Town Square

Post a New Topic

Federal judge lifts stay on same-sex marriage

Original post made on Aug 12, 2010

A federal judge in San Francisco today declined to block gay and lesbian weddings as a court battle over California's ban on same-sex marriage moves forward, but put the marriages on hold by extending a temporary stay until Aug. 18.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, August 12, 2010, 1:19 PM

Comments (26)

Posted by jobs jobs jobs, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 12, 2010 at 2:12 pm

This should give a big boost to wedding businesses around town. Chapels. Catering. Banquet halls. Dress shops. Tux rentals.


Posted by Ken, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 12, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Allowing a homosexual judge to rule on gay marriage is like allowing Brigham Young to rule on polygamous marriage. It is time for this issue to go to the Supreme Court for a final decision. The 9th Circuit should expedite a quick pass-through to the Supremes.


Posted by jobs jobs jobs, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm

How do you know the judge is homosexual? Have you dated him?

And why does that matter anyway? Should white judges be allowed to rule on racial profiling cases (like Arizona)?

Remember that this particular judge was appointed by George Bush.


Posted by think about it, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 12, 2010 at 3:48 pm

and double the business for divorce lawyers

Can't you see them rubbing their hands in glee?


Posted by Ken, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 12, 2010 at 4:38 pm

jobs,

"The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay." ( Web Link )

He is gay, even if you want to argue the point. I don't need to date him.

Again, would you have a problem with Brigham Young ruling on polygamy?

Racial profiling is not an issue in Arizona, but illegal immigration is. You seem to be saying that any judge who wants to enforce the existing law should be banned from doing so.

A simple way to solve this issue in California, even the entire country, is to pass a constituional ammemdant that says:

"Consenting adults may marry".

Gays will oppose this ammendment. Why?


Posted by Living as Partners, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm

Well, I'm glad some people are getting married after you've been through just one divorce you'll never get married again. Marriage is overrated!!! There will be a lot of work for divorce attorneys and there are plenty of them in the mid-peninsula!!

I'm glad there is same sex marriage now because someone has to keep the marriage business going. Most of my heterosexual friends live as partners like both me with my partner and my son with his.

jobs jobs jobs says: "How do you know the judge is homosexual? And why does that matter anyway?" Because Judge Walker has been openly gay for years and it's been widely reported in the press.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 12, 2010 at 7:32 pm


Walker has made such an embarrassing, incompetent mess of this case that the SCOTUS is going to remand the case back to California Federal Court with instructions to the State of California that it must mount a defense - most probably with outside counsel.
Estimated time before the SCOTUS actually rules on the merits of this case:
five to six years --- at least.

By which time a new administration will have made 2 or 3 appointments to the SCOTUS.


Posted by Ken, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 12, 2010 at 7:39 pm

What is wrong with:

"Consenting adults may marry"?


Posted by Irony, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Aug 13, 2010 at 5:16 am

We have one judge deciding not only what is and is not constitutional, throwing in social opinion with no judicial back up in the decision, but also deciding how the judicial process should run while the game is being played out.

Lovely.

Little tyrant run amok. Racism and homophobicism continues to rise as these tyrant-wannabes try to run us over.

Try living as an out gay in, say, Argentina, where it is "legal" now to marry. A great example of what is wrong with our process here. Change hearts and minds, don't force people back into the corner with their backs against the wall.




Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 13, 2010 at 6:00 am

Love some of the comments here--never underestimate the cluelessness and disregard of civil rights by some:

"Allowing a homosexual judge to rule on gay marriage is like allowing Brigham Young to rule on polygamous marriage. It is time for this issue to go to the Supreme Court for a final decision. The 9th Circuit should expedite a quick pass-through to the Supremes. "
How can the Supreme Court rule on this case if they are mainly heterosexual--they will exhibit the same "bias without proof" that Ken claims Walker exhibited, if they overturn his decision.

"Posted by Irony, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, 35 minutes ago

"We have one judge deciding not only what is and is not constitutional, throwing in social opinion with no judicial back up in the decision, but also deciding how the judicial process should run while the game is being played out.
Little tyrant run amok. Racism and homophobicism continues to rise as these tyrant-wannabes try to run us over."

