Same-sex marriages on hold as judges examine ban

Gay couples who were set to get married in California this week have had to put their wedding plans on hold once again after a federal appeals court said it first wanted to consider the constitutionality of the state's same-sex marriage ban.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals imposed an emergency stay yesterday on a trial court judge's ruling overturning the ban, known as Proposition 8.

Chief US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had ordered state officials to stop enforcing the measure starting tomorrow, clearing the way for county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Walker ruled on August 4 that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the US Constitution.

The ban's sponsors appealed against that ruling and also asked the 9th Circuit to block same-sex weddings in the meantime.

They claimed in papers filed with the 9th Circuit that gay marriages would harm the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriage.

"It's saddening just to know that we still have to keep waiting for this basic human right," said Marcia Davalos, of Los Angeles, who had planned to marry her partner Laurette Healey.

"We were getting excited and then all of a sudden it's like: 'Ugh'. It's a roller-coaster."

Lawyers for the two gay couples who challenged the ban said yesterday they would not appeal against the panel's decision on the stay to the US Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to fast-track its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling arguments for the week of December 6.

"The order from the 9th Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop 8 as quickly as possible," said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a group funding the effort to get the voter-approved gay marriage ban permanently overturned.

Attorneys for backers of the voter-approved measure applauded the decision. In seeking the emergency stay, they had argued that sanctioning same-sex unions while the case was on appeal would create legal chaos if the ban is eventually upheld.

"Invalidating the people's vote based on just one judge's opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people's confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself," said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8.

Under the timetable, it was doubtful a decision would come down from the 9th Circuit before next year.

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued yesterday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question that many believe will eventually end up before the Supreme Court.

County clerks throughout the state had been preparing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time since Proposition 8 passed in November 2008. The measure amended the California Constitution to overrule a state Supreme Court ruling that legalised same-sex unions earlier that year.

"I'm sad, but I'm also glad that I didn't pay to reserve an appointment at the clerk's office," said Thea Lavin, 31, of San Francisco, who had planned to wed her partner Jess Gabbert, 30, if the stay were denied. "This has happened so many times before where we take two steps forward, one step back."