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.

Comments

  1. Brian says

    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.

  2. todd says

    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?

  3. AdamTh says

    … deprived his group of “our right to ask for reconsideration.”

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

  4. Jeff says

    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.

  5. TomTallis says

    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.

  6. Jeff says

    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.

  7. Gerry says

    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!

  8. Caliban says

    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!

  9. Ben in Oakland says

    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.”

  10. Tina S says

    ‘”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.

  11. PeteP says

    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.

  12. Jim says

    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.

  13. mickey says

    All I can do is LMFAO…
    The only way these people could be more deranged (or dangerous) is if their God had granted them intelligence along with those hardened heart.
    Makes me smile…Each and everytime they are “shocked” and “outraged” that outside the bubble the country is coming around to Equality.

  14. Bruno says

    No one’s depriving you of anything, Pugnose. You can still go to SCOTUS with the almost 0% chance of gaining your rehearing. Nothing’s changing between the other day and 25 days on, so you’re out of luck, but you can still try. The 9th removing its stay isn’t stopping you. Argle bargle.

  15. MateoM says

    That guy is so hot! I can’t decide if it’s his protruding ears, his receding hairline, or his sagging jowels that run me on so much. Too bad he’s probably straight.

    I bet he and Maggie Gallagher would make pretty babies!

  16. Jonathan says

    Reconsideration of which court, the SCOTUS? Are they kidding? And if it was the lower court, that’s typically something you do BEFORE you appeal. What bullish*t.

  17. Boone68 says

    They have not right for “reconsideration” because they had no standing to appeal the case. It’s none of their business and they should shut up and but out.

  18. MateoM says

    Whoever posts as me, writing comments where I fawn over homophobes, must really be infatuated with me to continue doing this. As Mariah Carey once asked: why you so obsessed with me?

  19. says

    You know, for so-called straight dudes these conservadicks sure enjoy keeping that stick firmly up their asses. Equality is is here, it’s happening.

    Some day, these Prop 8 proponents and every anti will be happy this fight was fought and that common decency prevailed.

  20. Michael says

    For once and for all, I suggest this proposal:

    Gather the top ten “family values” men and if two of them, why not make it ANY of them, can pass a peter-meter test when viewing gay porn then out and proud gay people will give up their quest for equal rights.

  21. Reality says

    No offense lil Andy, but the Supreme Court and the 9th Circut is SMARTER THAN YOU! You’re a sore loser! Crawl back in your hold – ok thanks!

  22. Derrick from Philly says

    @MateoM: You know you want him, gurrl! You know he yo type! Ain’t no shame in that.

    Don’t let your meds do the talkin’. Go for it. He might make you happy.

  23. woodroad34d says

    I’m particularly offended by these pompous asses who have a little bit of knowledge, yet fail massively with regards to Civics Lessons. “The People” do not, nor have never, held omnipotent sway over the governing of America. There are really four branches of government: Judicial, legislative, Administrative, and “the people”…each branch has it boundaries and cross-checks and we are saved from the dictatorial rule of “the people” by these cross-checks, hence representatives and judges. This is what makes America a prime example of Democratic governance. These putrid fleas who claim that something put to a public vote is the be-all-and-end-all of governance are the basest of dung heaps. They should all rot in Hell (and probably will).

  24. Joseph L. says

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

    Awww, you mean like the flat-out lying that was done to pass Prop 8 in the first place? You mean like ignoring the laws in every state regarding your donors? Cry me a river, Repugno.

  25. Rocco says

    I seem to remember quite a lot of rejoicing in a “dishonorable fashion” when the other side won victories @ the ballot box in 2000 & 2008. There are few pleasures better than wiping the smug smirk off a bully’s face. I was also quite happy when he lost his bid to win a seat in our State Assembly. STFU and stop your whining. You lost. You are a meanspirited
    little troll. Now, go get a real job.

  26. Michaelandfred says

    What? I see your lips moving but all I hear is “waaaaa waaaaa waaaaaa”. Your 15 minutes of relevance is over. You lost the war and now it’s just clean up time. Go find another cash cow.

  27. Lymis says

    They really ought to consider disbarring him, since he’s either utterly clueless about the law and legal system or else lying on national television.

    This doesn’t deprive his side of anything. They still have all the appropriate legal remedies and actions and paperwork and everything they had before – all this means is that marriages start up again while his side does their little tantrum.

    Marriage COULD have been happening all this time – the Ninth put the stay in place because there was a real chance those marriages would be invalidated. The stay came from the Ninth, not the Supreme Court, so they get to say when they lift it, and don’t have to wait for the paperwork from the Supreme Court.

    Pugno is just pissed that he didn’t get to petulantly continue to deny his fellow citizens their equal rights while he continued his Traveling Bigotry Show. And that this means his paycheck plummets precipitously. Too bad.

  28. Lymis says

    As far as the punt on standing – while I don’t think any of them are going to lose sleep over it, I really do think that at least several of them really did see this as the camel’s nose into the tent about initiative proponents swamping the federal courts every time they lose. There’s no provisions for vetting initiatives for either state or federal constitutionality in advance, and referenda are more and more popular.

    I really think they wanted to slam that door – hard – and that the fact that gay people were standing in the doorway was secondary. There are plenty of cleaner marriage cases in the system, and with the fall of DOMA, heaps more soon to happen, so I can see them saying that they can rule on marriage later, and rule on standing in federal court for initiative proponents now.

    Sucks, but I think any analysis that ignores that aspect is likely seriously missing the boat. I think other considerations are certainly in the mix as well, but I don’t think this can be ignored.

  29. says

    hilarity!

    has anyone seen the documentary “The Revisionaries”, about the right-wing Creationists trying to screw over the nation’s youth by promoting non-science Jesus-ness in science textbooks?

    there’s a terrific exchange when Grand Poobah of Creationism is being thoroughly owned by, you know, scientific experts and he bleats “Someone needs to stand up to these experts!!”

    yes. sure thing, sugarpie. totally applies here.

  30. Joe the Cynic says

    It’s gotten BETTER folks. Pugno has just submitted a request to the Supremes whining that the 9th District’s lifting of its stay is depriving Him And His of “a Meaningful Opportunity to Exercise Their Right for a Petition of rehearing.” Problem is, the only thing preventing Pugno from requesting the rehearing on the matter of his standing to sue is Pugno’s failure to request such a rehearing. The guy still thinks that he’s an Official Petitioner and can represent the interests of the State of California.

    The truth is, he’s suffering from sudden power deprivation. Up until now, he and the people he represent have always been able to obtain a delay–yet again!!–for the marriages of same-gender couples. He’s conflated the stridency with which he insists that same-sex couples NOT be allowed to marry with the actual power to prevent their marriages.

    I’m afraid that more than a few of the kangaroos are missing from his upper paddock.

  31. Rexford says

    Wouldn’t “the right for reconsideration” only be for cases where SCOTUS actually makes a ruling? Here they punted back to the district court.

  32. Joe the Cynic says

    I thought so too–but I checked with a couple of legal beagles I know, and the consensus seems to be that, as the petitioners, they get to request–just once!–a re-hearing on the issue of standing only–although the ruling itself is that petitioners have no standing.

    But they are apparently not entitled to request anything else, and so, of course, that is exactly what they appear to be doing.

    Anyone see those lost kangaroos wanderin’ about?

  33. says

    A couple who has made it four decades is not separating because of personality differences – unless they’ve been leading parallel lives where they are sheltered from each other rather than sheltered by each other.

Leave A Reply