Irony/Perspective doe snot understand how our judicial system works--that is too bad. But he is quick to label the judge as a "tyrant". I guess some people only respect the system when they get what they want---sounds like a spoiled child to me.
Always nice to inject the issue that because we gave someone equal rights the hatred against them will rise---maybe with Irony, but most people are fair and sane.

"Try living as an out gay in, say, Argentina, where it is "legal" now to marry. A great example of what is wrong with our process here. Change hearts and minds, don't force people back into the corner with their backs against the wall."
Does Irony have personal information about this matter? Hearts and minds have slowly changed on this matter--in a few years it will be legal anyway. Many states, including Iowa allow gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal also not too long ago. Change takes time. Irony is against change due to his narrow viewpoint on equal rights that he enjoys but refuses to share with others.

Report Objectionable Content "

"Walker has made such an embarrassing, incompetent mess of this case that the SCOTUS is going to remand the case back to California Federal Court with instructions to the State of California that it must mount a defense - most probably with outside counsel."
Sharon continues to attack Walker's decision without having read it on this thread. Had she read his decision she would have seen that his ruling was fair given the "evidence" provided by the pro-Prop 8 crowd. Instead we have this knee-jerk anti-gay marriage response.




Posted by Enough!, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 13, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Personally I don't care either way about Gay Marriage. What I DO care about is the message this decision sends. Don't bother to vote, because the Government of the people BY the people (through voting) is a bogus message. As I've seen time after time in my life, one Judge can reverse the will of the majority. So, what's the point in voting? The Constitutionality is left to interpretation. Thanks Judge Walker for giving me back a few free hours every November!

Meanwhile, welcome to Family Court newly married gay couples...be ready to divest yourself of all your money, property and sanity for many years to come. Just like the rest of us....


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 13, 2010 at 7:06 pm

As the SCOTUS severely slapped down Walker twice---
1, He wanted to release all internal Pro 8 documents-- Denied
2, He wanted to have live public video broad cast of the trial, despite the fact that pro 8 witnesses had received credible death threats--Denied

SCOTUS knows Walkers history of judicial malpractice in this matter very well, that is why he wants to try to keep the case away from SCOTUS scrutiny by his statements yesterday-- he knows he is in very serious trouble indeed.

Obama, Biden, Clinton and Elton John are opposed to same sex marriage, they support domestic partnerships-- like they have in the UK--- pro 8 proponents support that solution--- as do 285 Million Americans----end of story-


Posted by Ken, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm

"How can the Supreme Court rule on this case if they are mainly heterosexual"

It is established law that marriage is between one man and one woman. Heterosexual judges would have no built in bias to overturn the law. Homosexual judges would have such a bias to overturn...just as Brigham Young would have a bias in favor of polyamy.

Once again, I ask what is wrong with:

"Consenting adults may marry"?






Posted by Constitutional Party (aka Tea Party), a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 14, 2010 at 9:13 am

Great letter in the SJ Mercury News this morning by Rick Romanko

"Judges have no legal power to override law
The recent court decisions in Arizona and California have left some wondering where a single district judge derives the authority to override state law. Actually, they have no such legal authority.
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution directs that the Supreme Court "shall have original Jurisdiction" in all cases in which a state is a party. But Congress skirts this unambiguous requirement by muddying the waters with talk of "original but not exclusive jurisdiction" (28 U.S. Code Section 1251).
And voilą! Instant amendment without the hassle.
But don't worry. Only tea partyers and other "extremists" believe the Constitution actually means what it says. And your elected officials in Washington no doubt thank you for your indifference."

Rick Romanko
Sunnyvale


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 14, 2010 at 1:21 pm

"As the SCOTUS severely slapped down Walker twice---
1, He wanted to release all internal Pro 8 documents-- Denied
2, He wanted to have live public video broad cast of the trial, despite the fact that pro 8 witnesses had received credible death threats--Denied"
In her totally out of place attempt to vilify Judge Walker because he dares to issue a ruling that goes against Sharon's attempt to justify the denial of civil rights to all, Sharon uses the term "slapped down"--we know what the connotations of this comment are. Let's look at this is a non-hysterical manner. Judge Walker issued a ruling, the ruling was appealed and a higher court issues a final ruling. I seriously doubt if any members use the term "slap down" to describe a person involved in a case--after all they are civil people.

