Gay marriage on hold indefinitely | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Gay marriage on hold indefinitely
August 17, 2010
2:23 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10239
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal
By Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer
Posted: 08/16/2010 04:12:12 PM PDT
Updated: 08/16/2010 04:14:47 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling that the ban, known as Proposition 8, violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in a case that many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

The plaintiffs could now appeal the 9th Circuit decision to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handles emergency motions for the high court.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

August 17, 2010
4:25 am
Avatar
frrostedman
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3815
Member Since:
September 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

😎

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein

August 17, 2010
4:26 pm
Avatar
chiselray
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1552
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

i got noting to say on this topic..THATS NICE

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
60 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10239

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24149

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8737

Posts: 123508

Newest Members:

taylor wayne, ieltlucky, elie50021, Daveburton, Trent, neil zhang, Lynn, Joe1821, Jenny C, Cassandra

Administrators: John Greenewald: 585, blackvault: 1776