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.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #judgejamesware #marriageequality stories and more


  • 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?

  • 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!

  • 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?

  • 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.

Comments are closed.