The Associated Press reports that attorneys for the sponsors of California's same sex marriage ban are calling on a federal appeals court to continue blocking same sex unions while it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8. In court papers filed Monday, the lawyers said that the rationale for keeping the voter-approved ban in effect are the same now as they were last summer, when the Ninth United States Circuit Court of Appeals put a trial judge's order overturning Proposition 8 on hold. They say the Obama Administration's recent announcement that it intended not to defend the federal law prohibiting the government from recognizing same sex marriages has no bearing on the state ban. Lawyers for two gay couples are asking the Ninth Circuit to let same sex marriages to resume in California by lifting its stay on the lower court's order.
Meanwhile, an editorial in Monday’s New York Times argues that in the seven months since United States District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional the “2008 initiative continues to inflict serious harm on same-sex couples and their families thanks to a court order that prevents gay men and lesbians from marrying in California while the case is being appealed. That stay should be lifted now.” The editorial concludes “The stay should never have been granted in the first place. Applying traditional legal criteria, the extraordinary relief of a stay is only warranted when the applicant makes a strong showing of likely success on the merits and of irreparable injury in the absence of a stay — two arguments that cannot be satisfied here. As the trial judge’s ruling affirmed, the denial of marriage equality furthers no legitimate governmental aim. And defenders of Proposition 8 can point to no real injury they would suffer if gay men and lesbians are permitted to wed. Every day same-sex couples are denied their right to marry is another day of injustice for them and their families. Couples who wish to wed knowing that the appellate court could decide to uphold Proposition 8’s ban should be allowed to take that chance.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment