Marriage to Resume August 18

Federal judge Vaughn R. Walker put marriage for same-sex couples on hold for at least another six days, extending a temporary stay until August 18 and allowing Proposition 8 supporters time to appeal his ruling.

As of Thursday evening, that's already happened. Attorneys defending Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit, claiming that "by enacting ... Proposition 8 in 2008, the people of California have declared clearly and consistently that the public interest lies with preserving the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

Prop. 8 proponents argued that in his decision Judge Walker "ignored virtually everything — judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive documentary and historical evidence, and even simple common sense."

Depending on how the ninth circuit rules on the appeal, marriages could resume on Wednesday or be put off indefinitely, though legal observers expect the stay to be lifted.

But in recent days a hot-button legal question has also emerged: Do Prop. 8 supporters, who defended the ballot measure after state officials declined to do so, have standing to appeal the case, one that many expected would end up before the U.S. Supreme Court?

"Judge Walker’s order clearly sets out his view that the proponents of Prop. 8 do not have standing to appeal without a state defendant, so no doubt that issue will be a very interesting one to watch," National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendell told The Advocate.

In his 11-page order on the stay — one nearly as anticipated on Twitter on Thursday as the actual decision in the case last week — Walker rejected both the likelihood that Prop. 8 supporters would succeed upon appeal and the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry would result in "irreparable injury" for the state because it would result in a "cloud of uncertainty."

Attorneys who defended Prop. 8 in court after state officials declined to do so had failed to identify any legitimate reason why they themselves would be harmed should California resume granting marriage licenses to gay couples, Walker wrote. On the other hand, a stay of the decision "would force California to continue to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and would demonstrably harm plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California," he wrote.