Wedding Bells To Ring Proposition 8 Stay LIFTED By Judge Vaughn Walker

[helderheid]

Source: Joe.My.God



The stay is LIFTED. California's same-sex couples may begin marrying immediately. Stand by for the ruling, wedding photos, videos and reactions!

HERE IT IS: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35799738/Final-Stay-Order

Read more: http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/

[derby378]

1. CELE-FREAKIN'-BRATE!!

http://rog.thoughtbludgeon.com/mp3/RoG_Hardcore_Produktionz-18_Minutes_of_HARDCORE.mp3

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

[xultar]

THAT SHIT FUCKIN HITS THE SPOT! WHAT A CUT! I SAVED THAT SHIT!!

[derby378]

7. Glad you like it!

Enjoy the rest! :hi:

[xultar]

12. Is that your band? Who are they is there more?

[derby378]

17. Sadly, it's not me...

The outfit is called ROG Hardcore Productions. More mellow tunes at the link...

http://rog.thoughtbludgeon.com/

:headbang:

[derby378]

2. Cute flag, BTW! (n/t)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. Bastards!! Don't they realize they're making a mockery out of my divorce!

:evilgrin:

[helderheid]

4. HAHA!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

18. Not to mention Mr Gingrich's 3. (I guess technically it's 2 but I don't see the 3rd one working

either).

[xchrom]

5. Awesome! Nt

[Tempest]

6. It was a no brainer Walker would lift the stay

His decision demolished any reason the pro-8 group and others could give for keeping the stay in place.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes! Let the wedding bells ring!

[pnwmom]

58. Except that the stay isn't really lifted until August 18 -- and the Court of Appeals

could decide against Walker's ruling before then.

This isn't over -- but we're close.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Glad that there is some GOOD news around here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Congrats to all that will be taking advantage of this.

[RKP5637]

13. It is, isn't it! We don't get much good news anymore. This is great to hear!!! n/t

[RKP5637]

10. Yea !!! Amazing, absolutely amazing !!! Civil rights at work rather than

oppressed, what a unique idea.

[itsrobert]

11. Why have the main news sources not reported it?

It's been over 10 minutes.

[RKP5637]

16. The MSM is waiting for approval by the oligarchy! n/t

[Liberalynn]

14. Amazing a Judge that still understands and respects the Constitution

instead of the conservative mob. Don't see too many of them around any more.

:dem: :patriot:

[xultar]

22. True dat. Respects the constitution and he is gay. EAT SHIT FUNDIES!

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

:thumbsup:

[helderheid]

19. http://www.ustream.tv/cbsnews

http://www.ustream.tv/cbsnews

[DeSwiss]

20. Ha-ha!!! YES!!! - K&R

Way to go Judge Walker!!!!

[helderheid]

21. Looks like they're announcing now here:

http://www.ustream.tv/cbsnews

[MissMillie]

23. anybody listening to the CNN live video

it's outside City Hall in SF.

I can hear people saying "what is this world coming to?" (um... equality)

and

"don't we live in a democracy anymore?" (um.... no, we live in a constitutional republic)

[liberation]

62. Technically, we're a Democratic Constitutional Republic

Wether the "democracy" part of our republic is representative or functional is a different matter though.

But a lot of people seem to be thinking that democracy and republic are somehow opposite, when in reality they refer to two different things:

Republic means the head of the state is not a hereditary position tied to things like nobility/monarchy. Democracy simply refers to the selection process of elected officials. So technically they refer to some slightly different aspects of a system of government.

There are democratic monarchies (mostly in Europe), and technically there could be a dictatorial republic (not that I can think of any example).


Regardless of my nitpicking, this is great news overall. There should never be qualifiers for the civil rights of any US citizen, period.

[Yavin4]

67. I Thought That We're an Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune

Where we take turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

[liberation]

72. No that is only in the People's Republic of California...

And the turns only last a couple hours, with a general recess around 4:20 pm each day, I believe.

