Butch Femme Planet - View Single Post - Same-Sex Marriage Update

MsTinkerbelly · 03-23-2011, 12:37 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit denies motion to lift stay on Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling
By Adam Bink

Just came in: the 9th Circuit refused to accept the Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/23/2011 at 10:58:31 AM PDT and filed on 03/23/2011

Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 10-16696
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

The 9th Circuit decided that six months, likely more, to force couples to wait while the California Supreme Court drags its feet over summer recess, is acceptable. Including couples like Ed and Derence:

Even though there has been no harm caused to the state since 18,000+ couples married in 2008. Despite the benefit to businesses small and large. Despite the need for same-sex couples to be as equal as anyone else. Appalling

03-23-2011, 12:37 PM	#17
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,907 Times in 5,017 Posts Rep Power: 0	I am so mad!! Prop 8 Trial Tracker BREAKING: 9th Circuit denies motion to lift stay on Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling By Adam Bink Just came in: the 9th Circuit refused to accept the Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Notice of Docket Activity The following transaction was entered on 03/23/2011 at 10:58:31 AM PDT and filed on 03/23/2011 Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al Case Number: 10-16696 Document(s): Document(s) Docket Text: Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time. The 9th Circuit decided that six months, likely more, to force couples to wait while the California Supreme Court drags its feet over summer recess, is acceptable. Including couples like Ed and Derence: Even though there has been no harm caused to the state since 18,000+ couples married in 2008. Despite the benefit to businesses small and large. Despite the need for same-sex couples to be as equal as anyone else. Appalling