Comments on: Appeals court stays Prop 8 ruling

By: Chainey Canady

Chainey Canady — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:35:46 +0000

amen

By: Robert McJunkin

Robert McJunkin — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:38:54 +0000

Every time there is a mention of gay marriage or gay rights, some so-called “Christian” preacher is quoted as saying that anything gay is against the word of God. This is not true and it bothers me that no one ever calls out these people for lying. If homosexuality were evil, don’t you think Jesus would have said so? Jesus never said a word about it! He did say that you should love God and you should love your neighbor, and that this summed up the whole teachings of the “law and the prophets”.

By: Sam B.

Sam B. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:08:40 +0000

The stay is no surprise and it likely has no overall predictive value in guessing the final outcome. In many cases where a decision would change existing law, and where an appeal is expected, courts have issued stays in order to avoid unnecessary flip-flops in laws. Otherwise the same law could go in and out of effect several times in the course of trial and appeals. This stay is customary, procedural, and little more.

By: John

John — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:33:25 +0000

I applaud the efforts, in the end it will all work out. I question the people who wants to get married right as soon as its allowed again though, I just hope they are getting married for the right reasons and not just to do it to say that they did it. We planed our wedding for a few years before getting married, we didn’t look at each other and go , hey lets run down and get married just for kicks.

By: Pestalence

Pestalence — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:00:51 +0000

From the statement

“However, while it rejected Walker’s decision to lift the stay, the appeals court panel appears to have given credence to Walker’s assertion in his Aug. 12 ruling that Prop 8 supporters may not have legal standing to appeal the case.”

give one pause.. because if “may not have legal standing” is ruled, then the case in Judge Walker’s court “may not have legal standing”. This is based on the Defendants of Prop 8 legal standing.

And if the Defendants “may not have legal standing” then the case is a mistrial from the start and back to square 1.

Then a new trial would begin with a change of Venue so that Judge Walker would not be able to preside the case.

The other way things could go is for the appeals court to hear the case and then isue a verdict and then shoot it up to the supreme court.

Either way, it is going to take quite a while.

By: ADF Alliance Alert » Appeals court stays Prop 8 ruling

ADF Alliance Alert » Appeals court stays Prop 8 ruling — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:47:23 +0000

[...] Washington Blade: ‘It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ said [Jim Campbell], litigation staff counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending . . . ADF and the rest of the legal team is confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’” [...]

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:02:14 +0000

It seems to me that their decision is “lipstick on a pig!” I don’t understand how anyone could consider it good new for marriage equality.

By: Something bad, something good, something old, something new | Dulles Triangles Blog

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:58:00 +0000

[...] they spoke, and in there message were both good and bad [...]