Prop. 8 Backers to SCOTUS: Stop Gay Weddings
Says Supreme Court's decision isn't binding for 25 days
By Polly Davis Doig, Newser Staff
Posted Jun 30, 2013 6:30 AM CDT
Larry Pascua carries a rainbow flag at a celebration for the US Supreme Court's rulings on Prop. 8 and DOMA in San Francisco, on Wednesday, June 26, 2013.   (AP Photo/Mathew Sumner)

(Newser) – As wedding bells are ringing for gay couples in California, the group that brought the state Prop. 8 to begin with has filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to stay the unions. It's not terribly likely to happen, reports the LA Times, as one law professor says that such requests get the thumbs-up once or twice a decade, and this one in particular is headed for the desk of Anthony Kennedy—who wrote the dissenting opinion in Wednesday's decision, but isn't likely to OK this one without reopening the issue at the high court. "I would be pretty shocked if he granted a stay," says the prof. Lawyers for ProtectMarriage are claiming that the Supreme Court's decision isn't binding for 25 days, which gives it time to appeal.

ProtectMarriage is bashing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to allow gay marriages to go forward immediately. "Suspiciously, the 9th Circuit's announcement late Friday ordering same-sex marriages came as a surprise, without any warning or notice to Proposition 8's official proponents," it said in a statement, saying the decision reeked of "corruption."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Prop. 8 Backers to SCOTUS: Stop Gay Weddings is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 50 comments
Jul 1, 2013 6:00 PM CDT
First the gays ruin a rainbow now they have to ruin our flag. Make up your own symbol people and stop associating everyday things not intended to represent the gay agenda.
Jul 1, 2013 10:58 AM CDT
PeopleLets keep the foul language off the internet its not acceptable and only hurts your cause. The truth is the truth same sex marriage is for one reason only (Money) Federal law protected minor children and surviving next of kin from because Congress felt the need to protect those who can be hurt the most by a same sex relations gone bad.t like they have laws for normal married couples. Kamala Harris and Gerry Brown refused to defend proposition 8 simply because they both received a lot od donations from the Rainbow Coalition to use in their campaigns and now owe that group a favor. Again (Money) is their reason since they have a sworn duty to protect the constitution no matter what their personal opinion is on the subject matter. Justice Kennedy made his decision because he knows that he does not have to answer to anyone not even the President since he is in a life time position and does not have to quit until he decides to quit. That is why our Federal Constitution needs to be changed to place a term limit on Supreme Court Judges so they will not become complacent. In California's case those same sex couples who get married will loose their Registered Domestic Partner Certificates and its many protections that are very similar to those afforded to non-gay or non- lesbian married couples. This means that they have also opened the doors for congress to remove most of the anti-gay legislation and laws that they passed to protect gays and lesbians. The California Family Law Sections 297.0 and 297.5 (Domestic Partner Law) makes proposition 8 constitutional since California voters only confirmed their desire to retain California constitution Section 7.5 which defines Marriage.
Jun 30, 2013 7:45 PM CDT
Gay marriage in California could have been restored by a second vote, probably in a few years; but this bizarre decision permanently weakens the democratic process. The California ruling basically said that a state proposition, any state proposition, voted for any purpose, can be overturned by a misfeasant state attorney through collusion with any single federal judge and with absolutely no recourse. The decision is a radical restriction of the democratic process. The Federal ruling was even more strange. The court seemed to be saying it was beyond the Federal power to banned behavior for moral reasons alone. It would be hard to argue that drugs like psilocybin and LSD can be federally banned. These drugs are relatively harmless and are banned for moral reasons. There are probably hundreds more "moral-only" laws that should now be considered Federally unconstitutional under this line of thought.