Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Schwarzenegger and Brown oppose stay on Perry decision

Timothy Kincaid

August 6th, 2010

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, the official defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, have both filed motions requesting that Judge Walker not put a stay on his decision but instead allow the state to being granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Lindoro Almaviva
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

And Pat Robertson, the people at NOM and their friends keep getting crazier and crazier. They must swear that the world is coming to an end by the end of business day next Monday.

L. Junius Brutus
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Absolutely brilliant. “Protect Marriage” argued that issuing same-sex marriage licenses would cause administrative trouble, and then Schwarzenegger filed his brief, in which he said that the issuance of same-sex marriages could be resumed at any time, without any trouble.

occono
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

I thought Walker already stayed his decision?

Cooner
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

occono: As I understand it he stayed the decision but gave both sides’ lawyers a few days to present arguments over whether the stay should remain in place, so he could lift it soon if he chooses to.

Of course then the higher appeals court or the Supreme Court could put their own stay on the case.

Mike
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

If the order isn’t stayed and the ruling is overturned at a higher court how does that affect the couples who may get married between rulings? Don’t get me wrong, I suport Walker’s ruling but it would be horrible if we saw couples forcibly divorced in California like they were in 2004.

TampaZeke
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Arnold is desperately trying to change his place in history after vetoing marriage equality bills TWICE.

He knows where this is going and he scared to death that he will end up in future history books sharing a page with Governor George Wallace.

Even though I think his motivations are less than pure, I welcome them.

I just wish more politicians would wake up and realize that what’s making them popular today will make them pariah’s for ETERNITY. They only have a short window to change their permanent legacies. I’m sure their are southern politicians from the 1950’s and 60’s South who wish they could change their places in the history books. Yet they were SO popular at the time. It’s too late now, there is nothing that can be done to change their legacies. Even George Wallace’s late in life change of heart hasn’t changed his reviled place in history.

TampaZeke
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

I really should proofread and edit before I post. Yes I know the difference between “there”, “their” and “they’re”. The whole post was a spelling, typo and grammatical mess.

Sorry.

TampaZeke
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Mike, except for the fact that the state of California has already demonstrated that they have no problem with allowing gay people who are married in between measures remain married. It could be argued that since the 18,000 who married between the Supreme Court ruling and the passing of Prop 8 haven’t cause the state any demonstrable problems that neither would an additional number of legally married gay couples.

occono
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

@Tampazeke: He HAD to veto the Marriage Bills. Prop 22. doesn’t allow for the legislature to override it, the Supreme Court of California stated as much.

Candace
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

Considering that no new evidence may be introduced during an appeal, along with the miserable and laughable showing by the proponents of Prop 8 throughout the entire trial, I’d say they have about as much chance of winning an appeal as a snoball in hell. And Governor Schawrzenegger knows this. Judge Walker knows this. And the h8ters know this.

Granting a temporary stay doesn’t mean that Walker is intending to let gay marriage be tied up forever in the court system.

Ryan
August 6th, 2010 | LINK

I think I’d prefer the stay remain in place. If Walker lifts it, the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS will almost certainly step in and overrule him, anyway. And maybe if Kennedy is truly on the fence about this, Walker not even allowing an appeal might sufficiently push him to the other side.

Craig Wagner
August 7th, 2010 | LINK

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

Ben in Oakland
August 7th, 2010 | LINK

Arnbold had plenty of chance to oppose prop. 8, to work against its passage, and he didn’t lift even a finger, let alone his muscled arm.

I’m glad he’s on board now, but a little too little a little too late.

TampaZeke
August 7th, 2010 | LINK

Ryan, where has it been suggested that Walker is even considering “not even allowing an appeal”? First, he doesn’t have the power to stop an appeal and he wouldn’t try to even if he could.

Lifting the stay on his order is not the same thing as disallowing an appeal. In fact it wouldn’t affect the appeal in any measurable way.

cd
August 7th, 2010 | LINK

@Tampazeke: He HAD to veto the Marriage Bills. Prop 22. doesn’t allow for the legislature to override it, the Supreme Court of California stated as much.

It was also a way of avoiding an anti-marriage referendum sooner, when it was quite clear that one was going to pass with a larger margin than Prop 8 did in late 2008. I pointed that out at the time.

The decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger comes within a few weeks or months of when California probably has, on 1% trend per year, broken 50.0% voter support for gay marriage legalization. A curious coincidence, but a good one.

Ben Mathis
August 7th, 2010 | LINK

I don’t understand where the stay came from if Brown is the official representative and he’s on board with no stay. Can someone clear it up?

Timothy Kincaid
August 8th, 2010 | LINK

TampaZeke,

Oconno is correct. Actually this was addressed in In Re Marriage cases and the CA Supremes clarified that the legislature had no right to reverse Prop 22 on their own.

Schwarzenegger could have “made a statement” and signed the illegal laws, but they would not have gotten a single gay couple married one day sooner than they were otherwise.

Ben,

Ahnold did announce opposition to Prop 8. The ONLY people to even try and use his opposition were Log Cabin. The ever-so-fabulous No on 8 campaign ignored him.

Timothy Kincaid
August 8th, 2010 | LINK

Ben Mathis,

Judge Walker gave a temporary stay until he has had the opportunity to decide whether there is good reason to put a stay on the decision until it faces appeal.

During this case, the official defendants (Schwarzenegger, Brown, and other local officials) all refused to defend Proposition 8. So intervener-defendants were allowed to defend the amendment.

It is not yet clear whether the intervenor-defendants have any standing in appeal or in a request for stay. I guess we’ll find out in the next week.

Mark F.
August 8th, 2010 | LINK

“It is not yet clear whether the intervenor-defendants have any standing in appeal or in a request for stay.”

I was wondering about that myself. But since they had standing to be defendants, I would tend to think they would have standing on appeal.

Ben in Oakland
August 9th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy– I know he said he was against it, but that is as far as he went, if I recall.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.