Federal Prop 8 Trial | Gay Marriage | News | Proposition 8

Read: Protect Marriage's Appeal of Ruling on Stay in Prop 8 Case

Late yesterday, Protect Marriage filed the expected appeal of Judge Walker's ruling lifting the stay on Prop 8, a 95-pages document, which NOM Trial Tracker notes, "does not seem to [contain] any new arguments that Judge Walker has not already rejected."

Appeal Here's a bit of it:

"At any rate, the inference of anti-gay hostility drawn by the district court is manifestly false. It defames more than seven million California voters as homophobic, a cruelly ironic charge given that California has enacted some of the Nation’s most progressive and sweeping gay-rights protections, including creation of a parallel institution, domestic partnerships, affording same-sex couples all the benefits and obligations of marriage. Nor can the court’s inference be limited to California, for it necessarily attributes anti-gay animus to all who affirm that marriage, in its age-old form as the union of a man and a woman, continues to rationally serve society’s interests, including the citizens and lawmakers of the 45 States that have maintained that definition, the Congress and President that overwhelmingly passed and signed into law the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a large majority of the federal and state court judges who have addressed same-sex marriage, and the current President of the United States."

The NYT today noted that Judge Walker doubts Prop 8 proponents can appeal.

Read Ari Ezra Waldman's analysis of Walker's ruling, if you missed it, HERE.

Read the full appeal, AFTER THE JUMP...

Emergency Stay

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. In other words it is simply impossible that a majority can be motivated by animus towards a minority. If that is so why do we even have a bill of rights? Why have a civil rights act? Isn't its very existence an insult to Americans because it accuses them all of being racists?

    I wonder what motivated the passage of jim crow laws. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that all those millions of Americans were racists could it??

    Posted by: odinnite | Aug 13, 2010 12:46:33 PM

  2. These people are infuriating. It's all about them. I've got news for them, it is about US. They aren't being harmed, we are... how dare they! If they get the stay, this will go down in history as being one of the most ridiculous judicial rulings.

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 13, 2010 1:06:06 PM

  3. Wow. That's a bit of prose that would be shredded by anyone who teaches freshman composition. And these people went to law school??

    Posted by: Gianpiero | Aug 13, 2010 1:12:57 PM

  4. I just love the 7 Million Americans can't be wrong argument. There's never been a historical situation in which popular opinion turned out to be oppositional to fact so it's a reasoned argument by non-bigoted individuals who care about the children.

    Posted by: Randy | Aug 13, 2010 1:13:04 PM

  5. "including creation of a parallel institution, domestic partnerships, affording same-sex couples all the benefits and obligations of marriage"

    Total, bald-faced lie. There's 1300 benefits that accrue to married couples, they don't all accrue to people in a domestic partnership. Hospital visitation is still a nightmare under domestic partnership.

    Posted by: Henry Holland | Aug 13, 2010 1:21:02 PM

  6. A couple of things come to mind.

    First, they seem to fail to recognize that this was an established right in California. The precedents they cite are all about not giving a right, not about taking away a right.

    Second, the whole purpose of the trial was so they would have a chance to present these arguments and back them up with evidence. Having failed to do so, do they really think the Ninth Circuit will listen?

    Posted by: Tom | Aug 13, 2010 1:30:13 PM

  7. I'm curious to hear what Ari's analysis is of this appeal. Any legal scholars out there who can parse this apart for non-legal experts like myself?

    Posted by: Keith | Aug 13, 2010 1:45:58 PM

  8. Citation of Jonathan Rauch in the motion - thanks man - you got yours, so f*ck the rest of us. But maybe you've changed your mind in the past 6 years? Nope - your NY Daily News opinion piece of a few days ago still cautions we be incremental, go slow, settle for domestic partnerships, even though you got married in D.C. in June.

    "Other prominent advocates of same-sex marriage agree that it is impossible
    to predict the long-term societal consequences that will flow from same-sex
    marriage: “Gay marriage may bring both harms and benefits. Because it has never
    been tried in the United States, Americans have no way to know just what would
    FOR STRAIGHTS, & GOOD FOR AMERICA 172 (2004) (DIX81). See also id. at 84
    (“How the numbers will shake out is impossible to say.”).

    (Defendent-Interveners motion for emergency stay at p. 54, fn 21)

    Posted by: Sean | Aug 13, 2010 1:53:36 PM

  9. They might as well have written, "We don't hate gays, we just hate that they want to be equal to us in the eyes of the law." It would have been a more coherent sentence and said the same thing.

    Tom, they have to shy away from the fact that the law was enacted and then taken away by majority vote on a State Constitutional Amendment because then it blatantly shows this to be the majority trumps the 14th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

    I agree with Odinnite, using their own logic we should eliminate the civil rights act because it may be construed that we are all racists, and that may hurt my feelings.

    They know they have nothing and that's why this is the best they can do. Any second year law student could pick this crap apart. Hell, if I were looking for a quick and easy response to any of their legal arguments, you wouldn't have to go any place but this web cite and read the responses. And if we are all picking it apart, think what a decent lawyer could do.

    Posted by: Bart | Aug 13, 2010 2:38:23 PM

  10. How disingenuous of them to cite California's pro-gay policies - as if these people wouldn't repeal those, too, if they could.

    Posted by: Kevinintexas | Aug 13, 2010 2:46:32 PM

  11. You can bet if there is even one partisan conservative judge on the Appeals Court, the case will be heard.

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Aug 13, 2010 3:02:50 PM

  12. marriage is contract law legally and permission to have sex religiously.

    this entire appeal is nothing more than we can't ever be wrong and gays can't ever be right.

    there is really nothing in this appeal that is germain to the case. i love how they cite things which have been superceded by other rulings. i also liked the part about straight couples having a accidental pregnancy or changing their minds about having kids.

    they claim gays have no constitutional rights to marriage (although in california they did) and that they have the right to strip people of rights after they are granted because for all intentents and purposes they just don't like them. they offer nothing but we don't like gays.

    and then there is the part where they basically say we would have had more witnesses if there hadn't been the possibility of it being aired on television. i find this to be a flat out lie.

    this appeal is a joke. it is nothing more than gays can't ever be right, any ruling in favor of gays has to be wrong and that the only right decision is one that is against gays and for the anti gays.

    Posted by: rickster | Aug 13, 2010 4:20:52 PM

  13. welllp.. if those 7 million californians didn't want to be defamed as homophobic.. then they shouldn't have voted our marital rights away... you reap what you sow, so eat it!

    Posted by: eugene | Aug 13, 2010 4:55:28 PM

  14. Oh my god, they even quote Obama's book in the damned appeal. Are they really that desperate? They're re-raising the exact same arguments that Walker shot down for lack of evidence - and providing no more substantial evidence (one of their bases for stating they're likely to succeed is, basically, that almost every other ruling has been against gays, so this one should too. Really.)

    Posted by: Austin | Aug 13, 2010 5:10:50 PM

  15. Not only that, over 6.4 million californians voted to overturn prop 8. Apparently they don't constitute "the people," and only the votes of people who agreed with them do.

    Posted by: TANK | Aug 13, 2010 5:13:29 PM

  16. and as per usual they lie lie lie
    we DONT have the same rights afforded straight married couples
    they always forget how they ran campaignes that made the voters think if they voted prop 8 they were voting FOR same sex Marriage not against it

    Posted by: DJ Fruit Loops | Aug 13, 2010 6:33:39 PM

Post a comment


« «Katy Perry Loves Her California Gays« «