Comments about ‘Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal’

About every pundit who has commented on this ruling (whether they agreed with it or not) has mentioned it will probably end up in SCOTUS, so I'm not sure where he got this idea from. Maybe a head trip?

Not only will it be appealed, but I'd wager that if he won't extend his own stay past Wednesday, the appeals court will stay it for him until they address it in the fall. Walker's starting to sound more like a politician than a judge....

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like any voter in the state of California should have the right to appeal the ruling.

Quit deamonizing Judge Walker. Read the lousy testimony presented and the lack of facts that the defendents of Prop 8 presented at trial--be angry and upset with the non-experts they called to support their side of the Prop 8 issue. Judge Walker has given them time (the order could have been immediate) and both sides had stated they would appeal so they should been ready to go even before the decision was made. The real story is that defenders of Prop 8's attorneys did a lousy job. And not to argue with a law professor but he needs to look at the issue of English as Arizona's only language proposal. There is precedent and Judge Walker has raised the legal issues in order to ensure that proper legal proceedings are followed and all issues are raised. I just wish he had included the 10 amendment in his opinion and not just the 14th! Direct your anger and frustration at the defense attorneys not the Reagan appointed Judge who with a difficult case has attempt to protect the interest of both parties!

No Mr. Bazinga, you are not right. Furthermore, the group supporting Prop 8 does not have the legal right to bring any new information at all to the argument in the appeal. Only that which was argued in the original case can be appealed. So, the 9th District will hear the same stuff that was ruled on before.

So Prop 8 was repealed because the bigoted voters hurt the feeling of gay people and no one should be able to appeal it just because his ruling hurts their feelings...but because they're bigots their feeling don't really matter anyways.

How about the countless number of people who endured harassment at work and in their neighborhood because they were targeted by liberal groups? Is it wrong to take a stand based upon deeply held principles and values they were used to build this country?

'One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.' - Article


Before Prop 8, there were 18,000 gay marriages.

After, there was none.

If the claim that gay marriage 'harms' straight marriage, we should have been able to see an effect 9 months after gay marriages stopped.

Since the defense of Prop 8, and many who supported it have yet to present any evidence (zero) that supports that gay marriage factually harms straight marriage...

there is no reason to deny gay marriages further.

Canada, still there.

MA, still there.

Both allow gay marriage.

MA also has the lowest divorce rate in the country. After passing gay marriage from 2005-2009.

Source? National Center For Vital Statistics.

I think that Mr. Carpenter is right. If a citizen-driven initiative can only be defended in an appellate court by one of two elected officials, both of which are hostile to that initiative, then what's the point of allowing another party to defend it at trial, much less launch an initiative to begin with? He's basically saying that the governor and AG hold an unofficial veto power. Regardless of where you stand on Prop 8 itself, that precedent is horrible.

Pagan,

I don't think it's that simple. There's a lot of other underlying issues. For me, I've never looked at it as a "direct" threat on my personal marriage. The major concern for me is that from what I've seen in California over the past few years, there is a GLB agenda that reaches far beyond obtaining a marriage license. It lies in their on-going attempts at forcing society at all levels to believe and accept their lifestyle as being normal and acceptable - regardless of religious views that dictate otherwise; What's going on in the public schools in California is a case in point. And, without going into the discussion of it being a "choice", rather than a "natural in-born" part of their being, it is a fact when you look at history, that many of them, based upon their life experience, "chose" the lifestyle. There in, lies the danger for "families" who's foundational values are based upon their religion. All children are impressionable and easily swayed at an early age. They look up to their teachers and others. I for one, am not willing to be passive about this.

Read the judge's opinion. The defendants (proponents of prop 8) did not prove their case: same sex marriage harms opposite sex marriage & the state has an interest in prohibiting same sex marriage because they couldn't. To call Walker an "activist" is ridiculous. Again, do your homework - it only takes a few minutes to discover the Walker is a true conservative. If NOM, et al, want to protect this "sanctity of marriage", there are dozens of other causes they could take up immediately that would indeed help that cause. All the legal -- and social/cultural & even religious arguments are starting to sound tired and archaic. As a member of LDS church, I for one -- and the majority of my friends, family AND ward share this opinion -- am ready for the church to move on to the larger issues confronting us, families AND marriages -- and same sex marriage is not even on the long list!

