Gay MarriageProposition 8

California Proposition 8 Watch: Federal Appeals Court Grants Stay in Gay Marriage Case

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the stay, pending an expedited appeal of the Federal District Court Order that held Proposition 8 violated the United States Constitution.
Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.

The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

Here is the order:

An interesting aside is the matter of standing – whether California Proposition 8 supporters have the right to appeal the decision.

There are two interesting aspects to this issue.

1. There will be an election in November of this year and both the California Attorney General and Governor WILL change. Both California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown oppose the stay and support the overturn of California Proposition 8. They both do have standing and a change in office by either Meg Whitman as Governor and Steve Cooley as Attorney General could change the standing issue – as one or both of them may very well flip on the issue.

2. Should the court of appeal agree with the district court that Proposition 8 proponents do NOT have standing to appeal, then they might very well decide that Proposition 8 proponents might not have been allowed to intervene in the trial court – and, thus vacate the entire trial. Hence, the case would have to be tried again.

In the meantime, there will be no further gay marriages in California, as the issue is played out in the political process.

3 thoughts on “California Proposition 8 Watch: Federal Appeals Court Grants Stay in Gay Marriage Case

  1. That Proponents of Prop 8 have Standing!!!!

    First off, I am in no way aligned with the radical homosexual or religious agendas. I am writing about the valid reasons how this case can, and where it cannot cause harm to society. With that said: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had to grant an indefinite stay in the Prop 8 case because Judge Walker chose to ignore precedence and through judicial supremacy ruled same sex options to be more important than traditional ones, by ruling same sex relationships deserve the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriages. That last part of the statement sounds fair until one starts digging deeper into this ruling. It took 136 pages for Walker, with the help of a few hand picked intellectuals, to arrogantly portray the majority and their representatives in this country as too ignorant to have any part in defining marriage. I will explain why the word “marriage” is so important to the far-reaching homosexual agenda, and how redefining that word is the doorway into the most far-reaching aspects of the agenda, and most importantly how it would cause harm to/in society, and prove the proponents of prop 8 have standing! There is only one valid argument accepted by the heterosexual majority in this country, and that is to allow gays to get economic benefits from the government traditionally granted to married couples,…by the government. Now there are no other “acceptable” benefits afforded homosexuals by redefining traditional marriage, morality and societies moral foundation.

    Judge Walker and gay activists want to plant in my mind gay marriage is equal to things like the abolition of slavery, or women overcoming patriarchy! Well that just gives the gay side a false sense of credibility by exploiting those past struggles. Furthermore, I am insulted by the racist attitude of Judge Walker that claims I don’t know any better. Gay activists are showing there true colors to label my concerns as irrational! They claim anyone who opposes their view is a bigot or homophobe! They think that helps justify their actions, but it’s clearly not reality. What is Judge Walkers 136 page reasoning? Logic would dictate Judge walker now believes it’s gays right because some carefully selected PhD’s conclude evolutionary psychology, due to existence of homosexuality, is a better alternative to a Constitution? I am not religious but OMG! One activist, who is also a judge, knows better about all things moral and political! Well if that is the case Mr. Walker you are truly in the best position possible for a gay activist, but are also so wrong and totally demented as a judge. How dare you marginalize all opponents to your point of view? Its blatantly obvious you are a gay activist, and your actions as a judge show homosexual ideas of what should be redefined are of utmost importance to you.

    It’s obvious the hired professionals/intellectuals for the religious or gay side behave in a way that shows they only care about factors recognized by the cause they are working for, and the resulting intellectual ideology established, dismissing any factors not controllable and recognized by the extremist agendas. That leads me to the fact these people, due to conflicts of interest, are not acting intelligently, they are acting stupid, selfish, or narrow minded, making them just salespeople of the most far-reaching aspects of, especially the homosexual agenda. Now that is what exposes the close mindedness and racist attitude of that agenda.