"COTUS knows Walkers history of judicial malpractice in this matter very well, that is why he wants to try to keep the case away from SCOTUS scrutiny by his statements yesterday-- he knows he is in very serious trouble indeed."
I would like to know how Sharon has such knowledge of what the Supreme Court knows or does not know. In fact can the court even look into a matter that has not yet be put before them. Does Sharon have evidence of judicial misconduct by the high court? if so, these matters should be brought to the attention of the FBI.
Also, I wonder why she thinks Walker is "in trouble"? Is a judge "in trouble" when he rules against something that Sharon disagrees with? Woe to our judicial system if judges are considered to be in trouble for their rulings

"Obama, Biden, Clinton and Elton John are opposed to same sex marriage, they support domestic partnerships-- like they have in the UK--- pro 8 proponents support that solution--- as do 285 Million Americans----end of story-"
Once again Sharon throws in the red herring of what Obama, Biden and Clinton believe in. That is irrelevant,
And where does she come up with her numbers???? 285 million americans?? The population of the US is 307 million
Web Link
We know how the vote went in California for Prop 8 and we know that other states allow gay marriage, Is Sharon suggesting that he entire heterosexual population of the US opposes gay marriage.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 14, 2010 at 6:06 pm

Walker made many, many errors in the case, but his error in now questioning the Prop 8 proponents standing has stirred a hornets nest.
The question of standing should have been addressed at the beginning of the initial trial---by any competent judge.
Walker has now made the strongest case for invalidating the whole trial and all his biased rulings.
The Court will slap Walker down yet again and send the issue back to CA for a retrial under a fair, impartial judge while maintaining prop 8 until resolution--in November we will have a new Governor--different ball game--Brown has just lost 7 million votes--so he is toast.
Meanwhile Walker will be assigned to traffic court in Fresno-- if he is lucky.

We have a Democracy and a judicial system not based upon the Napoleon Code--poor Walker-- a legend in his own mind-- apparently.


Posted by Observer, a resident of South of Midtown
on Aug 14, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Gay marriage should be the norm and it will be. I'm very happy for the many gay couples who will now be granted their civil rights as they always should have been. I very much regret that so many couples lived and died without being treated as full citizens as guaranteed them by our constitution. The spurious arguments will continue - all this about bigots being 'backed into a corner' and 'one man and one woman' is just embarrassing. The absurd claims that a judge can't make a ruling because of his sexual orientation - Brigham Young's religion was a choice he made, not the way he was born so that argument is just another sham cover for bigotry. Congratulations and best wishes to all the loving, hopeful folks who wish to marry. We all benefit when people choose love and commitment over judgment and meddling.


Posted by Ken, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 14, 2010 at 8:37 pm

Observer,

"Consenting adults may marry"

What is wrong with that, since you claim to not be a bigot?


Posted by It is obvious, a resident of Stanford
on Aug 15, 2010 at 7:35 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 15, 2010 at 10:13 am

RE
"Brigham Young's religion was a choice he made, not the way he was born"

If homosexuality were genetic then science would predict a 100% concordance rate among identical twins of the same sex.

The actual concordance rate is only 7% not 100%

That means that if one of the twins is homosexual the other twin is also homosexual in only 7% of cases.
Therefore homosexuality cannot be scientifically called a genetic condition--like skin color, eye color -- etc.

People born to Mormon parents are more likely to be Mormons--- that does not mean it is genetic.
Some leave the church, others convert to it.


The bigotry in this case is by gay activists against people of Faith-- Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims etc.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 15, 2010 at 11:47 am

Sharon continues to post factoids, innuendo, lies without an iota of proof to support her claims:

"Walker made many, many errors in the case, but his error in now questioning the Prop 8 proponents standing has stirred a hornets nest."
Really, where did this come from. Many lawyers have discussed the issue of standing of the litigant sin the case that are in favor of Prop 8. This is not an earth shattering issue. There was no hornets nest stirred--unless Sharon counts Rush Limbaughs's bleatings on this matter

"The question of standing should have been addressed at the beginning of the initial trial---by any competent judge."
Once again Sharon questions Judge Walker's competency. Had Walker questioned the standing at the beginning of the trial, Sharon would have cried foul then.