Once again Judge Walker is calling attention to the obvious.

California declined to defend Prop 8 in court. Instead, Prop 8 was defended by "concerned citizens" who did a breathtakingly awful job presenting their case. (But then again, how good a job can you really do defending something tha is both devoid of rational support and is morally indefensible?)

Now comes the question of standing. Do the defendents in this case have legal standing to press an appeal? What dog do they have in this fight?

That's an interesting question, but I think Judge Walker is correct in observing that from the perspective of his original ruling, they don't.

With any luck at all cooler heads will prevail, gay couples may marry each other just as straight couples do, and we can all get back to work.

A moral wrong cannot make a civil right.

'...there is a GLB agenda that reaches far beyond obtaining a marriage license.' - Keith43 | 10:14 a.m.

Stricly your opininon. Have gays ONLY existed in your lifetime?

I doubt it.

Is this like those that claim the American Psycholoical Assoctaion is part of the gay movement because they don't encourage trying to change orientation?

How about the American Medical Assocation, when they said DADT is bad for your health?

'AMA meeting: "Don't ask, don't tell" said to hurt patient care; repeal urged' - By Kevin B. O'Reilly, amednews staff. Posted Nov. 23, 2009.

Line:
'The House of Delegates also said a lack of marriage rights contributes to health care disparities that affect gay families.'

The National Center For Vital Statistics released a report that said MA, allowing gay marriage in '04, has not had an increase in divorce.


China almost had its first drag show.

'Beijing to host first Mr. Gay China pageant' - AP 01/14/10

Line:
'Show intends to help citizens acknowledge China's thriving gay community'

It was canceled, but still.

Is China part of the gay agenda?

"Maybe a head trip?"

You need to have standing in the case to appeal it. This means you need to have skin in the game. The judge is right. Those appealing it aren't enforcing it nor will have be effected by it.

The illegal test is will this ruling will stop those who are appealing it from marriage, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

"How about the countless number of people who endured harassment at work and in their neighborhood because they were targeted by liberal groups?"

Name just one. You can't. That's just not liberal culture. This is like trying to name a racist liberal group. Conservatives have the KKK, Christian identity movement and white power groups.

Do you see liberals trying to halt gay's equal right to marry? It's liberals in NY that are supporting building an Islamic center blocks away from ground zero because we don't see hate as a value.

DavidNL:
SSM seems to be high on the First Presidency's list of issues lately.

I am reminded of Ether 2:9:
And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.
We're another step closer to ripening.

DavidNL,

Judge Walker is gay. Did you know that? Do you think that fact, affected his decision? Does that make any difference to you at all?

And by the way, it's most inappropriate for you to speak for your ward or anyone else in the Church. This issue is much bigger than Proposition 8 itself. And it's pretty obvious to me that you've limited your "study" on the subject, to what "man" has fed you. I suggest you read the Church's last public statement on this - then decide if you and your ward stil hold the same position. My counsel is that we ALWAYS follow the brethren - especially our living prophet.

All of you who support Prop 8 and yet vote for democrats should reconsider your votes. Yes, I know a Republican appointed Judge Walker, but there is no argument that liberals appoint judges that make law from the bench many, many times more often. If you do not agree with legislating from the bench, then don't vote for democrats.

'Danish American | 10:35 a.m. Aug. 13, 2010
A moral wrong is fiction. A civil right, can be enforced.

My example?

Pre-marital sex.

DavidNL appreciate your right to comment but don't for a minute pretend to be a voice for the church and that secretly its a position the members have tired on. Those of us in Calif are saying bring it on and are ready to go. You must know that by our very doctrine that those of us who are "real" members will never support gay marriage, its not in the plan. We don't hate, we disagree but your feminine proclivities prevent you from honest understanding of our adherence to traditional religious values. The hateful attack I witnessed at the LA Temple taught me all I need to know about what is driving the gay marriage movement.

Just another activist judge pushing his agenda on the American people.

If you researched this judge, I'm sure he has a hatred of religion.

DavidNL, you must be an activist - at least as far as a citizen can be. Take off the blinders.