Judge Vaughn Walker Announces Retirement

Ninth District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled that California's Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection clause of 14th amendment over the summer, has announced that he will retire effective at the end of December this year.

Walker said in a letter to President Obama, “Concluding twenty-one years of judicial service, I leave the bench with the highest respect and regard for the federal judiciary, its judges and their staff and the essential role they fulfill in our constitutional system."

Walker was appointed to the federal bench in 1990 by then-president George H.W. Bush who hailed his conservative values. The right-wing, anti-gay, enemies of freedom (a/k/a Republicans) now call Walker a biased, activist judge for his ruling, which read, in part, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license".

It reminds me of those heartfelt words of my mother, who once told me many years ago when I was winning an argument, "Don't get rational with me!"

Related articles by Zemanta

• Judge who overturned Proposition 8 to retire (cnn.com)
• My work is done here: Prop. 8 judge Vaughn Walker retiring (shortformblog.com)
• Prop. 8 Judge Vaughn Walker Stepping Down Next Year (towleroad.com)
• Judge Vaughn Walker Is Leaving 9th Circuit, Following Exits By Prominent Gay Marriage Justices (queerty.com)
• SFgate.com Judge who struck down Prop. 8 to retire (sfgate.com)

"8: The Mormon Proposition" Showing Tonight at The Shadowbox Cinema

Cover of 8: The Mormon PropositionIf you only see one documentary this year, you must see "8: The Mormon Proposition, playing tonight at 7pm at The Shadowbox Cinema, 22 Kirk Ave in Roanoke. Admission is $7. Purchase tickets at the door for all three nights of the Roanoke Equality Community Film Series for $15 and save $7.

Find out how the Mormon and Catholic churches financed and organized California's Proposition 8, taking away the right to marry from loving, committed same-sex couples.

Ninth Circuit Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the discriminatory voter initiative this summer, but it's not over. The case is still very much alive and may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are questions about whether or not the Pro-8 side has the legal standing to file the appeal, since they are not named in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. Find out how it all started as this compelling documentary follows the money all the way to the top leaders of the Mormon Church.

From the film's press kit: Filmmaker and ex-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints member Reed Cowan examines that church's nationwide efforts to prevent the legalization of gay marriage -- including California's Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in 2008. Confidential church documents, statements by high-ranking church officials and other sources detail 30 years of efforts to turn back gay rights, particularly by the Mormon-sponsored National Organization for Marriage. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• 8: The Mormon Proposition DVD Review (pastemagazine.com)
• Watch: '8: The Mormon Proposition' Opens This Weekend (towleroad.com)
• "8: The Mormon Proposition" Exposes, Inspires, Enrages (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Media Praises '8: The Mormon Proposition,' But Admit Film is One-Sided (newsbusters.org)
• Movie review: '8: The Mormon Proposition' (sfgate.com)
• Jonathan Kim: ReThink Review: 8: the Mormon Proposition -- How Gay Marriage Got SLC Punk'd (huffingtonpost.com)

Court Won't Force Governator to Defend Prop 8

When California's Proposition 8 was challenged in court earlier this year Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown chose not to defend the voter initiative banning same-sex marriage on the grounds that they both believed it was wrong and unconstitutional. Last month judge Vaughn Walker found that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

Last week a conservative legal group called the Pacific Justice Institute filed a law suit to force Schwarzenneger and Brown to defend the gay marriage ban in court during the upcoming appeals process. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that it was perfectly legal for the governor and attorney general to choose not to defend a law they disagreed with. SFGate reports:

The state officials' decision not to argue in support of Proposition 8 has raised questions about whether anyone is legally qualified to defend it in court. The Pacific Justice Institute filed suit last week, arguing that the California Constitution requires Brown to defend the state's laws.

A state appeals court dismissed the suit without a hearing, and the state's high court denied review Wednesday without comment.

It will now be up to a federal appeals court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, to decide whether Prop. 8's sponsors have legal standing - the right to represent the state's interests in defending one of its laws. Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said the court order was disappointing.

