Aug 10
16

It’s Not Over Yet for Prop 8

4 Comments

by Jason Stotts

As was expected, the ruling on the Prop 8 case was stayed by the 9th Circuit, pending appeal.  From the ABA:

A federal appeals court today blocked a plan to allow same-sex marriages in California later this week, while the so-called Proposition 8 case ruling overturning a state referendum that banned same-sex weddings is challenged.

However, this may not be the final answer: The temporary ban on same-sex weddings imposed by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals might now be lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Associated Press reports.

And the case is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court for a final resolution regardless of what happens in the meantime.

A copy of today’s 9th Circuit order staying the district court’s ruling last week overturning Prop 8 is provided by Ben Smith’s blog at Politico.

The 9th Circuit, on its own, opted to expedite the appeal, vvacating a previously agreed briefing schedule and calendaring the case for argument in early December.

Let’s hope that this does make it to the Supreme Court so that certain sexual orientations no longer deny one full status as a US citizen.

Oh, and by the way, christians:

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. ~ Nietzsche

Your faith in your god and in your god’s hatred of gays has got to stop.

Automatically Generated Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

This entry was posted on August 16, 2010 at 5:28 PM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Atheism Politics Same-Sex Marriage by JasonStotts 4 Comments

4 Responses to "It’s Not Over Yet for Prop 8"

  • Elisheva Levin says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:59 PM

    When I heard about the stay on marriages, I was assuming the court was protecting couples from marriages that could be declared null should the court rule against them? But could marriages be declared null? Here is New Mexico, there was a brief period of a few days when the Sandoval County Clerk was issuing marriage licenses, because our state Constitution does not define marriage as heterosexual. One gay couple that was married with such a license is now seeking a divorce. One spouse is saying that since the New Mexico Supreme Court stopped the Sandoval County Clerk from issuing the licenses, the marriage is null and she shouldn’t have to pay alimony. But the courts sided with her spouse, who says the marriage was legal and the divorce must be gotten from the courts. So at least here, no marriage was declared null because the courts stopped the marriage licenses from being issued.

    The whole thing could be easily solved IMHO by getting rid of marriage licenses altogether. Should sovereign adults really be asking the government for permission to marry? The county clerks would only be enjoined to record the marriages that do take place. Then the commitment ceremonies done at the Reform Synagogue and the Metropolitan Community Church–among others–would be marriages plain and simple, and duly recorded as such. That would solve the whole religious argument, too, since gays could simply boycott the churches that won’t marry them and join the ones that do.

  • JasonStotts says:
    August 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM

    That’s interesting about NM, I wasn’t aware of the case.

    The stay is basically a legal “hold” to prevent the ruling from having any binding legal force until the matter is resolved at a higher level, in this case 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. All of the marriages that took place while it was legal in CA are still in full effect and the last ruling would have made same-sex marriage legal again.

    I’m not very sympathetic to the idea that the government has no role in marriage. In fact, it seems they have a necessary role in it. A marriage is a legal contract uniting two people in the eyes of the law. This gives them certain legal advantages and protections. A marriage without government would just be “dating.” I am also not sympathetic to the idea that government is not necessary, since marriage is in the eyes of the christian’s god. Since their god is just an imaginary friend, I don’t see how he plays an important role in the contract.

    While I certainly think that the form and terms of the marriage should be up to the individuals involved, I think it’s clear that governmental sanction is a necessary condition for marriage.

  • Scott says:
    August 16, 2010 at 8:20 PM

    The change in positions, from undergrad to present, is, at the very least, refreshing. If anything, it shows that if a person follows their base premises to their rational ends good things can follow. (This, of course, assumes that there is a right conclusion in this matter and that you have arrived at it…)

    Anyway, the blog remains interesting and appreciated.

    Scott

  • JasonStotts says:
    August 16, 2010 at 8:34 PM

    Scott,

    I assume you mean my change in position on homosexuality? It’s interesting you bring that up today, as M. and I were just talking about that very thing earlier. It has been quite the change in the position and it wasn’t accomplished without much thought on the subject, which I would have done if it weren’t for the book.

    Hope things are well with you.

    ~Jason

Leave a Comment

CAPTCHA Image
*