Now if you excuse me, I am late for my daily drug test ;-)

[NewJeffCT]

84. You're fooling yourself - we're living in a dictatorship

A self-perpetuating autocracy where the working class...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

[jmowreader]

71. Actually, yes we do live in a democracy...

and in a democracy, the rights of the minority are protected as equally as those of the majority.

And it's about damn time.

[totodeinhere]

24. The stay will be lifted on August 18th in order to give Prop 8 proponents a chance to file an

emergency appeal with the 9th Circuit, which they have said they will so.

So keep the champagne on ice. We're not quite there yet. And if the 9th Circuit declines to extend the stay, Prop 8 proponents could try to go to the SCOTUS to try to get them to extend the stay.

[SnakeEyes]

48. I'm willing to bet SCOTUS extends the stay

Just my gut feeling on this court.

[totodeinhere]

53. I hope not. It depends on which justice would get it. If it's Scalia or Thomas, watch out.

It depends on who is the justice who is on call to take appeals like this, and that assignment is done on a rotating basis. Let's hope it's one of the liberals who gets it.

[seattleblue]

74. It is not done on a rotating basis.

Justice Kennedy handles emergency petitions for 9th circuit matters. Earlier this year Kennedy engaged the full court in handling issues on two cases involving same-sex marriage controversies. In one case, a 5 to 4 majority of the full court blocked a plan by Judge Walker to allow limited access to a broadcast of the trial involving a high-profile legal challenge of California’s anti-gay marriage initiative, Proposition 8. A few days later, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the appeal of anti-gay activists in Washington State who want to seal a public record which has the names of citizens who signed petitions to put a domestic partnership measure on the ballot last year.

Kennedy could have handled these matters himself but chose not to. On the other hand Chief Justice Roberts refused a request for a stay in March by opponents of a D.C. marriage equality law. He said that "local courts should handle local matters."

[SoapBox]

79. Ditto, Ditto, Ditto! The Hater/Activist Judges on the Supreme Court will step in...

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Thank God for the Judiciary

The only part of our government that still (mostly) works.

[totodeinhere]

26. I'm glad you put "mostly" in there because of course it was the judiciary that gave us GWB. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

31. SCOTUS has some staggeringly-awful folks. nt

[Kind of Blue]

27. I Love Judge Walker. KnR. eom

[totodeinhere]

30. Yes, he goes back to the day when there were actually a few "good" Republicans around. n/t

[Kind of Blue]

34. Yeah. Those were the days, my friend. n/t

[Born_A_Truman]

28. Wednesday will be WEDnesday!!

:party: :toast:

[Arkana]

29. You lose again, bigots!

This is fantastic news!

[shanti2]

32. I am so happy over this...

It is time for this to happen.

[Evasporque]

33. YYEEEAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!! OMG !

I am so happy for california!!! And all of us!

[supernova]

35. YES!!

Happy for CA residents. :-)

[Bragi]

36. A good day for human rights and equality!!! /nt

[totodeinhere]

37. Here is AP headline: Judge keeps gay marriages in California on hold

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2dg5kyy

A federal judge has ruled that gay marriages in California should remain on hold until at least Aug. 18.

Judge Vaughn Walker set the deadline Thursday to give gay marriage opponents time to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appeals court fails to act by 5 p.m. local time next Wednesday, then gay marriages can go forward.

When I saw that headline I almost crapped my pants. Talk about putting the worst possible spin on a story. But that's the AP for you.

[SeattleGirl]

38. Yeah, baby!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Ken Burch]

39. Justice, kindness and love win THIS round!

If George Takei has to re-do his wedding, do you think he'll invite Shatner THIS time?

[MissMillie]

40. Just out of curiosity...

Can anyone think of any legal basis for an appeal?

