Appeals court ruling temporarily blocks same-sex marriages in California -

Appeals court ruling temporarily blocks same-sex marriages in California

Supporters, opponents of Proposition 8 prepared to make arguments in court


An appeals court ruling temporarily blocking same-sex marriages from resuming in California evoked strong responses from opponents and supporters of the state’s controversial 2008 referendum on the issue. On Monday, the appeals court set a fast schedule to hear the merits of the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Oral arguments will now be held the week of December 6, meaning a decision on whether same-sex couples can legally wed likely won’t come until sometime next year. Opponents of Proposition 8 expressed their disappointment at the ruling, but vowed to continue their fight. Opponents could ask the Supreme Court to intervene on the narrow question of whether to allow the stay to be lifted, but both sides of the debate agree the odds of the justices getting involved at this stage are very slim. Advocates for both sides of the issue say they’re prepared to make their arguments in court when the time comes.


Filed under:

Appeals court ruling temporarily blocks same-sex marriages in California

  1. To bad it was put on hold because no one should care who someone marries. Consenting adults should have the right to marry who they love. It is couple's business only, and we should let all couples get married in California that want too. I voted against prop 8 back in 2008 because I think that everyone should have equal rights under the law.

    • (1) When a couple chooses to love each other, that is their business only. But when they choose to have their relationship formally recognized by the state, it becomes everyone's business.
      (2) I agree with you that everyone should have equal rights under the law, and I must point out that everyone does have equal rights under the law – everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex provided they are not directly related to them and are not already married to someone else.

      I am glad to see the stay in place, at the very least as a nod to the will of the people as lawfully expressed in Prop 8. If Prop 8 is unconstitutional (and I find this extremely doubtful) then that needs to be addressed in court, not by a single judge making a ruling that the people of California can't appeal.

      • It's a tad disingenuous to say gays are equal to straights under the law in that they can marry members of the opposite sex. This is about entering into a legal consenting marriage with whom someone you'd actually want to. And depending on how long this takes to end up at the SCOTUS and the then-composition of the bench, it has a very good chance of being found unconstitutional.

  2. Legal marriage should be abolished, as a contract it has been completely undermined by the Courts anyhow, so the State has a pretty low legal opinion of marriage in the first place.

    Marriage was the domain of religion for centuries before the government got involved.

    Government has no business regulating our most personal of social relationships.

    • The state has a fairly long track record of managing marriages. My understanding is that the Roman state recognized marriage pretty much all the way back to the creation of Rome.

      Although, I agree, so long as marriage isn't used to determine legal issues, I don't see a reason for the government to be involved.