"People on the left and right should both be mourning the fact that the attorney general and the governor are reneging on their oaths of office," Dacus said, arguing that the officials have a sworn duty to defend all state laws.

Darn those activist judges and their non-actions.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CALIFORNIA: Supreme Court Refuses Bid To Force Prop 8 Defense (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• High court won't order state to defend Prop. 8 (sfgate.com)
• Gov. Schwarzenegger Hits 'Whatever, Go Away' Button on Prop 8 (queerty.com)
• Schwarzenegger Rejects Prop 8 Appeal, Despite Conservative Legal Efforts (huffingtonpost.com)
• California Supreme Court Won't Force State's Defense of Prop 8 (towleroad.com)

Group Sues to Force Arnie and Jerry to Defend Prop 8 in Court

Image via WikipediaOne of the most interesting aspects of the ongoing legal saga of California's Prop 8 is that both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to defend the constitutional amendment in court claiming it violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This factor is the key to whether or not this case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Prop 8 proponents, who defended the discriminatory initiative, are not government officials and as private citizens are not charged with upholding or enforcing the law and, therefore, may not have the legal standing to file an appeal to Judge Vaughn Walker's July ruling that overturned the voter initiative.

If there is no appeal, then same-sex marriage remains legal in California, but the ruling stays local. Some elements of the anti-equality side have admitted that it may be worth sacrificing California in order to protect opposite marriage in the remaining 45 states.

Now a conservative California legal group, The Pacific Justice Institute, is suing to force the Governator and second-generation Attorney General Brown to force them to defend Prop 8, on the basis that they have the sworn duty to uphold the law, regardless of their personal beliefs. If they succeed, which legal experts say is unlikely, the issue of standing will be a moot point and the case can proceed through the appeals process.

The Associated Press reports via the San Jose Mercury News:

The state has until Sept. 11 to challenge Walker's ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger, who also refused to support Proposition 8 in Walker's court, have said they do not plan to. The institute is arguing that as the state's chief law enforcement officer, Brown does not have discretion to defend only laws with which he personally agrees. And because the California Constitution gives the governor final say when he and the attorney general disagree on legal matters, Schwarzenegger must be compelled to file an appeal to preserve Proposition 8 as well, the group's lawsuit states.

"To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust," Pacific Legal Institute Brad Dacus said Tuesday. The institute brought its motion on behalf of Joshua Beckley, pastor of Ecclesia Christian Fellowship church in San Bernardino, and included with it a declaration of support from former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Legal group seeks to compel Calif to defend Prop 8 (sfgate.com)
• Conservative Group Sues to Force Schwarzenegger and Brown to Defend Prop 8 (towleroad.com)
• Legal group seeks to force Calif to defend Prop 8 (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Peter Scheer: If hard-won court victory against Prop 8 is tossed out, you can thank Jerry Brown (huffingtonpost.com)
• How 1997 ruling might thwart Prop. 8 appeal (sfgate.com)
• Karen Ocamb: Defending Prop 8: The Meg Whitman, Steve Cooley Morass -- With Insight from Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson (huffingtonpost.com)

Boies and Olson May Seek Legal Fees in Prop 8 Case

This is just too good to be true. The Advocate is reporting that the dream team on David Boise and Ted Olson, who successfully overturned California's Prop 8 and plan to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, may seek legal fees, which are mounting by the second, from the pro-H8 side, once this is all over with.

From Advocate.com:

In court filings this week, the attorneys requested extended time to consider fees and court costs but have also asked Prop. 8 supporters for an expedited response in the matter — which they opposed in a Wednesday filing.

"Plaintiffs seek to drastically shorten [our] time to respond to that motion so that they have more time to prepare an application for attorney’s fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion to enlarge time," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum wrote. "Such a burden shift is unwarranted."

