:57 pm at 4:57 pm |
  15. Stacey

    Thank you to the judge who lifted the stay! Freedom and equal rights win the day!

    August 12, 2010 04:58 pm at 4:58 pm |
  16. Mark

    The purpose of marriage is to pro-create? Really?
    Too bad for all those post-menopausal women who want to marry; and all those childless couples should have their marriages revolked I guess.
    Silly argument.

    August 12, 2010 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  17. Sniffit

    "That said, I find it an affront to free democratic elections and our great republic when a single unelected, unaccountable black-robed bench warmer can singlehandedly invalidate the elected will of a free people."

    HE invalidated nothing. The CONSTITUTION renders those votes void ab initio (i.e., from the get-go). Those ballots were invalid before they checked the box marked "bigot."

    August 12, 2010 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |
  18. gt

    drip....drip,,,,drip...drip.... just another in a long line of judges ruling that are breaking down everything this country had stood for...drip.. drip..drip...

    August 12, 2010 05:00 pm at 5:00 pm |
  19. Can't We All Just Get Along?

    Let's put this in your bonnet -

    In some religious sects, it's believed that God created the heavens and the earth. Only females can "create" life because it's part of the female biology. That would mean that God is female.

    Yet Mary had a baby.... Mary was female...

    Just thought this needed to be tossed into conversation for consideration since we're talking about religion and rights and the perceptions thereof.

    August 12, 2010 05:00 pm at 5:00 pm |
  20. vic

    Good news we need to legalize same sex marriage and eliminate don’t ask don’t tell

    August 12, 2010 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  21. Marcus

    'In summary, we should allow a governmental definition called something else like a "civil union" acknowledging a same-sex couple is in a dedicated relationship now identified as a "legal union" but to call it "marriage" will in fact "normalize" and unnatural act and create havoc on our society for many years that may be the cause of moral and economic decline.'

    Aside the ridiculous (and usual) 'THE SKY IS FALLING' line of argumentation, here's a big news for you (that I already know you're not going to believe in even if I tell where to look for to confirm it):
    Homosexuality is not, I repeat NOT, an 'unnatural act' and it's neither an exclusivity of human beings.
    Monkeys (many knids of), lions, tigers... you name it, over a hundred of other animal species (not only mammals) were reported to (without any sort of stress induced condition like captivity in a zoo) perform sexual intercourses between members of the same gender.
    Obviously NOT for reproductions interests.
    Why it wasn't reported sooner? It wasn't, some of the reports goes way back to the first quarter of the past Century.
    They weren't seriously observed since, back then, such behavior was considered a sin, a mental disease and a crime between human beings. Imagine what they would say of the animals that do it too...

    August 12, 2010 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
  22. NYT:"during this election cycle big oil has paid 12.8 million in contributions, 71% to Republicans"!

    To all stating this overrules the "will of the people".

    We a directive that was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    We will make it a multiple choice question.

    1. The Holy Book of Fables?
    2. The script from the Teletubbies program where Pat Robertson discovered the purple stuffed toy was gay?
    3. The "expert" that testified in this case, and was later caught with a Rentboy, ostensibly to carry his luggage, but the only known picture shows the "expert" handling the luggage. We can only assume what "baggage" the Rentboy had to deal with.
    4. The Constitution of the United States

    Take your time.

    August 12, 2010 05:05 pm at 5:05 pm |
  23. Hammerer

    Guess the judge wants to get married next week!

    August 12, 2010 05:10 pm at 5:10 pm |
  24. Mark

    We don't put basic civil rights to a popular vote. Otherwise.....
    interracial marriage might still be illegal
    women might not be allowed to vote
    slavery might still be legal

    August 12, 2010 05:10 pm at 5:10 pm |
  25. AmFem

    Since when is it okay for us to vote on someone's civil rights, anyway? The whole Prop 8 fiasco should have been a waste of time and money (Mormon money), because Civil rights should not be put to a vote. IT'S PROTECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Does the far right want to amend that too?!?!?!??!

    August 12, 2010 05:11 pm at 5:11 pm |
1 2 3