Arnold Schwarzenegger | California | David Boies | Federal Prop 8 Trial | Gay Marriage | Jerry Brown | Meg Whitman | Proposition 8 | Ted Olson | Vaughn Walker

Prop 8 Plaintiffs File Motion Opposing Judge Walker's Stay

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, who represented the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial, filed the motion yesterday, the day it was due.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and attorney general Jerry Brown filed their own motions yesterday as well.

Ob AFER issued the following statement calling for same-sex marriages in California to resume at once.

“The unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 has been proven beyond a doubt. Extending Prop. 8’s denial of fundamental constitutional rights represents a grave injustice. The time for the court’s ruling to go into effect is now. We welcome Governor Schwarzenegger’s and Attorney General Brown’s opposition of a stay after their thoughtful analysis of the evidence, the court’s ruling and the law.”

Read the full motion here.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights has published an explanation on the possible ways the stay could potentially play out:

"Judge Walker can decide whether to stay the decision for longer at any time. If he grants the motion to stay, same-sex couples will not be able to marry in California until after the appeal is finished. The Judge can also delay the decision for a short time until the Ninth Circuit appeals court decides whether they will order a stay. If Judge Walker denies the stay and permits his decision to take immediate effect, the Yes on 8 proponents can ask the Ninth Circuit appeals court to order an emergency stay. Several counties have announced that, if Judge Walker lifts the stay, they are ready to begin issuing licenses and performing civil ceremonies for same-sex couples."

Meanwhile, David Boies, one half of the team who repped the prop 8 plaintiffs, told a large crowd in San Francisco that he believes it is a "dead certainty" the case will end up in the hands of the US Supreme Court. Watch a clip of him speak, AFTER THE JUMP.

Finally, Equality California is calling on everyone to sign their electronic petition that urges Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, who are running for the CA governorship and AG positions respectively, to state that they will refuse to defend Prop 8 in court if they are ever elected.

Sign it here.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Absolutely begin performing marriages again without delay. Do as much as can possibly be done to piss off the far-right bigots. Victory is sweet!

    Posted by: Tone | Aug 7, 2010 12:36:42 PM

  2. The "Circuit Justice" who oversees the courts in San Francisco, Justice Anthony Kennedy, could always intervene and issue a stay of his own accord. This is why U.S. Supreme Court nominations matter. These are appointments for life. And they have a lot of discretionary power.

    Posted by: John | Aug 7, 2010 1:08:26 PM

  3. THE LETTER OF THE LAW VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

    "Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

    Posted by: I'm Layla Miller I Know Stuff | Aug 7, 2010 1:35:00 PM

  4. There is no justification under the law to issue a stay. The only reason I can think it would be done would be to placate the bigots at the expense of equal protection. No one is being harmed... as Boies and Olson have pointed out, the only harm would be on the side of gay people getting married, and I believe we are all willing to take that risk. The bottom line is this... are gay people entitled to equality under the law or not. It is that simple. If not, then the bigots are correct - I guess we can't get married. What pisses me off the most about this, is their steadfast refusal to get them to state the obvious - they don't like gay people, they think gay people are immoral, etc. etc. This doesn't have shit to do about wanting to save marriage. This is about hate and using that hate as a fund raising machine. It is as plain as the light of day. The bigots know however as soon as they admit it, the gig is up.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 7, 2010 2:19:30 PM

  5. One more comment, the reason to me that this is so satisfying is that Judge Walker in his opinion cut to the chase and called them out. He didn't pull any punches and laid out all their lies and distortions for all to see. They have simply no where to hide except to keep blathering the same nonsense.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 7, 2010 2:22:56 PM

  6. Interestingly, in that same speech to the Commonwealth Club (and Q&A afterwards) Boies stated that he believes the issue of the stay on resuming same-sex marriages, either way it is decided, may well prompt the Ninth Circuit to an expedited (initial en banc) result and, thereby, certainly move the case much closer to SCOTUS certiorari than the "two-years at the earliest" window most commentators have indicated. It may well get to the Supreme Court in 2011.

    It is well worth an hour of your time to watch it on the Commonwealth Club's YouTube channel:

    Posted by: Timzilla | Aug 7, 2010 3:28:49 PM

  7. I'm looking forward to hearing Scalia's opinion if this gets to the Supreme Court. I imagine he will twist and turn like a snake to rationalize his bigotry.

    Fortunately Kagan will be there too. I'm anxious to hear her opinions and see if they meet my liberal expectations.

    Of course the S.C. could refuse to give opinions.

    Posted by: jay | Aug 7, 2010 3:44:24 PM

  8. Has anyone seen commentary regarding where the SCOTUS will try and find their 'wiggle' room?

    If the decision stands after its appeal to the 9th Circuit & SCOTUS decides not to hear it, does that trash all the silly state by state laws? Or does it have to be heard by SCOTUS in order to have those further reaching implications?

    Anyone. Anyone. Bueller?

    Posted by: stephen | Aug 7, 2010 9:05:53 PM

  9. Yeah, I heard Boies himself give the possible arguments the S.C. might use to overturn the decision. But I wasn't paying attention, as usual.

    Posted by: Bueller | Aug 8, 2010 8:02:29 AM

Post a comment


« «Photo: Reykjavik Mayor In Drag At Gay Pride« «