U.S. Army Captain Michael Kelvington, commander of the Battle company, 1-508 Parachute Infantry battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, bows next to remains of Gulam Dostager, a member of Afghan Local Police who was killed in the blast of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) during the joint Tor Janda (Black Flag in Pashtu) operation, in Zahri district of Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan May 25, 2012.  REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov  (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: MILITARY CIVIL UNREST CONFLICT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Members of the U.S. Navy Blue Angels fly over the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan as part of the 25th annual Fleet Week celebration in New York, May 23, 2012.  REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (UNITED STATES - Tags: MILITARY ANNIVERSARY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Fleet Week

The U.S. Navy takes Manhattan for a week.  Slideshow 

Photo

The SpaceX mission

A privately owned unmanned rocket blasts off on a mission to be the first commercial flight to the International Space Station.  Slideshow 

California gay marriage on hold as case appealed

Related Topics

Same sex marriage supporter Dominic Coluans waves flags outside City Hall after a judge lifted the Proposition 8 stay on same sex marriages at City Hall in San Francisco, California August 12, 2010. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith

Same sex marriage supporter Dominic Coluans waves flags outside City Hall after a judge lifted the Proposition 8 stay on same sex marriages at City Hall in San Francisco, California August 12, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Robert Galbraith

SAN FRANCISCO | Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:37pm EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday that same-sex couples could not marry in California while the court considers the constitutionality of the state's ban on gay marriage.

But the panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set an aggressive schedule for the case, with briefings in the fall and a hearing the week of December 6.

California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, passed in November 2008, setting off emotional reactions among both opponents and supporters of the ban.

Liberals questioned how trend-setting California could fall in line with roughly 40 other states that ban same-sex unions, while social conservatives boasted that their cause had national backing.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled earlier this month that the ban was unconstitutional.

Last week he said gay marriages could resume while higher courts considered the matter. But the brief ruling by the three-judge appellate panel reverses that, prohibiting gay marriage during the appeal.

The appeals court has no deadline for a ruling, and the panel gave no reason for its decision on Monday.

"They punt," said University of California, Berkeley, family law professor Joan Hollinger, who said the ruling was practical since it left in place the status quo but sped up the appeal.

The court did however ask both sides to explain whether the nongovernmental group that has defended Prop 8 had the judicial right, or standing, to appeal the case.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown represent the state in the case, and both support gay marriage. They have declined to appeal the lower court ruling.

Chief Judge Walker cast doubt on whether the Prop 8 group could show harm to themselves and meet other requirements of standing, and the request by the appellate judges highlighted the matter.

"It is obvious that they think there is a genuine issue" of whether Prop 8 backers have the legal right to appeal," said Jesse Choper, a Constitutional law professor at Berkeley.

The legal team fighting for gay marriage said they would not challenge the stay and welcomed the "extremely expedited" schedule.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer defending the ban, said in a statement he was glad to see Californians' votes "will remain valid" during the appeal process.

(Additional reporting by Dan Levine, Editing by Chris Wilson)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (8)
lee98611 wrote:
I bet the fear the up roar of the voters .

Aug 16, 2010 8:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gruven137 wrote:
The US Constitution does not say ONE single word about marriage. Zero. Zip. Nada.

You would think that if the framers were so concerned about individual liberties, they would have said SOMETHING about something as fundamental as marriage. Well they didn’t…and here’s why.

They left it up to the states to decide!

They absolutely intended for the power of our federal government to be limited.

There is no “RIGHT” to gay marriage ANYWHERE in the Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution that will ever force the states to recognize marriages based on sexual orientation. If that was the case, then there could be no laws against polygamy, child marriage, marrying your relative, etc.. These matters were and will always remain left to the states to decide.

The voters of California defined “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman. Don’t like it? Get enough signatures for another state ballot initiative and overturn it. That is fair. But don’t get some gay activist judge to tell everyone their votes don’t count for anything.

If Prop 8 doesn’t hold, the implications on every state’s initiative processes will be horrific. Any time one person didn’t like the results of a popular vote, they could just call it “unconstitutional” and find some activist judge to overturn it.

Aug 17, 2010 1:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Nicolai wrote:
The US constitution doesn’t explicitly provide the right for gays to marry but the constitution explicitly provides safeguards against the “tyranny of the masses”: the situation where a majority is allowed to discriminate against a minority through democratic, popular vote. By prohibiting discrimination, these safeguards ensure that the minorities may enjoy the same rights and protections as the majority.

Aug 17, 2010 3:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.