A federal appeals court decided Monday to put same-sex marriage in California on hold indefinitely, interrupting the wedding plans of scores of gay couples who were preparing to exchange vows when a temporary hold was set to expire Wednesday.
The brief order by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prevents an early showdown on the marriage question at the U.S. Supreme Court. Challengers of the marriage ban said they would not appeal Monday’s order.
UPDATE: Law professor William A. Jacobson thinks the granting the stay was the correct decision:
This unquestionably was the correct decision as to a stay. Contrary to the glib arguments that there is no likelihood of success on appeal, the District Court Order is the outlier; that doesn’t mean that the 9th Circuit will overturn it on the merits, but clearly there is a reasonable likelihood of the result being overturned.
Read the whole thing.
Ninth Circus. Good.
What the courts giveth, the courts can taketh away. Especially when what the courts giveth is madeth-upeth.
In the myriad of court cases over gay marriage over the years, it seems to me that attorneys keep arguing against gay marriage on moral grounds, and the moral grounds argument continues to get rejected by judges. Am I just imagining this? Would someone like to present evidence to correct me? I won’t pretend to be an expert or pretend that I follow these things nearly as closely as some of you, but this is the impression I get. And I don’t think those who are opposed to gay marriage have an argument except those based on moral grounds and tradition, which don’t seem to ever hold up in a court of law.
Morality and tradition are the only reasons there are laws against animal abuse and polygamy. So, I guess Eddie thinks those laws should be struck down, as well. Similarly, laws against the exploitation of children are based solely on morality, so I guess those don’t hold up in a court of law either. Shall I go on?
And secondly, some of us support the traditional definition of marriage not out of morality or animus toward teh gheys, but because we recognize that a traditional committed, monogamous heterosexual marriage provides benefits to society that no other arrangement does. Indeed, we would reverse many of the trends like no-fault divorce that have weakened the institution.
Shouldn’t BP be made to pay for any flowers or refreshments that went to waste due to the stay?
So VTK, if morality of laws is your thing, then you certainly must be in favor of reinstatement of the sodomy laws. After all, morality was the only thing keeping those afloat.
That argument cuts both ways.
So, Jim, are you arguing that morality can *never* be the basis for law? If that’s the case, then I’m down. First law to go: ObamaCare, which progressives generated because it was a “moral imperative” to provide health care for all.
Uh, VTK, how about answering my question? Yes or no: are you in favor of reinstating the sodomy laws?
Jim,
are you conceeding the second paragraph of his statement?
If a community chooses to pass anti-sodomy laws, that’s fine with me. It’s no different than a community choosing to outlaw animal cruelty or child labor; all of these laws have moral bases. And if my life just isn’t complete without community approval of sodomy, I can move to a different community.
My opposition to Same Sex Marriage is not based on morality, however. It is based on a rational recognition that homosexual marriages do not benefit society in the unique and powerful way committed, monogamous heterosexual marriages do. Furthermore, if it were up to me, the legal and social benefits of heterosexual marriage would depend on longevity, fidelity, commitment, and child-bearing.
VTK, I can understand your position on SSM even if I don’t agree with it.
However, what you say in regard to anti-sodomy laws is outrageous and I believe indefensable. I would be interested to see if you could expand on this and help me (and others, I’m sure) understand your reasoning.
I don’t personally support anti-sodomy laws because I don’t think policing that kind of private conduct is a good use of finite community resources. However, if a community can have laws that exist primarily to enforce its moral standards… such as laws against animal cruelty, child exploitation, anti-discrimination laws and so forth … then I don’t see how sodomy laws can be nullified on the basis that they only serve to enforce a moral standard. Progressive leftists are fond of chanting “You can’t legislate morality,” yet most of the laws they do advocate are expressions of what they consider moral standards.
With animal abuse and child exploitation, there are victims.
Not always so with polygamy, or prostitution, or gambling.
Livewire, I’m not conceding anything. VTK answered my question so I’m happy. No, I don’t think Obamacare is a good idea.
Our laws permit … and even encourage… plenty of activities in which there are “victims.” Affirmative Action, for example, victimizes qualified white males who are disfavored in hiring and educational opportunities.
The animal cruelty example is particularly on point. Under the law, we can kill and eat animals. We can chase them through a cornfield and shoot them if we want. But we aren’t allowed to have sex with them, only because it is immoral. (Also gross.) How killing and eating an animal makes it less of a victim than screwing it, I don’t know.
“VTK answered my question so I’m happy.”
LOL, and I wonder what VTK would do if his community decided to impose the death penalty on homosexuals, then garsh-darnit! he now has to move to liberal communities where surprise! gays are treated better. gaycons leech on gay libs, its funny to witness this.
Interesting ponder JS. When the Constitution was ratified, a majority of the states (New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey) provided the death penalty for those who committed sodomy. All states prohibited it. Are you “fine” with that bit of history VDK? Or are you just saying if a community doesn’t want a gay couple living within it’s jurisdiction then said couple should have to move? And by the way, I am just not getting your cruelty to animals analogies.
I just wish more judges would pay attention to the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Best thing about Js and David’s mindless babble, is that they don’t even see they’re undermining their own arguments.
