SAN FRANCISCO — Same-sex marriages in California resumed Friday when a federal appeals court lifted a hold on a 2010 injunction, sparking jubilation among gays and cries of lawlessness from the supporters of Proposition 8.
In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge’s order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
The news came in a single, legalistic sentence Friday afternoon from the appeals court.
“The stay in the above matter is dissolved immediately,” the three-judge panel wrote.
Gov. Jerry Brown told county clerks that they could begin marrying same-sex couples immediately, launching plans for ceremonies up and down the state. The same-sex couples who filed the federal lawsuit headed to city halls in Los Angeles and San Francisco to tie the knot, ending their long fight to become legal spouses.
The first wedding in San Francisco began at 4:45 p.m. At 4:10 p.m., a cheer went up in the San Francisco City Hall rotunda. Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, one of the two same-sex couples who sued, made their way from the city clerk’s office where they got their marriage license to the marble steps of City Hall, stopping for photographs.
In Southern California, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, headed to Los Angeles City Hall to tie the knot.
“It’s couldn’t come a moment too soon,” said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sparked the legal effort for gay marriage in California when he was San Francisco mayor.
“What extraordinary timing, right before [gay] pride weekend,” Newsom said. “All that time, all the struggle and the moment has arrived.”
Supporters of Proposition 8 were furious that the 9th Circuit acted before the normal waiting period. ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of the ballot measure, have 25 days from the ruling to ask for reconsideration.
“It is part and parcel of the utter lawlessness in which this whole case has been prosecuted, said Chapman Law Professor John Eastman, a supporter of Proposition 8. “Normally courts let the parties kind of pursue their legal remedies before they issue a mandate.”
He said that the 25-day period for asking the Supreme Court to reconsider still applied and that a rehearing, though extremely unlikely, remained a technical possibility.
“Tonight it is chaos and lawlessness, and anyone who is concerned about the rule of law ought to be deeply troubled by what happened here,” the constitutional law professor said.
Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage, expressed astonishment and dismay.
“I am not sure what we do at this moment,” he said. “It is 4:30 p.m. on a Friday. I am not sure what can be done at this point. This is beyond belief. I don’t think anybody expected this. The Supreme Court decision is not even final, and yet the 9th Circuit is rushing forward.”
A spokesman for the 9th Circuit had told reporters Wednesday that it normally took “at least” 25 days to act.
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, however, said that he knows of no instance in which the Supreme Court has granted a rehearing after delivering a full-blown ruling and that he thought the 9th Circuit’s action was legally appropriate.
“I was surprised,” Chemerinsky said. “They usually wait for the 25 days, and it just doesn’t become an issue. But there is no way the Supreme Court is going to consider this.”
He said the 9th Circuit undoubtedly realized that the decision was final and decided to end the waiting for same-sex couples. He noted that Walker’s order has been on hold three years.
Some clerks’ offices extended their hours so couples could marry. Cathy Darling Allen, the clerk for Shasta County and the head of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election Officials, announced: “We are all a go. It’s starting to happen.”