By Maurine Proctor
One outrageous thing after another continues to happen in the Prop 8 case in California.
This just in: Judge Vaughn Walker has denied the motion of Prop 8 proponents for a stay on his unbelievable ruling overturning Prop 8 until it can be reviewed by a higher court.
In other words, he has ruled that same-sex marriages can begin taking place in California August 18th unless the case is appealed to the 9th Circuit-and then in the same breath says that the Prop 8 proponents may not have legal standing to appeal because they were not directly affected by it.
He’s trying to single-handedly implement same-sex marriage immediately-not only in the face of the seven million California citizens who voted for Prop 8, but by trying to undercut the ability for the Prop 8 proponents to appeal the case.
“As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the Court of Appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal,” Walker wrote.
According to the LA Times Walker said there was no evidence that the sponsors of Prop. 8 “face the kind of injury” required to have standing to file an appeal.
“The uncertainty surrounding proponents’ standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success,” he wrote.
“In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction.”
Fat chance. Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed with the court against the stay-even though it was their duty to uphold the vote of the people.
In the name of cramming same-sex marriage down our throats, apparently a judge, a governor, and an attorney general will cross any acceptable lines of fair play and jurisprudence.
Court-watcher, Ed Whelan wrote in National Review if Prop 8 proponents “don’t have standing to appeal, how did they have a right to intervene as defendants to present the defense of Prop 8? Why didn’t Walker simply enter a stipulated judgment when the state defendants abandoned their duty to defend Prop 8? The obvious reason is that state law recognizes that a proposition’s proponents have authority to defend the proposition, lest government officials subvert the ultimate power that the proposition process places in the people. That authority necessarily must confer standing to appeal an adverse decision.
“Walker’s action screams for reversal by the Ninth Circuit. If that (alas, notoriously unreliable) court refuses to impose a stay pending appeal, then it will be up to the Supreme Court to, once again, put an end to Walker’s lawlessness-this time, I would think, unanimously. (Yes, I think that even those justices who may be inclined to invent a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage will be appalled by Walker’s disregard of precedents, his absurdly biased “factfinding,” and his effort to thwart meaningful appeal.)”
Following the defense of marriage debate is not only critical for those who care about the future of family in this nation, but it is also a study in political shenanigans.
The Moral Liberal Contributing Editor, Maurine Proctor, is Co-Founder and Editor in Chief of Meridian Magazine, and President of Family Leader Foundation. She has worked for the Chicago Sun-Times, written and edited several books, is an award-winning documentary writer and producer, and a Harvard graduate.