[customerserviceguy]

69. Yes

Judge Walker based his decision on the idea that the US Constitution prohibits discrimination against same-sex marriage, that heterosexual-only marriage is the enshrinement of religion by the state. That's a pretty big leap, considering that heterosexual marriage has been the undisputed norm for centuries, including the centuries that we've had the Constitution.

Clearly, homosexuality was something known to the Founding Fathers, and they didn't make any laws, rulings, or even writings about the possibility that gay and lesbian people were equal in rights to heterosexual people. At least you can find writings from 1787 that acknowledged that people of color (and maybe even women) had rights equivalent, if not equal, to white male property owners over 21.

The 1967 decision of Loving vs. Virginia that struck down bans on interracial marriage did so in a much different atmosphere than the current bans on same-gender marriage. The laws struck down at that time were century-old relics of the post-Civil War era, they only existed in a relative handful of places, and saw spotty enforcement in the jurisdictions where they were still on the books. Loving vs. Virginia happened as the country had just passed sweeping civil rights laws in Congress, formal segregation in schools was ending, and the United States was beginning to finally shake off the legacy of slavery.

Contrast that with a nation that only recently has extended basic civil rights to gay people in a limited number of places, mostly the bluest of the blue states. Thirty states have stains on their Constitutions prohibiting equal marriage, all of them adopted within the last 15 or so years, and essentially all of them approved by a majority of the people of those thirty states. We haven't succeeded in repealing even one of those expressions of hate at either the ballot box or by a legislature/governor recognizing that things have changed.

I actually think Judge Walker's legal reasoning is on much shakier ground than the Massachusetts case headed for the Supreme Court, which seeks to overturn DOMA on the basis of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause. Once we achieved equal marriage in one or more states, that clause requires the other states to accord validity to the progressive states' lawful acts.

In the meantime, it will be a roller coaster of victories and setbacks.

[msanthrope]

78. Can you source any of your assertions, from the ruling itself?

I'm interested in your point of view--especially the first, and second paragraphs.

In the first paragraph, you seem to indicate that Judge Walker found a 1st amendment violation. Where did he do that?

In the second, you seem to be making an Originalist argument. It's pretty interesting, wondering where you sourced that from.


Cheers.

[customerserviceguy]

94. I'll admit, you caused me to read the ruling

rather than media reports of it. Clearly, Judge Walker based his arguments on the 14th Amendment, and not the 1st. But that will have no influence on Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. We'll see what Justice Kennedy has to say, but I'm not hopeful.

As to my second paragraph, if you can produce anything positive that was said about gay and/or lesbian people from the late 18th Century from the Founding Fathers, I'd be interested to read it. We can have arguments about whether or not TV or radio are analogous to the newspapers and broadsides of 1787, but we cannot argue that homosexuality was unknown in that time. As far as I know, it was completely condemned by anyone in a position of authority in that era, and the argument can be made that gay men and lesbians were not encompassed in the protections of the Constitution. Clearly, people of color and women had to be brought under the scope of the rights of that document by the amendment process, it's tough to argue that those who were on the "outs" in society were merely overlooked, when their existence was fully known.

We'll get to marriage equality, but it's going to be by the Massachusetts case, and not by the California case.

[msanthrope]

95. You made me happy!!

The more people who read it, the better.

Yes. No 1st, just 14th. Kennedy has a secret love for the 14th. He just needs to be reminded of it from time to time.

As for your second paragraph, I was interested in why you chose that particular line of thought--the Originalist view tends to come from Scalia/Roberts/Alito.

It contrasts with the view that the Founders, in their wisdon, knew they could NOT anticipate what the concept "well-ordered liberty" would demand. Thus, they made an expansive document. A living constitution.

Undeniably, travel existed at the time of the Founders. But they chose not to say anything about it. Does anyone deny there is a constitutional right to travel? No.

What about interracial marriage? Founders say nothing. Yet, does anyone deny it is a fundamental right? Does anyone deny the Founders knew about interracial relationships? Does anyone deny they were generally disapproved of, but happened anyway? (Jefferson!)

