Proponents had a full opportunity to provide evidence in support of their position and nevertheless failed to present even one credible witness on the government interest in Prop 8.
That’s what Judge Walker wrote in his decision to (sort of) lift the stay on his Prop 8 verdict and allow same-sex marriages to proceed.
Why “sort of”? Because Walker also wrote this:
…proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED… The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce proposition 8.
Basically, Judge Walker is lifting his stay on his judgment, which means he’s allowing same-sex marriages to proceed even though the bad guys want to appeal his verdict. HOWEVER, Walker’s giving the bad guys until end-of-day August 18 to convince the 9th Circuit not to allow same-sex marriages while we’re all waiting for the case to be appealed (which would be months and months down the road). If they can’t persuade the 9th to do that, then same-sex marriages can be performed as of 5pm, August 18.
H/T to the excellent, smart, funny, cute, and single Brad Parr.
“As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal. In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the Governor or the Attorney General to file an appeal to ensure appellate jurisdiction. As regards the stay, however, the uncertainty surrounding proponents’ standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success.”
However, there is some concern that they could then ask the Supremes for a stay. Kennedy handles the 9th Circuit. It might be a preview, though I’ve heard (silly) arguments that it might piss him off (against us) if he has to. (Even though it would be them bugging him.)
Much though I don’t like the thought of the harm caused by the additional delay, I think it’s less than the harm that would come about from whiplashing the community back and forth over whether they can or cannot get married on any given day. It’s better to give a few days for appeals to be considered and emergency stays to be requested than ruin someone’s wedding day because a new stay happens just before they start walking down the aisle… Wouldn’t that suck?
John: the opinion specifically addresses that. It basically says that any gay couple that wants to get married can assess the risks. We are all adults.
I’m torn on this. On the one hand, I resent the additional stay, whether it’s several days or several years on appeal; on the other, I want our opponents to take this to a higher level, so the final (positive) decision will hold for all 50 states, not just California.