The Gay Thread

[innerSpaceman]

NO? REALLY? SERIOUSLY? OMG!!!- Then burst out in tears.


That was my reaction moments ago when I learned that my new fearless hero, Judge Vaughn Walker, has refused to stay his decision in the Prop 8 case, and in-love gay couples - many of whom are lined up right now at City Hall in San Francisco and other locations, may be issued marriage licenses immediately!!!!!!



I can hardly believe it, and I'm crying again as I type this. Fvck, wha's going on?? - I can't control my emotions.



(oh yeah, when have I ever been able to?)

[Chernabog]

Wow... BJ and I are on a train right now traveling from Montreal to Toronto, watching the live feed. Crazy!!!! Since CA has to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, (per something that Schwartzenegger actually DID sign) maybe we should elope? LOL my parents, brother and sister in law are all here so.... Nawwww...... BJ is reading over my shoulder and he is not amused

[innerSpaceman]

Not amused? He's lucky to have you ... and you him. You can legally get married in Canada, and it would be recognized when you return to California. Your family is with you. Do it!


Besides, you live in California. You can get divorced at the drop of a hat.



I like BJ a lot, but what's wrong with him???

[Chernabog]

I'm looking at the ruling however, and it seems as though Judge Walker is deferring to the 9th circuit court of appeals?? So there IS still a stay.... (despite the Motion being denied... Judge Walker seeing no reason to have a stay).

OK so basically, he's allowing until August 18th at 5:00pm PST for the 9th Circuit court of appeals to do anything, and if they havent issued a stay by then, then Prop 8 is lifted.

I'm pretty sure the 9th circuit will stay the thing, but who knows???

[innerSpaceman]

That's ok, I was pretty sure Judge Vaughn would keep the stay - knowing that the Ninth Circuit would uphold it anyway.

So who knows indeed?

[Alex]

I haven't read the decision yet but apparently Walker also said in today's thing that the Prop 8 people won't have standing to appeal. Of course, higher courts could disagree.

[innerSpaceman]

He cites numerous case law to support that position. Seeing that he's the Chief Justice of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he knows what he's talking about.

According to Walker, the defendant-intervenors would have to show that THEY, and not the State of California, and not the gay and lesbian citizens of California, would suffer serious harm in order to gain the standing to appeal, which they DO NOT have, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, simply by being the proponents of a ballot initiative proposition that was ruled unconstitutional.

The intervenors were granted opportunity at trial to demonstrate or even state any harm they would suffer if Prop 8 were enjoined, and they failed to do so.


In their motion for a stay, they allude to harm suffered by the State of California, and - amazingly (with chutzpah!) to gays and lesbians whose marriages might be "clouded" by uncertainty if they are married before appeals are decided.


But Governor Terminator and Attorney General Moonbeam represent the State of California; the intervenors do not. Both state officials have supported a lift of the stay (and apparently will not appeal the decision, though they may very well be the only ones with standing to do so.)

As for the intervenors' other, rather specious claim of harm, Judge Walker says it best in today's Order:

Originally Posted by Judge Vaughn Walker

Proponents also point to harm resulting from a "cloud of uncertainty" surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.

Oooh, snap!

He goes on ...

Originally Posted by Judge Vauhn Walker

Both plaintiffs and the state defendants have disavowed the harms implied by proponents. Plaintiffs assert that "gay men and lesbians are more than capable of determining whether they, as individuals who now enjoy the freedom to marry, wish to do so immediately or wait until all appeals have run their course."

Proponents do not explain the basis for their belief that marriages performed absent a stay would suffer from a "cloud of uncertainty." The court has the authority to enjoin defendants from enforcing Proposition 8. It appears, then, that marriages performed pursuant to a valid injunction would be lawful, much like the 18,000 marriages performed before the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008.

And that's just a touch of the total smack-down Vaughn plants on the H8ers.

Read the entire order here. It's a hoot. And it's justice on a plate!

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

BJ is reading over my shoulder and he is not amused

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I like BJ a lot, but what's wrong with him???

Seriously: you shaved the really cute beard that everybody BUT BJ liked. What more does he want?!?

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I like BJ a lot...

Hee hee.

[innerSpaceman]

me gay, me like BJ whole lots.