In the wake of Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision last month in Perry v. Schwarzenegger striking down the California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, legal scholars and analysts continue to weigh in on the ruling. The decision has now been stayed by a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A briefing schedule has been set up, and the appeal, including arguments over issues of legal standing for Prop 8’s proponents, is scheduled for hearing this December. Meanwhile, authorities on various …
On Aug. 4, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker threw out Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. But don’t drop those invitations in the mail just yet. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has put that ruling on ice – at least until December, when the court will consider a request by Prop 8 proponents to dismiss Walker’s ruling. The court would do well, in the meantime, to read an op-ed by Edwin Meese III in The Washington Post. The former …
Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to lift the stay on his ruling striking down California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 is, fortunately, not the last word on whether same-sex couples in the Golden State will be able to obtain marriage licenses while this case is under appeal. The appropriate panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has until August 18 to act on the request by attorneys defending this state constitutional amendment for a stay pending the conclusion of the Prop 8 appeal. In the interest of clarity and certainty about the …
Both sides of the same-sex marriage debate reacted strongly to Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger to overturn Prop 8 in California. What has been most surprising is the developing consensus from prominent legal experts and analysts, including many who support the redefinition of marriage, who find Judge Walker’s opinion unpersuasive. Some argue that Walker failed to tie his legal rationale back to the Constitution’s text. Others were unimpressed with Judge Walker’s “findings of fact” that made sweeping generalizations and predictions about the social dimensions of his ruling. …
Today’s decision by a federal district judge in San Francisco striking down state constitutional protections for marriage and inventing a spurious federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage is an example of extreme judicial activism. Moreover, it is an affront to the millions of California voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008 after months of vigorous public debate. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The people of California, and the United States, have made clear in numerous ways that they have not consented to the redefinition …
Marriage is under intensified assault in two federal courtrooms. Last week a federal district judge in Massachusetts acted alone to overrule 427 members of Congress who voted in 1996 to adopt the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a measure signed into law by President Clinton. DOMA has two major provisions. First, it affirms that the definition of marriage and related words like spouse and husband in federal law refers only to relationships between one man and one woman. Second, the law sets forth the intent of Congress that none of …
This week in a federal district courtroom in San Francisco, the trial that could alter the future of the institution of marriage came to an end. The closing arguments featured prominent national attorneys seeking to answer 39 final questions framed by the presiding judge, Vaughn Walker. At issue is the contention of plaintiffs that Prop 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that was adopted in November 2008, violates the U.S. constitution. The National Organization for Marriage, whose California entity was one of the prime proponents of Prop 8, alongside the organization …
On Monday, The New York Times carried an op-ed by Heritage Foundation scholar and former US Attorney General Ed Meese titled “Stacking the Deck Against Proposition 8.” In that piece, Mr. Meese criticized a series of pre-trial rulings issued by Judge Vaughn R. Walker in the landmark same-sex marriage case currently underway in federal court in San Francisco. One of those rulings involved Judge Walker’s controversial decision to broadcast the trial to other courthouses and post video recordings of the Prop 8 trial on the Internet. On Wednesday, the US …
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 late yesterday that a federal judge in San Francisco had acted improperly in altering longstanding rules barring the televising of federal court proceedings. As a result, the federal trial of Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage adopted in November 2008 by California voters, will not be broadcast to the nation via YouTube, posting to the Internet, or any other medium. The ruling is a victory for proponents of the amendment, who argued that the presiding judge in the case, Vaughn …
The U.S. Supreme Court, with one justice writing in dissent, agreed today with attorneys who argued against the broadcasting and posting of the trial proceedings in Perry v. Schwarzenegger – the case challenging the constitutionality of California’s popularly approved Proposition 8 preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court granted a temporary stay prohibiting any streaming video broadcast outside the courthouse. Presiding Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled last week that the proceedings in the case could be filmed and posted on YouTube after each day’s …