    The reason the heterosexual majority has had enough is because our societies moral guidelines have already been compromised/pushed to a questionable limit, and it was a minority that has pushed that agenda on everyone else. Here we go again, using lots of money…using a good law firm…using an activist judge who has “lost sight” of the ethical limitations of the court. For the government to take full responsibility and embrace every right the homosexual agenda demands, it would have to take into consideration the reality of each individual homosexuals feelings by addressing the enormity of the extent to which today’s society erodes their capacity to feel normal/accepted. No one thinking rationally can think unlimited redefining of societies moral guidelines, so the homosexuals feel better about there life, is the best solution to this! Follow the logic….where would it end?

    Really where will it end? A line must be drawn! That trend, enshrined as a rights issue, has led us to the present far-reaching part of the homosexual agenda which is subversive not only of morality, but of social order. It is now blatantly obvious homosexual activists are not simply consenting adults doing no harm behind closed doors, but intent on enshrining their practices as rights above everyone else in society.

    Combining homosexual life styles to redefine societal norms, to redefine the important values regarding men and woman in child-rearing, to redefine what is harmful regarding the majorities moral guidelines, and to redefine the value of traditional marriage is in no way within the judiciaries subject matter jurisdiction, that’s why we had such a one sided 136 page trial, and the public deserves better, and will get it from the supreme court! 99% of all debates I have had with gays on websites refuse to acknowledge the far-reaching agenda I am so concerned with. No matter how well informed my questions and examples are, no matter how complex an understanding they were based on, In the end the most popular names I have been called are; bigot, homophobe, religious, nazi, moron, racist, and clever hater. No matter how loud their rhetoric gets, I will not shut up and accept redefining marriage and morality. I will not put my morals and culture aside and openly accept the stage set for an anything goes society and not see the legal, cultural, and political consequences to follow this precedent. After marriage is conquered, the activists would not shut up, because redefining marriage is just the doorway into the far-reaching agenda to redefine.

    Like many Americans, I am completely disinterested in other “adults” sexual behavior. If two people of the same sex want to love each other I DON’T CARE. I would venture to say its not the average Joe blow homosexual that is obsessed with redefining marriage…it’s the activist extremists!

    To communicate or debate, one has to decide what their issue is with prop 8, gay marriage or judicial activism to redefine social norms?.

    According to judge walker the current “credible” motivation for banning gays and lesbians from marrying is a desire to mark them as second-class citizens. No Judge Walker, the “credible” motivation is to stop the activists far-reaching agenda!

    You will not change societal norms to conform to your agenda, or the ancient traditional foundation that exists. Do gays really think a piece of paper will change anything? Well for me I found that kind of ownership of another person just makes life more complicated. Well as a divorced agnostic, its easy for me to feel that way emotionally! Also, you never heard me complain with my choice to become a minority as a single dad back in the 1990s with custody of my kids. I was discriminated across the board compared to single moms, so I have some personal experience with discrimination.

    Shouldn’t we all be up in arms working together over something sooooo much more important then redefining societal values to conform to a gay activist agenda? Like decades of sloppy capitalism, and all its trickle down effects that has our country in such a terrible economic mess? We need to wake up collectively and look what’s happening to our country?…look where we are at? Shouldn’t there be hundreds of other more relevant issues to get this country up in arms? Yeah, I know I am changing the subject……Hello!

    Now if the issue for you is solely gay marriage, weather for or against it, then you are talking about your own life/emotions, and regardless if this decision is in your favor or not, that blinds you. That’s what the populous does! Again, wake up and look what’s happening to our country….look where we are!

    There is an issue here bigger than, beliefs, religion, homophobia, sin, or gay marriage, all of that is just the stage!! My interest here is what is going on behind this gay smokescreen? What’s that? It’s the constitution being manipulated to fit a judicial agenda to change society for people in the populous like themselves! Well, constitutional interpretation or reconstructing the constitution for gays certainly will not be left to unrestricted judicial activism.

    The majority in this country including the current liberal president have shown they have had enough and will not sit back and concur with Judicial inability to recognize its limitations as a political entity, arrogantly undermining democratic favor.

