UPDATE 1-Gay marriage foes appeal ruling on gay U.S. judge

Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:36pm EDT

Related Topics

(Adds comment from lawyer for plaintiffs)

SAN FRANCISCO, June 27 (Reuters) - Supporters of California's gay marriage ban are appealing a ruling that a U.S. judge's own gay relationship was no basis for tossing out his decision in support of same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco last year struck down California's same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8. He later openly discussed his own gay relationship after retiring from the bench earlier this year.

Supporters of the ban now say his ruling was compromised and should be vacated. But Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware disagreed earlier this month, ruling that granting such a request would send a message that minority judges could not rule in civil rights cases.

Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com, the anti-gay marriage group defending California's ban, said in court papers filed late last week that they would appeal Ware's decision.

They did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

Matthew McGill, an attorney for two same-sex couples challenging the ban, said ProtectMarriage.com had been clear that they would continue a "smear campaign" against Walker.

"The only thing surprising about this development is doing so in the face of such a well-reasoned opinion," McGill said.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a same-sex marriage bill into law on Friday, making New York the sixth and most populous U.S. state to allow gay marriage. [ID:nN1E75N1XJ] It is also legal in the District of Columbia.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is already considering the constitutional issues surrounding gay marriage and has asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on one point of state law.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-2292. (Reporting by Dan Levine; editing by Anthony Boadle)

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 (9)
JohnG-73645 wrote:
I cannot understand why this nonsense continues. If religious morons do not want gays to use the word marriage, then why does the US Supreme Court simply allow them to have their wish with one condition: the word union means the same as marriage in the context of gays and carries the same benefits? Just pass a bill that states marriage and union are equivalent in the context of straight and gay couples respectively.

Gee, let the poor religious dimwits have their word – after all, they really don’t have anything else…

Jun 27, 2011 11:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EQReynolds wrote:
…Because separate is never equal.

Jun 27, 2011 12:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jtruth wrote:
The bottom line is that Marriage is defined as between Man and Woman. Not any other combination imaginable. Trying to normalize a Non-Normal behavior should not be supported in any court or society. Otherwise why not do away with all standards that keep us a civilized “society” .

Jun 27, 2011 12:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.