The legal team led by Ted Olson and David Boies has not disclosed how much the litigation has cost, though the organization charged with funding the suit, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, has in recent weeks reached out to the public for donations as the case proceeds to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.

Oral arguments are scheduled for the week of December 6.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 9th Circuit Keeps Stay On Prop 8 Ruling: No Marriages Just Yet (queerty.com)
• Peter Scheer: If hard-won court victory against Prop 8 is tossed out, you can thank Jerry Brown (huffingtonpost.com)
• Prop 8 lawyers explain how they'll win at the Supreme Court (video) (sfgate.com)

Kathy Griffin to Larry King: "Gay Marriage is a civil rights issue." (video)

America's Best Fag Hag, comedian Kathy Griffin, went on Larry King last night and talked about the Prop 8 stay, Levi Johnston, "Dr." Laura Schlessinger quitting her radio show and Rod Blagojevich's hung jury.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dr. Laura Schlessinger ending radio show (today.msnbc.msn.com)

Appeals Court Issues Stay on Walker's Prop 8 Ruling

It looks like it's going to be one of those legal and emotional roller coasters as the case for same-sex marriage works its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday to issue a stay in Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling last week striking down California's Proposition 8. While this move was not totally unexpected, many gay and lesbian couples across California had planned on marrying as early as tomorrow.

This is actually one of those good news/bad news things. While the stay means a delay in marriage equality in the Golden State, the court also expedited the appeals process, scheduling the the appeal for December 6th. Normally an appeal could be be scheduled one to two years out. The proponents of Prop 8 filed an emergency stay request citing the confusion that would ensue if gay couples were allowed to wed during the appeals process only to have Prop 8 upheld later.

On the up side, the entire appeals process hinges on whether or not the defenders of Prop 8 have any legal standing to file an appeal at all in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. Both Gov. Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown have chosen not to defend Prop 8 in the original court case or in the appeals process.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports via SFGate.com:

While the Ninth Circuit judges did not give a reason for their decision, they did instruct Prop. 8 proponents to explain why they had legal standing to act in the interests of the state, which is not defending Prop. 8.

The question of standing has become crucial since Walker, in striking down Prop. 8, wrote that the initiative's defenders "may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal."

Chances are slim that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown will do so, considering that both have pressed for same-sex marriages to be allowed to resume since Walker's ruling.

While asking the Ninth Circuit to allow same-sex marriages to proceed, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has focused on Walker's contention and maintained that Prop. 8 supporters have no right to appeal or even ask for a stay. He took the wording in Monday's ruling to mean that the court is seriously considering that argument.

Charles Cooper, an attorney for Prop. 8's proponents, said in a court filing Monday that the initiative's sponsors had clear standing to defend their measure, given that the state had declined to do so.

Cooper also supported a long-running bid by Imperial County - which is also now in front of the Ninth Circuit - to intervene in support of Prop. 8.

Lawyers for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is giving free representation to Imperial County, said the county has an interest in the regulation of marriages because it licenses and performs them. Nearly 70 percent of residents casting ballots there in November 2008 voted to approve Prop. 8.

In an interview Monday, attorney Robert Tyler accused Walker of a "calculated" decision to keep Imperial County out of the case while, at the same time, casting doubt on the standing of Prop. 8 proponents.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Prop. 8: Appeals court puts ruling on hold (sfgate.com)
• Prop 8: Will the Real Appellants Please Stand Up (towleroad.com)
• Prop 8: Ninth Circuit Grants Stay; Marriages On Hold (dailykos.com)
• Oh my: Ninth Circuit stays Walker's order, postpones gay marriage in California until December; Update: Prop 8 opponents won't appeal (hotair.com)
• No Gay Marriages in California For Now, Federal Court Rules (laist.com)

The Big Commit is a Bigger Hit than NOM's Failed Marriage Tour (video)

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) headed by anti-equality troll Maggie Gallagher and the gaydar pinging Brian Brown wrapped up it's nationwide tour on Sunday with a rally on the grounds of the US Capital in DC.

