Andy Pugno | California | Gay Marriage | News | Proposition 8

Prop 8 Authors Denounce 'Lawless' Resumption of Gay Marriage in California

PRop 8 authors are livid that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction on same-sex marriage today following rulings this week from the Supreme Court, the L.A. Times reports:

PugnoAndy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage, the official proponents of Proposition 8, said the decision by the federal appeals court in San Francisco came without waiting for the Supreme Court's decision to become final -- which takes 25 days from the day of the judgment -- and deprived his group of "our right to ask for reconsideration."

"This outrageous act tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption," Pugno said in a statement.

"The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed,"  he said.

Attorney General Kamala Harris performed the first marriage for Prop 8 plaintiffs Sandy Stier and Kris Perry just before 5 pm PT this afternoon. Presumably same-sex weddings have begun all over California.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. OMG somebody call a Waaaaaaaah-mbulance!

    Posted by: Mike | Jun 28, 2013 8:36:01 PM

  2. Who cares!

    Posted by: michael | Jun 28, 2013 8:40:35 PM

  3. The stay was always discretionary. The Ninth Circuit could have lifted it at any time in the course of the litigation. Please sit down.

    Posted by: Jeff R | Jun 28, 2013 8:44:32 PM

  4. They don't have the right!!!!!! Did they not listen to the Supreme Court ruling!!!!!!! Stop trying to destroy my family and Ill stop being prejudice about your religious beliefs or lack there of.

    Posted by: Brian | Jun 28, 2013 8:45:14 PM

  5. Nancy Pelosi's "Who care?" is the new black. Fits almost any of the whining we're in for the next couple years.

    Posted by: melvin | Jun 28, 2013 8:46:46 PM

  6. Even now, these a**holes want to make us wait even longer. You lost - get the f**k over it.

    Posted by: PaulY | Jun 28, 2013 8:46:49 PM

  7. Boohoo, pass the tissues. Time for reconsideration is over, boys.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 28, 2013 8:47:29 PM

  8. "Bitter", "Party of one".

    Posted by: todd | Jun 28, 2013 8:47:49 PM

  9. Funny thing is he still has a chance to preserve marriages all over the country by offering free counseling to married couples who need a good communicator when they no longer can. Or better assistance to young couples who are stressed with children and become unable to save the marriage because of family strifes or........wait he doesn't REALLY cared about marriage does he?

    Posted by: todd | Jun 28, 2013 8:50:23 PM

  10. These people are utterly consumed with hatred. That's no way to live.

    Posted by: nick | Jun 28, 2013 8:57:55 PM

  11. Ya lost, Blanche, ya lost!

    Posted by: David | Jun 28, 2013 9:00:55 PM

  12. ... deprived his group of "our right to ask for reconsideration."

    Is he kidding? They can't even show they have standing in this case!

    Posted by: AdamTh | Jun 28, 2013 9:05:42 PM

  13. Well, I suggest they get out of California, and move to a state where they have better chances of success.

    I can understand their bitterness and resentment at seeing these new weeding photos that are going to flood the internet day after day from now on and forever.

    It has been a brutal, painful, and expensive fight for proponents of Proposition 8. It "does not get better" for them, it's only going to get worse.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2013 9:08:08 PM

  14. If Pugno had been competent, he would have done what many authors of California propositions have done as far back as I can remember (yes, I'm one of the people who actually, you know, reads them) and put language in granting the proponents standing to defend the proposition if the state failed to do so. He didn't, and lost based on standing. Too bad. Sooooo sad. He has no one to blame but himself.

    Posted by: TomTallis | Jun 28, 2013 9:09:22 PM

  15. So get "livid", I, for one, could care less what the whiners do.

    It's done in California, get over it, and yourselves.

    Posted by: jsb | Jun 28, 2013 9:11:09 PM

  16. TomTallis, there has not been another case like this where the state decided not to defend an appeal, that is what judge Roberts stated early on at the Supreme court level.

    So Pugno can be forgiven for not seeing the future writing on the wall even if it means total defeat. Hey, I suggest learning from mistakes and moving on.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 28, 2013 9:18:09 PM

  17. He lost. He's mad. "Who cares"!!

    Posted by: PAUL B. | Jun 28, 2013 9:26:57 PM

  18. These people don't give a crap about protecting marriage, they just have built a whole career out of hate... now they see that coming to an end. Sucks to be them!

    Posted by: Gerry | Jun 28, 2013 9:28:39 PM

  19. You don't have STANDING to bring a new suit you tool! Because you haven't been able to demonstrate, NONE of you whiners have been able to demonstrate, how someone else's marriage effects YOU, so sit down and SHUT UP!

    Posted by: Caliban | Jun 28, 2013 9:28:40 PM

  20. Poor Andy Pugno. The sympathy I have for him can be measured in this space > < sympathy for Andy & friends.

    Posted by: Jim | Jun 28, 2013 9:41:08 PM

  21. I'm not going to get too worked up about it.

    The interesting question is, do they really think they have any options? Do they really think SCOTUS is going to reverse itself on this because they ask it to?

    I doubt that would happen, and I think this is why. I can't prove this, of course. Personally, I think a deal was cut among the supreme court members. No over-arching marriage decision at all, a minimal decision on prop. 8 and DOMA-- in exchange for Scalia giving his imprimatur in the prop. 8 case.

    Why do I think this? 1) Because the decisions actually failed to deal with any of the truly substantive issues around DOMA or the Prop. 8 case-- the place of gay people in our society. 2) Scalia has very few principles, but one of them is definitely "get the queers." His signature on the prop. 8 decision is just too unlike him. 3) Scalia's petulant comments last week regarding moral cases.”

    Posted by: Ben in Oakland | Jun 28, 2013 9:46:10 PM

  22. '"If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed," he said.'

    *opens dictionary to definition of "irony"*

    Yup, his pic is there. lol.

    Posted by: Tina S | Jun 28, 2013 9:46:21 PM

  23. Do you think Mr. Pugno has a problem with Texas and other states rushing to implement anti-voting rules less than 25 days after the Supreme Court announced its ruling on the Voting Rights Act? I think not.

    Posted by: PeteP | Jun 28, 2013 9:46:25 PM

  24. Poor Andy Pugno. The sympathy I have for him can be measured in this space(). If someone can show me where the 9th Circuit is required to allow the petition process to play out, I might have this much ( ) sympathy for Andy & his friends.

    Posted by: Jim | Jun 28, 2013 9:47:18 PM

  25. What a Dumbsh!t ... No standing means you don't have the right to have a stay either.

    Posted by: Fox | Jun 28, 2013 9:47:26 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Prop 8 Plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier Marry in California« «