The most surprising thing about a federal appeals court's decision in the Proposition 8 case this week wasn't its conclusion - that same-sex marriages remain barred while the case is on appeal - but the court's lack of an explanation…
No hint at harm
But the order did not even hint at the answer to a critical question: how allowing same-sex couples to marry during the appeal would cause "irreparable harm," a legal requirement for a stay.
In his Aug. 4 ruling overturning Prop. 8 and in a subsequent order denying a stay, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the measure's sponsors had failed to show any prospect of harm in allowing same-sex weddings - to the sponsors, the state or the institution of marriage. The appeals court panel evidently disagreed, but didn't say why.
"The question is, why can't couples get married today? And there's no explanation," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine Law School and a longtime professor of federal court procedure. "I find that very discouraging" for lawyers and the general public, he said.
"This one is frustrating," said Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a constitutional law professor at Santa Clara University. "They did not directly respond to any of the points made by Judge Walker in his order lifting the stay."
Read complete article:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/20/BADI1F0CR6.DTL
Is It Possible to Be Against Same-Sex Marriage Without Being Homophobic? –
Carlos A. Ball - Professor of Law at Rutgers University
August 24, 2010 – Huffington Post
"No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ
in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing.
The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it."
Plutarch
No comments:
Post a Comment