The breeders-only group has drawn minimal support in cities across the country with turnouts of a few dozen or so supporters. True to form NOM's grand finale in the nation's capital drew about 150 people, according to estimates by Prop 8 Trial Tracker, who has had a volunteer following the tour all summer.

Not to take this lying down, a coalition of LGBT activists staged a rally called "The Big Commit" at DC's Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Ave., drawing an estimated 250-300 people and featuring a long list of speakers, most notably Arkansas elementary school student Will Phillips, who made headlines around the world in 2009 for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance until LGBT Americans are granted full and equal rights. (Video courtesy of Metro Weekly.) 

 

Related articles by Zemanta

• "NOM's final tour stop: Our only fear is that Will might be too mature for this childish game" and related posts (goodasyou.org)
• The 5 Best Parts About a NOM's Marriage Tour Rally (queerty.com)
• Photo: NOM's Most Massive #Fail So Far in Madison, Wisconsin (towleroad.com)
• National Organization for Marriage: Being Gay Like Eating Contaminated Peanut Butter (gayrights.change.org)
• Watch: Hypocrite Maggie Gallagher Tells Sparse Crowd of 'Traditional Marriage' Supporters that 'Hate is Not a Family Value' (towleroad.com)

Breaking: Judge Vaughn Walker to Announce Ruling on Prop 8 Stay on Thursday

The Advocate is reporting tonight that Judge Vaughn Walker, who found California's Prop 8 unconstitutional last week, will announce his decision on Thursday about whether or not to allow same-sex marriages to resume during the appeals process. Judge Walker issued a temporary stay while he considered arguments from both side in the case. The announcement is due between 9:00 am and 12:00 noon tomorrow.

Following is the court's announcement:

The court will enter its order on the motion to stay judgment pending appeal (docket number 705) in Perry v Schwarzenegger, C09-2292, between 9 am and noon on Thursday, August 12 PDT. 

The order will be posted on the court's web page devoted to the Perry case, will be available through PACER and will be available in hard copy at the San Francisco courthouse in the hallway outside the ADR courtroom (16th Floor) and in the Press Room on the 18th Floor. 

Lynn Fuller

Media & Public Outreach Liaison

United States District Court

Northern District of California 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Debating Gay Marriage After the Prop 8 Decision (politics.usnews.com)
• What Happens If Yes On 8 Can't Appeal Perry? This California County Will Fill In (queerty.com)
• Prop 8 Appeal: What Happens Next (nowpublic.com)

Is Fox "News" Coming Around to Same-sex Marriage? (video)

Image via Wikipedia

In the wake of the historic ruling in California overturning Prop 8, there has been much discussion about how this will all play out in the coming years, as the case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprisingly, some of the most rational analysis and discussion has come from the normally homophobic,  right-wing, nut-jobs at Fox "News".

Surprisingly, with the exception of Sarah "Half-Term" Palin and Newt "The Serial Monogamist" Gingrich,  instead of attacking Judge Vaughn Walker and his ruling in their usual chum-in-the-water-feeding-frenzy style, most of the Republican Party and their mouthpieces at Fox, seem to have moved on from hating on the gays this election season. What this illustrates for me is the acceptance by conservatives of the idea that marriage equality and equality in all areas of society, for LGBT Americans is inevitable.

75% of Americans favor ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As of last week only 10% of military personnel who were sent the despicable DADT Survey even bothered to answer it. (The deadline for responding is August 15th.)

Same-sex marriage is now legal in five states and DC and there has been no rain of hellfire and brimstone.

Every American man, woman and child can now say that they know someone who is gay or lesbian. When bigots spew their venom now, instead of agreeing with the lies, most Americans are saying, "Hey, that's my brother, sister, aunt, uncle, mother, father, son, daughter, neighbor, friend or coworker you're talking about!" Using homophobia for political gain just doesn't pay off like it it used to just a few years ago.

