Supporters of Proposition 8 filed for an emergency stay of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling to allow same-sex marriages.
They argue that other courts have routinely ruled that marriage has been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman, and that Walker should not have applied "strict scrutiny" to the case.
And again, contrary to the district court’s conclusion below, this Court, and the overwhelming majority of other courts, both state and federal, to address the issue have concluded that the opposite-sex definition of marriage rationally serves society’s interest in regulating sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of those relationships benefits rather than harms society, by increasing the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable family units by the mothers and fathers who brought them into this world.
The motion continues stating that "there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage" because same-sex marriage was "unknown in the law of the United States until 2004", and that same-sex marriages are now performed legally only in five states and the District of Columbia.
Prop.8 supporters in San Francisco. (Rachel Dornhelm/KQED)
The motion to appeal argues that Imperial County is a clear state actor who is affected by Walker's decision and that Walker should not have turned down Imperial County's request to join the lawsuit. One of the main points that Walker made in his decision to overturn Proposition 8, and to deny the stay, was that there were no clear state actors supporting Proposition 8.
