Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
CASE (KINDA) CLOSED

Judge Closes Prop 8 Case, Leaving Decision Up To Supreme Court

Judge James Ware, the presiding judge in California’s Prop 8 trial, has closed the case, issuing an order that would allow same sex couples to marry. However, the Supreme Court has to decide whether it will hear an appeal of the case before letting the order stand. Until then, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is putting a hold on everyone’s bridal horses.

Buzzfeed reports:

A stay of the case by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pending the Supreme Court’s determination of whether it takes the case means that a “mandate” will not issue allowing Ware’s order today to go into effect.

The order comes despite the fact that proponents of Proposition 8 have requested the Supreme Court to review the case because, Judge James Ware wrote today, all requests to stay the judgment in the case have been denied.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights added:

There’s been some excitement today about activity in the Prop 8 case, but don’t worry: it’s just some housekeeping by the court, and has nothing to do with the judgement taking effect. Marriages can’t start until Ninth Circuit issues a mandate, and that’s pending a decision by the US Supreme Court.

So hold onto those bouquets, kids — we’re not out of the matrimonial woods yet.

photo by: Kahscho
By:           Les Fabian Brathwaite
On:           Aug 28, 2012
Tagged: , , ,
  • 4 Comments
    • Neo
      Neo

      Why are the conservatives so scared of the Supreme Court getting involved, are they scared because they know it isn’t constitutional and pointlessly hurts millions of people and forces their stupid beliefs on everyone whether they want it or not?

      Aug 28, 2012 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • glennrivera
      glennrivera

      It is hard to believe that criminals in prison can meet someone ONLINE (I have read about it and seen it on television shows) and get married in prison but gays and lesbians cannot! THIS IS APPAULING! I FIND IT, AS A GAY MAN, TO BE INSULTING THAT I DO NOT DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS THAT A CRIMINAL HAS!

      Aug 28, 2012 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nwilsontaylor
      nwilsontaylor

      Uh that would be “bridle” unless you were trying to be funny! And who would want to
      marry a prisoner sight unseen? Glennrivera wants the right to marry someone
      he’s never seen before? That’s just plain weird. Wouldn’t he want to at least MEET
      someone before marrying them?

      Aug 28, 2012 at 10:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vman455
      Vman455

      “Until then, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is putting a hold on everyone’s bridal horses.”

      No, “bridal” is used correctly here. “Bridle” is an object worn by a horse or the act of affixing that object. “Bridal” is an adjectival modifier for “horses”; they could have been green horses or ecstatic horses or damned horses, but here they’re bridal horses.

      Sep 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.