Now is not the time for us to rest on our laurels. We aren't there yet and it's going to take more work than ever before to keep the momentum going. As an LGBT American or straight ally, you have a responsibility. You must register to vote, if you haven't already. You must vote this year and every year that elections are held in your state. You must find out where your candidates stand on LGBT rights. You must not financially support or vote for candidates who do not support full LGBT equality.

It ain't over 'til it's over and the fat lady ain't even warming up yet. Until then, watch this clip from Fox "News" about the Prop 8 decision. Note the lack of anti-gay rhetoric and the civility with which the discussion takes place and envision a day when conversations like this will be unnecessary.

This clip must be making Maggie Gallagher's head explode (I wish!):

Related articles by Zemanta

• Are Fox Newsers Already Following Margaret Hoover's Suggestion They Support Marriage For All? (queerty.com)
• Prop 8 Ruling Highlights Crumbling of Gender Roles (womensrights.change.org)
• Proposition 8 Overturned: What's Next? (newsy.com)
• Ted Olson Defends Same-Sex Marriage On Fox News Sunday (outsidethebeltway.com)
• NOM Launches Anti-Marriage Campaign In Minnesota (lezgetreal.com)
• Anti Same-Sex Marriage & Pro-Slavery Arguments: Answering NOM's Maggie Gallagher (themoderatevoice.com)

Introducing Portia DeGeneres

Actress/wife/activist Portia de Rossi has decided to change her name to Portia DeGeneres. Portia and wife Ellen will now share a last name, just like millions (billions?) of married couples throughout the ages. The celesbian couple wed in 2008 during the five-month window between legalized same-sex marriage and the passing of Prop 8.

This helps to resolve the age-old question of what to do about the last name when a gay couple gets married. Some hyphenate, many just keep their own name, but if you want just a single, shared last name, how do you decide which partner will change their name? Easy. The one who makes the most money gets to keep their name. Besides, Ellen doesn't even need her last name. You just say the name "Ellen" and everybody knows who you're talking about. If you say "Portia", people think you're talking about a "Porche", the most awesome car ever.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Portia de Rossi has petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court to change her last name legally from "de Rossi" to "DeGeneres."

The actress married Ellen DeGeneres on Aug. 16, 2008, during the period when same-sex marriages were legal and licenses were being issued. The request for the name Portia Lee James DeGeneres was filed Friday, though the document made available by E! Online was signed by De Rossi in March. De Rossi, born Amanda Lee Rogers, first changed her name at age 15, she told the Advocate last year.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Portia de Rossi aims to change name to DeGeneres (reuters.com)
• Portia De Rossi DeGeneres (perezhilton.com)
• Portia de Rossi to take Ellen DeGeneres' last name (hollywoodnews.com)
• Portia de Rossi Files to Take DeGeneres' Name (cbsnews.com)

 

David Boise and Ted Olson on Sunday Talk Circuit: "The right to marry is a fundamental right." (video)

Watch as Super-Lawyer Ted Olson, half of the dream team that took out Prop 8, appeared on Fox "News" Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday and handily shot down all of Wallace's right wing arguments against same-sex marriage. Olson points out that anyone's rights, including Wallace's and Fox's right to free speech could be taken away by popular vote, if not for the 14th amendment, asking Wallace, "Would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote?".

Meanwhile David Bois appeared on Meet the Press, where he took on Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who lost in last weeks decision. Boise punches all kinds of holes in Perkins' arguments. Watch and learn.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Watch: Ted Olson Asks Fox Host, 'Would You like Fox's Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?' (towleroad.com)
• Ted Olson Defends Same-Sex Marriage On Fox News Sunday (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Ted Olson On How Same-Sex Marriage Promotes Conservative Values (alan.com)
• Prop 8 Fighters Olson and Boise Make the 2010 TIME 100 List (bilerico.com)
• Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)

Key findings and full text of Judge Walker's Prop 8 ruling

Image via Wikipedia

Ever since the closing arguments in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger took place two months ago, the LGBT community has been wondering why it was taking so long for Judge Walker to rule on the case. The short answer is that there was a lot of evidence and testimony to review, even though none of what the pro-8 side presented had any legal merit.

