This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23109152
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 1 | Version 2 |
---|---|
California gay marriage ban lifted | California gay marriage ban lifted |
(35 minutes later) | |
A US appeals court has lifted a ban on same-sex marriages in California, following a Supreme Court ruling. | A US appeals court has lifted a ban on same-sex marriages in California, following a Supreme Court ruling. |
The order was issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. | The order was issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. |
Within moments, gay weddings resumed at the city hall - the first such marriages in the state since the voter-approved ban in November 2008. | Within moments, gay weddings resumed at the city hall - the first such marriages in the state since the voter-approved ban in November 2008. |
On Wednesday the US Supreme Court left in place a lower court ruling which had struck down the ban - also known as Proposition 8. | On Wednesday the US Supreme Court left in place a lower court ruling which had struck down the ban - also known as Proposition 8. |
The ruling means that 13 US states and the District of Columbia now recognise same-sex marriage. | |
Supporters of Proposition 8 described the appeals's court action as "outrageous". | |
'Wait is over' | 'Wait is over' |
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had been expected to wait 25 days before lifting the ban - in case the losing side wanted to ask for the case to be heard again. | The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had been expected to wait 25 days before lifting the ban - in case the losing side wanted to ask for the case to be heard again. |
But judges at the appeals court decided to act on Friday, saying: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately." | But judges at the appeals court decided to act on Friday, saying: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately." |
Shortly afterwards, one of the two same-sex couples whose case led to the Supreme Court's Wednesday decision got married at San Francisco's town hall. | Shortly afterwards, one of the two same-sex couples whose case led to the Supreme Court's Wednesday decision got married at San Francisco's town hall. |
The wedding of Kris Perry, 48, and Sandy Stier, 50, was officiated by California's Attorney General Kamala Harris. | The wedding of Kris Perry, 48, and Sandy Stier, 50, was officiated by California's Attorney General Kamala Harris. |
She declared them "spouse and spouse", but during their vows they took each other as a "lawfully wedded wife", the Associated Press news agency reports. | |
"They have waited and fought for this moment. Today their wait is finally over," Ms Harris said. | |
"This is really a great day," said Cindy Stier. | |
Meanwhile, Proposition 8 supporters accused their opponents of "achieving their goal in a dishonourable fashion". | |
"It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California,'' said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the coalition of religious conservative groups that had sponsored Proposition 8. | |
'No authority' | 'No authority' |
Proposition 8 was passed by California voters in 2008 - just months after the state's supreme court decided such unions were legal. | Proposition 8 was passed by California voters in 2008 - just months after the state's supreme court decided such unions were legal. |
The two same-sex couples launched a legal challenge against Proposition 8. As the state of California refused to defend the ban on gay marriage, the group that sponsored Proposition 8 stepped up to do so. | |
On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court said a private party did not have the right, or "standing", to defend the constitutionality of a law, because it could not demonstrate it would suffer injury if the law were to be struck down and same-sex marriages allowed. | On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court said a private party did not have the right, or "standing", to defend the constitutionality of a law, because it could not demonstrate it would suffer injury if the law were to be struck down and same-sex marriages allowed. |
"We have no authority to decide this case on the merits," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling. | "We have no authority to decide this case on the merits," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the ruling. |