Now more No More Mr. Nice Gay. Sigh.

No, a stay pending appeal is pretty typical. But I'd like to know on what grounds it was granted, other than tradition. It seems to me the prudent thing to do, but it also seems to fly in the face of all the requirements for a stay.

I want nothing more from the courts than for the law to be followed.



Pfft, I also hope the Prop 8 Proponents are granted standing, so the case can actually be appealed. But I don't want the law flouted in order to get there. If they don't have standing, then that should unfortunately be the end of it.

If Judge Walker's ruling is eventually overturned, what would the status then be of any marriages from the period in between (if a stay had not been granted).

After Prop 8, I thought it pretty clear that the marriages that already existed should continue as there was no dispute that they were entirely legal during that too short window.

But for marriages allowed because a judge erroneously (technically) ruled in their favor it seems to me the case is much stronger that those marriages should be voided. That seems an acceptable justification, to me, to grant a stay.

I'm no expert, of course, so if this stay does fly in the face of established procedure or law I'd live pointers to more information. None of my usual law blog sources have expressed any real surprise at the stay or thought it technically inappropriate.

Any such marriages would be valid. It was already ruled in the Strauss case (the one involving the 18,000 pre-prop 8 marriages) that marriage rights vest upon a lawful marriage. In other words, if your marriage is legal when it happens, it remains legal no matter what.

Judge Walker's order is merely stayed. It is not invalidated. Even if it is later overturned on appeal, it is the law of the land today. If there were no stay on his injunction of Prop 8 and gay couples married by the trillions, all trillion marriages would be valid in perpetuity because they were legal at the time of marriage.


As for pointers in the right direction, the four factors a court looks to in deciding whether a stay is appropriate are: (1) whether (in this case) the Prop 8 proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) whether the stay is in the public interest.

Clearly, even to the common observer, the first 3 factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit granted it based on the 4th factor, since that seems rather amorphous and can mean practically anything. But the Court of Appeal did not state any reason for granting their stay in their very brief order.

In any event, the first two factors "are the most critical," according to the Supreme Court in Nken v. Holder (2009). So I still think the stay was granted simply as a matter of tradition and prudent practice on a politically charged issue, and not in accordance with the legal factors for granting a stay.

Gay/Equality Protest Signs (humorous)

We've seen some of these before, but I thoroughly enjoyed the video.

Nanny Queen.com by Varla Jean Merman

OK now that was fvcking hilarious. :D :D

"I brought my own bottle!" :D

Heh, she's pretty talented!

OK I am now officially obsessed with Varla Jean Merman (thanks to Szczerbiak's post above). Here's a promo video for her... what a performer!!!

She has a youtube channel...... check out her mashup of The Magic Flute and Lady Gaga. She has seriously restored my faith in drag.