    Society cannot separate due to physical traits. It does separate based on things that society deems immoral or dangerous. If this is discrimination, which side or who defines morality?, defines what is harmful?, defines an individuals moral guidelines? Each side has different definitions! As a result of this both sides of the issue are condescending and belittling the other, what a waste of time. To communicate or debate our words need to have the same meaning or were not speaking the same language and we get nowhere, for example look at the abortion debate.

    How far do gay activists think the supreme court will break down the majority of citizens conventional ideas of societal norms and morality? Certainly not as far as gay activists envision! We will find an acceptable limit that does not discriminate against society, by allowing benefits. Will the Supreme court decide for society the definition of correct and moral behavior for all mindsets? No way, because we are still a constitutional representative democracy. Gay activists want the supreme court to rule we as a society are ready to “evolve” into something more radical then we already have, meaning we are beyond those old outdated parameters.

    Perhaps we currently living through two battles? One between the Constitution and the judges?, the other, supreme law and the judiciary? We shall see! Activist judges know they have judicial immunity, so Walker knows he is immune from lawsuit and has, as an activist, decided to just go for it! That should be illegal!

    Judge Walker says: “the ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process”

    So if it’s unconstitutional to prohibit same sex marriage…. Using that same ideology is it even more unconstitutional to force this on all of society? Now, if “moral disapproval” violates constitutional rights as Judge walker stated, then he is contradicting himself? Constitutional politics is known to, and accepted to use, persuasion to initiate change. This Judge has just used political coercion to change the moral guidelines for all.. He has personally, through the court, used the morality of rights from a minority, to displace the morality of consent with all of California.

    I would say every time judicial supremacy replaces constitutional supremacy It goes against our best ideals constitutionally, that is regarding the intended understanding of the values outlined in our founding documents, and we alter the constitution without public acceptance and or awareness. This supremacy is a slippery slope, and will lead to more problems that are significant, to the point where someday we may end up a dictatorship. California has already voted twice that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and approved Prop 8. 30 states have voted the same, over 60 million Americans. I accept the current benchmark of our citizens individual voting preferences to prevent homosexuality from redefining society, do you?

    I project that if the supreme court (which will not happen) forces this down society’s throat, with all the societal changes that would follow…..for example, heterosexual children being taught that homosexuality, through the science of psychology, forced through the judiciary, will redefine their children’s moral guidelines, and teach them homosexuality is healthy life choice! What would be the result? That kind of tactic would prove disastrous for the gay agenda. The current modern acceptance that has taken many years to evolve for accepting homosexuality, by the heterosexual majority in this country, would now be forced backwards due to the homosexuals extremist agenda! You cannot force change of moral guidelines.

    As anyone can see it is blatantly obvious this far-reaching agenda, with the goal of redefining societies moral guidelines, will cause “harm” to heterosexuals and proves the proponents of prop 8 have standing.

    There has long been a private world protected by:
    – the image of mystical thinking (religion)
    – superior intelligence (science)
    – civil rights, that activists abuse use to justify extremist agendas.

    I am watching/participating in that part of society becoming less and less successful. That is the result of society evolving into more of a thinking society, rather than a society driven by a religious belief system. That is the reason, as a responsible member of society, I am not allowing my own moral guidelines to be dictated by activists from either side!

    Acknowledging the issues raised here on a societal level would certainly expose the homosexuals activist agenda. And that could lead to a constitutional amendment that would eliminate same-sex marriage in all states. In the end, regardless of political pressure applied from homosexual or religious bias, the decision handed down by the highest court in the land will reflect a common sense decision, and that decision will not unilaterally overturn the will of the people for a homosexual or religious cause. Furthermore, that decision may be to avoid making a decision at all, and leave it to states! At that point I project the gay activists, with their media proponents will still refuse to address the real issues, and just continue spew rhetoric!!!

    Jeff Chiacchieri

Comments are closed.