If that was the case that there were sodomy laws, the states passed them with the consent of the governed. The fact that they stood for over 200 years under the constitutional government showed that 1) they could be repealed by the will of the people, and 2) the supremes got it wrong in Lawrence, because they had existed so long, the courts had to go outside the constitution to rule them invalid.
So, while I can’t speak for V the K, I can say that I’d be happy to live in a society where the system worked, and I didn’t need big bad judges to overturn laws because someone’s feelings were hurt.
As I predicted earlier with hte 9th, when you let the courts define your rights, you don’t have any.
Livewire, insulting me is not really helpful. I am trying to understand what VDK meant and now what you mean. I clearly am at a disadvantage to your intellect but believe me I am trying. I read this blog because I am trying to learn. Reflecting upon my last post I do detect a snarkiness which I did not intend so to VDK I apologize. There is some emotion attached to this because what I am reading is a gay man who says he is fine with anti-sodomy laws. Please don’t dismiss my post as mindless babble. I would not dream of doing that to anyone else here no matter how I might disagree with them.
There is some emotion attached to this because what I am reading is a gay man who says he is fine with anti-sodomy laws.
That is directly at odds with his own statement.
I don’t personally support anti-sodomy laws because I don’t think policing that kind of private conduct is a good use of finite community resources.
Where you’re missing the point, David, is that V the K is pointing out that maintaining the fundamental point of our government — namely, that people have the right to vote and put in laws as they choose — is more important to him than whether or not a specific law is more convenient for him.
And what you’re not getting is that the rationale you use that your personal convenience constitutes reason to ignore the majority’s vote is perfectly applicable when someone decides to do so in a matter in which you are a member of the voting majority being ignored.
Now why would I be okay with a death penalty for sodomy, when I have clearly stated that I think enforcing anti-sodomy laws is a waste of community resources? My point was that many laws have a moral basis or a moral component, and it’s stupid to claim laws that enforce morality are somehow invalid.
I guess it’s because progressives are stupid and dishonest, and when they can’t refute a point intellectually, they start throwing around straw men.
I mean, no offense, but that straw man argument was almost as dumb as those dingbat feminists who dressed up as Ewoks and hissed at Sarah Palin.
Ok, I think I get his point. Now can you explain this:
“And what you’re not getting is that the rationale you use that your personal convenience constitutes reason to ignore the majority’s vote is perfectly applicable when someone decides to do so in a matter in which you are a member of the voting majority being ignored.”
VtK, I guess what has piqued my interest was this part of your statement:
“……because I don’t think policing that kind of private conduct is a good use of finite community resources.”
The implication to me was that if anti-sodomy laws could easily be enforced, you would be fine with them. Again, I apoligize for my error.
Yup.
You don’t like sodomy laws, so you insist that they be overturned, even though they were passed by a majority of voters.
Consequently, even though you may have voted with a majority of voters for age-of-consent laws, since pedophiles don’t like that, they can with perfect right insist that they be overturned.
You are correct NDT that I don’t like (anti)sodomy laws. I am trying to open my mind to what you are saying and I will also spend some time studying the Lawrence decision. Livewire said it was wrong. My immediate inclination is that it is not wrong, but that is because I am predisposed to agree with it because I don’t like anti-sodomy laws. Please bear with me.
if anti-sodomy laws could easily be enforced, you would be fine with them
And if massive deficit spending fixed the economy, we’d all be rich, so what’s your point?
We don’t live in a hypothetical world, we live in the real one. And if communities can pass laws against mistreating animals, or selling liquor on certain days of the week, or forcing landlords to rent to people they don’t care for, then they should… by the same token… be allowed to pass laws against sodomy.
If laws are going to reflect morality anyway, they should reflect the moral consensus of a majority of the community… not the preferences of a single judge.
I said back @23 I got your point. And @24 I also apologized for misunderstanding you.
I think the main difference is conservatives look to the law as a means of preserving liberty, and progressives look to the law as a tool for making their personal preferences into social norms.
David,
To elaborate on why it’s wrong…
There is nothing to prevent people from passing stupid laws. Gods know we have enough. The court’s function isn’t to determine if a law is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or if it’s ‘moral’. Simply it should determine if it is ‘just’ (i.e. allowed undr the CotUS).
The Constitution is silent on the scope of the federal government to monitor, or not monitor, activities in people’s bedrooms, basements, dungeons, etc. The Supreme court’s correct course of action would have been the same as Baker dismissing it for ‘lack of a Federal question.’ (Though I’ll admit, a 10th ammendment argument could be made, that the right to not be intruded on in the bedroom is reserved to the people, not the states).
Ohio has a smoking ban. I find it stupid. If people want to engage in self destructive behaviour, let them! If a private owner wants to make a place no smoking or allow smokers it should be his right to use his property as he sees fit. Unfortunately, it is Constitutional, and the Federal government has no place dictating how a state should regulate activity going on in that state. (IT would be a Federal question if, hypothetically, a restaurant sat right on the border, with the entrance in Indiana and the smoking lounge in Ohio, if you walk in with a lit cigarette, and walk to the lounge you’ve crossed state lines, making it an interstate commerce matter. Or in the case of Lawrence, if the pitcher was in OK and the receiver was in TX.)
The correct remedy for Lawrence is to have the leigslature repeal the damn (stupid) law.
One might even say, LW, that the occasional stupid law is part of the price we pay for the freedom to govern ourselves.