Ninth Circuit Rejects Latest Effort To Stop California’s Prop 8

Jordan Lawrence of the Alliance Defense Fund reports:

Proposition 8, the California Constitution’s amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman, remains in effect after today’s order by the Ninth Circuit rejecting the latest efforts by the opponents of Prop 8 to neutralize it while the case challenging it is on appeal.

This is a bit complicated, but it is a significant development in favor of marriage. As many know, last August Judge Vaughn Walker for the federal district court in San Francisco ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it did not allow same sex couples to marry. The supporters of Prop 8 appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and also requested a stay of the lower court order. The Ninth Circuit granted that motion for the stay, which allowed Prop 8 to remain in effect. Last January, the Ninth Circuit sent the case to the California Supreme Court to decide a state law question of whether those who propose an initiative have standing to defend it in court when the governor and the attorney general refuse to defend it. The answer to that question will help the Ninth Circuit to decide the merits of the case on whether Prop 8 is constitutional or not.

After the California Supreme Court agreed to decide the standing question, the opponents of Prop 8 renewed their request to lift the stay, which would then have allowed the court order striking down Prop 8 to go into effect (I hope you are still following all of these legal zigs and zags). If the Ninth Circuit had granted that motion, it would have forced California to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. But the Ninth Circuit said no, so Prop 8 remains in effect. The text of the order reads as follows:

Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time. [7691622] (KKW).

This is good news for marriage, because Prop 8 remains in effect. ADF has written about the Perry case challenging Prop 8 here, here and here.

Tweet