"Walker has now made the strongest case for invalidating the whole trial and all his biased rulings."
The strongest case according to whom? SOrry, Sharon there is no facts whatsoever in the above comments

"The Court will slap Walker down yet again and send the issue back to CA for a retrial under a fair, impartial judge while maintaining prop 8 until resolution--in November we will have a new Governor--different ball game--Brown has just lost 7 million votes--so he is toast."
Clearly Sharon has no knowledge how any other court will rule on this matter. The use of the term "slap down" is a deliberated insult, which no sitting judge in this country would use against any litigant. AT least, the judges are civil individuals--it is too bad that the people that do not agree with the way our justice system works reduce the discussion of the verdict to a matter of personal insults. I also seriously doubt that many of those who voted for Prop 8 will vote for Jerry Brown anyway, so I would like Sharon to explain how Brown has just lost an additional 7 million votes.

"Meanwhile Walker will be assigned to traffic court in Fresno-- if he is lucky."
Sharon once again displays her lack of knowledge of our justice system--a judge would not be re-assigned if his judgement should happen to be overturned. I believe his position, an appointment from Ronal Reagen, is a lifetime position.

"We have a Democracy and a judicial system not based upon the Napoleon Code--poor Walker-- a legend in his own mind-- apparently."
Yes, we do have a justice system and it is too bad that Sharon not only does not respect it, but does not understand it either, Her continued assault on Judge walker is ridiculous, especially given that she has yet to tell how having married gay couple would affect her personal and religious freedoms and her right to free speech. It is a simple question, Sharon.

"The bigotry in this case is by gay activists against people of Faith-- Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims etc. "
Would Sharon care to provide some proof for this conjecture. This claim has appeared over and over again in her posts. It is intended to inflame and to suggest that the anti-Prop 8 people are anti-religious. This is clearly not true and has not been backed up by any proof whatsoever.


Posted by It's Obvious, a resident of Stanford
on Aug 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Ever since the Prop 8 decision has been published there have been a couple of threads running on this forum regarding this matter. On an almost daily basis, a poster called "Sharon" has been using those threads to vilify and denigrate Judge Walker and to call into question his honesty and integrity. In addition "sharon" has also claimed that religious people are victims of bigotry perpetrated on them by "gay activists".
Sharon provides no proof to back up any of her claims.
While Sharon is exercising her free speech rights (even though the rules of the forum ask the people to be hoinest in their postings) and I understand her right to make such outlandish claims, I do find it disturbing that a previous post of mine, in which I provided a reason for Sharon's postings, was completely deleted.
I find it disturbing that the people running this forum allow a dialy stream of flasehoods to be directed against certain individuals, but completely remove a post questioning said poster's motives.


Posted by Observer, a resident of South of Midtown
on Aug 15, 2010 at 2:25 pm

"The bigotry in this case is by gay activists against people of Faith-- Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims etc. "

Sharon, People getting married has absolutely no impact on people of faith anywhere. You are not right.
Here is a definition of bigotry to help you. As you can see, the act of getting married does not figure into it. Denying members of 'a particular group' their rights, however, does.

noun

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice.


Posted by Ken, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 15, 2010 at 2:46 pm

Obvious,

So you agree that consenting adults may marry? Or are you just too bigoted to agree?


Posted by Observer, a resident of South of Midtown
on Aug 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Ken, Since you made the illogical comment above about Brigham Young, I'm reluctant to take you up on your other comment. No offense, I just get the sense that you're trying to set up another one of your strange tricks to sneak bigotry past the unsuspecting populace and I don't want to play. Again, we all have the right to equal protection under our constitution. All this other stuff is just mean spirited. I can't understand what makes anyone spend their life trying to ruin the happiness of people who have never done any harm to them.


Posted by Ken, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 16, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Observer,

You said, "People getting married has absolutely no impact on people of faith anywhere". You would need to talk to them about that.

You also say, "Ken, Since you made the illogical comment above about Brigham Young". There was absolutely nothing illogical about that comment.

I will await your response to:

"Consenting adults may marry."

What is your fear? If you are not a bigot, you should be in full support of this potential consitutional ammendment.




If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Gourmet hot dogs, sausage food truck coming to the Peninsula
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 2,944 views

Allowing Unauthorized Immigrants to Learn and Earn Legally Will Help the Economy
By Steve Levy | 33 comments | 2,384 views

College applications: round three
By Sally Torbey | 24 comments | 1,773 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 17 comments | 1,762 views

PAUSD Leadership Challenges
By Paul Losch | 17 comments | 1,293 views