Appeal filed over gay-marriage ruling in California

SAN FRANCISCO — Supporters of California's gay-marriage ban filed an appeal of a federal judge's ruling that struck down the voter-approved law.

The appeal filed late Wednesday to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was expected, as lawyers on both sides of the legal battle repeatedly vowed to carry the fight to a higher court if they lost.

Earlier in the day, a federal judge in San Francisco overturned California's Proposition 8, which restricts a marriage to one man and one woman. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the law violates federal equal protections and due process laws.

The 9th Circuit court on Thursday set a Nov. 12 deadline for initial written arguments to be filed.

The outcome in the appeals court could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed.

"This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop. 8 in California, but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which helped fund the 2008 campaign that led to the ban's passage.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

The appeal was filed by Protect Marriage, a coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 and wound up defending it after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused.

Walker, meanwhile, said he would consider waiting for the 9th Circuit to render its decision before he makes his opinion final and requires the state to stop enforcing the ban. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by today on the issue.

While other rulings on gay marriage have emphasized legal theory, Walker's 136-page decision leaned heavily on findings of fact based on the testimony he heard during a 13-day trial in January.

At least some legal analysts believe that Walker fashioned his order to force judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the practical reality of gay unions, rather than treating them as a legal abstraction.

Some analysts also said the reliance on the trial testimony might help Walker's decision survive an appeals court's scrutiny because appellate judges typically give a trial judge's factual findings some deference.