What I'm suggesting to you is that because things were 'known' and 'left out' doesn't mean the Founders didn't contemplate them later becoming issues--the very fact they created SUCH an expansive document, and such a judiciary under Article Three argues that the Founders were not Originalists...they were not so shortsighted. They created a living document.

Further, Scalia and his ilk don't hearken back to the actual Constitution. They appeal to tradition and tribalism. An article that neatly exposes originalist jurisprudence for the hypocrisy and shallowness that it is--

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/originalist-sin?page=0,2

[customerserviceguy]

103. Yes, while it's lengthy

it needs to be read. It's actually a pretty powerful tool to convince people who are on the fence on the issue, those who don't mind gay and lesbian people living together and having rights, but are still squeamish about that word 'marriage'.

It's not going to mean a thing to those whose minds are closed. My first response to the poster above was trying to answer his Constitutional questions, as to what sort of argument would be used against it. It will come down to the Originalist argument in Scalia and the others' opinion. Only Anthony Kennedy will determine whether that's a majority or minority opinion.

Those who argued Prop H8 in front of this judge did so in a very ham-handed way. The SCOTUS arguments are not going to be given by those quite as simple minded. The full faith and credit argument will be much, much harder to refute.

[DesertFlower]

41. great news. nt

[rocktivity]

42. CUE THE VONAGE THEME

:woohoo:

and the rice throwers, too!
:pals:

Congrats to us all!


rocktivity

[ThatsMyBarack]

43. My new Desktop pic!

:loveya:

[me b zola]

44. Excellent!

:toast:

[secondwind]

45. Congrats to all my GLBTQ brothers and sisters....IT'S ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!

[JTFrog]

46. Excellent. K&R! n/t

[jobycom]

47. Oh Hell no. This is just wrong.

You know how many happy couple wedding pictures I'm going to see now? I can't handle that much happiness. Might make me smile or something.

JUDGE WALKER THIS IS AN OUTRAGE TO ALL US GRUMPY PEOPLE!!!

Happy as hell for the decision, though. About damn time. About God Damn time.

:)

[colsohlibgal]

49. Yahoo!

In the end it's all about equality for all and it's about time. Again, people like Ted Olson have come to the light on this issue, the tide has turned in this fight.

[sakabatou]

50. Huzzuh!

[Mad_Dem_X]

51. Way to go, Cali!

:party: :yourock: :applause:

[racaulk]

52. K&R!!!

Fantastic news! Congratulations to California and to all of the soon-to-be married couples!

:loveya:

[Tx4obama]

54. NO one can marry unti AUGUST 18th. The temorarpy stay is still in place until August 18th n/t

[pgodbold]

55. The ruling clearly states that the stay is in effect until Aug 18 at 5 pm. Sucks I know.

[myrna minx]

56. This is a wonderful day.

:grouphug:

[thereismore]

57. Can the hatereich get an injunction by the 18th? nt

[anigbrowl]

64. theoretically, but in practise I doubt it

I am not a lawyer, but as someone studying towards becoming one the filings from the prop 8 camp are less than impressive. At a guess, they believe that marriage is so 'obviously' between a man and a woman, in the same way that trees grow in a forest, that they simply don't understand their legal requirement to demonstrate that restricting benefits California more than it hurts the rights of homosexuals. They consider the 'wrongness' of gay marriage so self-evident that they're unable to formulate any kind of objective argument. They just can't imagine the possibility of anyone seriously thinking otherwise, and so they just keep repeating their beliefs rather than making much of an argument.

PS studying this would be a good lesson for people on DU, since many people's political advocacy is based on the assumption that everyone shares the same underlying morality or beliefs. They don't.

