The weekend paper had stories about how a federal judge reversed a stay on Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision over-ruling of the will of the people of California on the issue of same-sex marriage. Now comes news that the extremely liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motions panel has re-instated the order to stay the decision, effectively ending same-sex marriage until the court can render its decision in a full appeal. (The two-page 9th Circuit order can be read here.) Without the stay, California would have resumed issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning this Wednesday. Stopping this is only just: the state of California should not be allowed to permit same-sex marriages to continue if there is a good chance that the Walker’s decision is going to be over-ruled. Ed Whelan discusses this development at Bench Memos. LifeSiteNews.com explains why it might be difficult for the pro-marriage lawyers to mount a vigorous defense of traditional marriage:
The 9th Circuit Court’s order expedites review of Proposition 8, and sets the hearing for appeal during the week of December 6 in San Francisco. However, the judges also ordered attorneys for both sides to submit briefs on a tight schedule: opening brief is due September 17, answering brief is due October 18, while the reply brief is due November 1.
The Court also intends to resolve the question of whether pro-family attorneys representing ProtectMarriage actually have standing to represent the amendment before the federal appeals court.
Over at ScotusBlog, Lyle Denniston discusses some of the procedural issues going forward, noting that the question of who has standing to appeal — neither of the two politicians named as defendants, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, were willing to defend the California law and applauded Judge Walker’s decision.
You can read our coverage of Judge Walker’s decision here. Robert F. Nagel, Rothgerber professor of constitutional law at the University of Colorado Law School, critiques Judge Walker’s decision in the current Weekly Standard.
