(Crossposted on “Alas” and on “TADA.” Arguments against SSM should be taken to “TADA,” please.)
Judge Walker has refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8. Unless a higher court intervenes, same-sex couples in California will again have the right to marry beginning on August 18th. (pdf link)
I don’t know how likely a higher court is to intervene. But hopefully, this will create another window of opportunity for marriage equality — and yet another real-world demonstration that, contrary to the claims of SSM opponents, the sky will not fall. No matter what, this is good news for whichever happy couples choose to get married.
Walker’s ruling argued that the opponents of proposition 8 are unlikely to win on appeal, because they might not even have standing to appeal. In order to have standing to appeal a decision like this, you need to either (1) be the designated representative of the State of California, or (2) demonstrate that not issuing a stay will cause the person filing the appeal “a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent.”
So once again, it comes down to straight people trying to explain to a court how gay couples marrying causes them harm. And once again, no dice.
The two funniest part of Walker’s ruling:
In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates.” 33 Cal 4th 1055, 1080 (2004). Still less, it would appear, do private citizens possess authority regarding the issuance of marriage licenses or registration of marriages.
An anti-gay legal ruling used as precedent to deny a stay of gay marriage… that’s sweet. As Kip tweeted, “Oh you know that rhetorical knife? Let me twist it for you.”
And this made me giggle (bold by me):
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. …proponents do not identify a harm to them that would result from denial of their motion to stay.