California Judge Stays Pro-Gay Marriage Ruling

[ruggerson]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/30/national/a165747S30.DTL

<snip>

The California judge who ruled that gay couples should be allowed to marry stayed his decision Wednesday pending the outcome of anticipated appeals.

On March 14, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that gay couples in California can marry, and that the state's law against it was unconstitutional.

That decision was stayed automatically, but Wednesday's decision was meant to make it clear that no gay couples can get married in California until appeals have run their course. The dispute may not be settled for years.

Gloria Allred, an attorney for a Los Angeles lesbian couple who wanted to immediately marry, told the judge Wednesday that every day her clients cannot marry "is a day they are suffering irreparable harm."

Opponents of gay marriage said they immediately would appeal once Kramer finalized his ruling

<snip>

[LoganW]

1. How do these people have standing?

"Opponents of gay marriage said they immediately would appeal once Kramer finalized his ruling"

Could someone please explain that to me? What POSSIBLE standing could right wing nuts have in this case?

[Book Lover]

2. It makes them feel icky

Isn't that enough to stand in a court of law?

[LoganW]

3. No, it's not

But on the positive side the fundies are not very bright, so perhaps that's a good thing.

[Book Lover]

5. Well,

justice delayed is justice denied, especially in this case; what if one of the plaintiffs dies before the case is completely litigated? That is the very definition of irreparable harm, as one plaintiff will never be able to legally wed the other. On the other hand, a completely litigated case will become solid case law; and let's face it, we will win in the courts. As you said earlier, it is just not possible for these people to be seen as having standing in this issue.

[Bugaboo]

4. none

but they'll go down fighting.

The reality is that they think it's morally wrong and they just don't like it, but you can't make a law based on those things, so they bring up really stupid arguments.

The bright side is to my knowledge, their arguments haven't held up in court one time. Not in Hawaii. Not in Alaska. Not in Vermont. Not in Mass. And they won't hold up in California, even if it really does take years. And they won't hold up in Washington (my state). And they won't hold up in Oregon.