[ccharles000]

59. yay

[tsuki]

60. Yahoo!! nt

[defendandprotect]

61. Let the pursuit of Happiness roll on -- !!! Good for Judge Walker!!

[AldebTX]

63. Woo Hoo

:-)

[Dragonfli]

65. K&R

[Eyerish]

66. K&R

WONDERFUL NEWS!!! :bounce:

[krabigirl]

68. Wonderful news!

[4lbs]

70. Great news. It's not even sure legally that the proponents of Prop 8 have legal standing to appeal

to the federal circuit court of appeals.

The main entities that would have legal standing would be the CA Governor and Attorney General.

Well, both Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General (and next CA Governor) Jerry Brown both said that Prop 8 should be overturned, so they aren't going to appeal Judge Walker's ruling.

The Mormon Church in Utah, the main pushers of Prop 8, don't, because they don't reside in CA.

It would have to be a group of people that live in CA that file the appeal.

[Jack Rabbit]

73. K/R

And congratulations and best wishes to the first in line.

[ColesCountyDem]

75. " That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT...."

No one can marry YET.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_trial

edit: Link added.

[Soylent Brice]

76. K&R

:woohoo:

[barbtries]

77. great news!

[JohnnyLib2]

80. Great news!

K & R

[Number23]

81. Rec'ing not only because of the content but because that may be the cutest flag I have ever seen

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. Excellent news, let the bells ring!

[Tx4obama]

83. Do NOT celebrate yet. The 9th Circuit can still order a 'stay' before August 18th.

It's not a done deal yet...
So, everyone needs to wait to see what happens during the next week!

[craigmatic]

85. I hate to be a party pooper but let's just wait and see which conservative asshole will contest it

in a higher court.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

86. Joy to all my GLBT friends.

And hope that all your dreams come true. :loveya:

[Devil_Fish]

87. The Stay is offically lifted as of now!!!

Fuck Off H8ers. K&R

[Devil_Fish]

88. The Stay is offically lifted as of now!!!

Fuck Off H8ers. K&R

[Jefferson23]

89. Fantastic, Going to the Chapel or wherever, be happy, be married if you so wish!

Sing along with the Dixie Cups, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMfrLFirGWc

[Zenlitened]

90. K&R!

And fingers crossed for Aug. 18th!

[mzmolly]

91. Yeah!

:toast:

[Locrian]

92. yeah! Nice to have some good news for a change! n/t

[Initech]

93. Hey fundies: eat shit and die!!!!

[burrowowl]

96. YES!

[girl gone mad]

97. Awesome!

:toast:

[pinto]

98. Kick

:kick:

[sellitman]

99. There still is hope for mankind

For all those who this means the world for ......Congratulations!

I am very happy for you.

Slowly man progresses.

[madmax]

100. Fantabulous!!!!!!!!

Best Wishes and Congratulations to all my gay brothers and sisters.

FINALLY!!!

Let the Love grow.


:bounce: :hug: :party: Wedding Bells ringing.

[grendelsd]

101. Wedding on Thursday

Called this morning to schedule, just in case. Thursday at 2:30, my bf and I will be married. I need your advise. Are we rushing into it? We have only been dating for 18 years. I mean, is it too soon?

[madmax]

102. Go for it

18 years!!

I knew my husband 3 months when I told him I was too old to go steady and he was hanging around too much. The ultimatum was, 'shit or get off the pot'. We got married 3 months later. It's been 27 years - not a regret. But, you know that.

Good luck, long life and much love. :grouphug:

[mikeytherat]

104. Only 18 years? Whoa, there.

I mean, can you really know someone after only 18 years?

Congrats to you both!

mikey_the_rat

[Loudmxr]

105. I just have to throw this in from my local newspaper The Burbank Leader.

On the issue of standing. Because the right needs "standing" to block the freedom to marry.


"Ironically, the rules on standing have been toughened considerably over the last generation by conservative judges as a way to limit the types of cases that can be brought in federal court."

HAHAHAHA!

So they have toughened the rules to keep us liberals out and when they want in the rules won't let them. Boo Hoo!