Ninth Circuit Court Halts CA Same-Sex "Marriage"

Stay Granted Pending Appeal of Prop 8 Decision

SAN FRANCISCO, August 16, 2010  -- This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Prop 8 proponents to stay U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s order that same-sex "marriage" could begin on August 18. The Appeals Court is thereby upholding the vote  of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is  heard on appeal.

This is a real victory for the people of California. On August 4, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a radical decision overturning Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman in the California Constitution. In doing so, he found that Californians were irrational in their decision to pass Proposition 8,  and attributed it to discrimination against gays and lesbians. He found no societal value in marriage as it has been recognized since the beginning of time. See details.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled the oral arguments in the case the week of December 6, 2010 in San Francisco.

The General Council for Yes on Prop 8, Andy Pugno said, “California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself.”

On August 12, Walker denied a stay of his order to let same-sex "marriages" begin, and at the same time claimed that Prop 8 proponents had no standing for further appeal. He had granted standing to ProtectMarriage.com, the campaign coalition of which Catholics for the Common Good is a member, because Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Gerald Brown refuse to fulfill their oath of office to support and defend the constitution of California. There is strong precedent for the sponsoring organization of an initiative that voters pass to represent the voters when state officials will not. Walker claimed that since there is no value in "traditional" marriage and no societal harm from same-sex "marriage", that the voters are not harmed and need no representation.

In his decission, Walker offered a new definition of marriage as a committed relationship for the private interests of adults. In reality, marriage unites a man and a woman to each other and any children that come from the relationship. Ironically, these two definitions have nothing to do with gays and lesbians. The debate must focus on what is the public interest of each definitions. Not only is there a compelling public interest for the second, often referred to as "traditional" marriage, it also coincides with the interest that every child without exception has in the marriage of his or her mother or father.