Another hurdle crossed:

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker (N.D. Cal.), who struck down Proposition 8’s ban on gay marriage in California, has denied a motion to stay his judgment pending appeal. This means that same-sex marriages in California can start immediately.

Let the marriages begin!

Update: The ban will be lifted effective August 18th.

Update II: From the Los Angeles Times:

A federal judge today refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8's ban of gay marriage but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. No new marriages can take place until then. Walker said the sponsors of Proposition 8 do not have legal standing to appeal his order because they were not directly affected by it. Walker’s decision came after supporters of the marriage ban warned they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that Walker’s ruling did not take effect.

Adam B will have an in-depth look at the ruling later today.

Update III:

Adam B adds: The important part of Judge Walker's order -- even beyond allowing marriages to resume within the week so long as the Ninth Circuit doesn't intervene -- is what it portends regarding the standing issue on any appeal of his opinion.

The court provided proponents with an opportunity to identify a harm they would face “if an injunction against Proposition 8 is issued.” Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction…. If [] no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67. Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal. Diamond, 476 US at 68 (holding that “Diamond’s status as an intervenor below, whether permissive or as of right, does not confer standing to keep the case alive in the absence of the State on this appeal”); see also Associated Builders & Contractors v Perry, 16 F3d 688, 690 (6th Cir 1994) (“The standing requirement * * * may bar an appeal even though a litigant had standing before the district court.”). The Supreme Court has expressed “grave doubts” whether initiative proponents have independent Article III standing to defend the constitutionality of the initiative. Arizonans for Official English, 520 US at 67.

Nor do the Prop 8 proponents suffer any harms in the interim, because none of them "seek to wed a same-sex spouse," and "the court considers only whether the party seeking a stay faces harm, yet proponents do not identify a harm to them that would result from denial of their motion to stay." Finally, that neither Governor Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Brown (the actual defendants) requested a stay weighed heavily on the Court.

This now goes up to the Ninth Circuit, where Prof. Rick Hasen has noted that this month's Motions Panel (where the request for stay will be heard) is a fairly liberal one. If they deny the request for stay, it can be appealed to the Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has jurisdiction over emergency appeals from the Ninth Circuit, and he can rule on it himself and/or refer it to the full nine.