Having read through the e transcript of Judge Walker's opinion, I'm glad he took his time deliberating this case. It's going to be very difficult for his judgement to be overturned on appeal. That doesn't mean the haters won't try. The other side has already filed a motion to delay implementation of the ruling, which Judge Walker is currently considering.

The 138-page ruling has gone viral since it was released Wednesday. (See the full text below). Here are some of Judge Walker's key findings as posted in the Los Angeles Times:

• "Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result ...

• "Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently ... prohibiting the official defendants [state of California] from applying or enforcing Proposition 8..."

• "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

Related articles by Zemanta

• PDF of Ruling to Overturn Prop 8 Goes Viral (mashable.com)
• Prop 8 Ruling Is Scribd's Most Viral Doc Ever (gigaom.com)
• VICTORY: Proposition 8 OVERTURNED!!! (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Proposition 8 ruling excerpts from U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker [updated] (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• PDF of Prop 8 Decision Goes Viral in 24 Minutes (laist.com)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Once more, with feeling! "Prop 8: The Musical" (Video)

This video is more timely now than when it was originally released two years ago.

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

Breaking: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional! (Video)

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling says, in part, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples."


"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry."

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released this statement: “Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

California Attorney General Jerry Brown says via FaceBook: "A great day for all Californians. Justice Walker shares my belief that Prop 8 is unconstitutional."

Not so fast guys and gals! Don't go shopping for that perfect Vera Wang gown just yet. The Prop 8 proponents have been granted a stay that was filed last night when it became clear their side would lose. The ruling will not go into effect until possibly as late as October, so they can prepare an appeal. The reasoning is that they could be another window where gay and lesbian couples could get married only to have to marriages ruled invalid if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Prop 8.

Stay tuned, folks. This ain't over by a longshot.

Related articles by Zemanta

• BREAKING: Prop. 8 is unconstitutional (americablog.com)
• Judge Vaughn Walker Prop 8 Decision To Be Released August 4 (nowpublic.com)
• Prop 8 Decision: Judge's Ruling Ready In California Gay Marriage Case (huffingtonpost.com)

Closing Arguments in Prop 8 Trial: Anti-Equality Side Wants to Nullify 18,000 Legal Gay Marriages

Yesterday's closing arguments in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the federal court challenge to California's Proposition 8, the voter initiative that took away the legal right of same-sex couples to marry in 2008, showed just how hollow the arguments against marriage equality are. Anti-equality defendants in the case again contradicted themselves and the testimony of their own witnesses.

I don't usually pull from Queerty, because I think they tend to be a little too frivolous in their assessment of important issues, but I think they made some interesting points in their reporting of  yesterday's courtroom precedings. For those keeping score, the legal team of David Boies and Theodore Olson represent our side (anti-Prop 8). Charles Cooper represents the pro-8 side:

The entire production was an embarrassment for the defense. That is an objective observation. And Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (which was not a defendant in the case), accidentally confirmed as much in a live chat following Wednesday's closing arguments.
"Eliminating invidious restrictions on marriage strengthens the institution of marriage," Olson told the court.

As for Cooper, when he was asked by Walker, "Why is it that marriage has such a large public role? What is the purpose?," the defense attorney responded, "This relationship is crucial to the public interest.… Procreative sexual relations both are an enormous benefit to society and represent a very real threat to society’s interest." It again threw Cooper, and the defense team's core argument, down the rabbit hole. "Threat?," asked Walker. Cooper: "If children are born into the world without this stable, marital union … both of the parents that brought them into the world, then a host of very important, very negative social implications arise…. The purpose of marriage is to provide society’s approval to that sexual relationship and to the actual production of children."

The Advocate has this to report:

Speaking before the court, attorney Theodore B. Olson, who took on the suit along with David Boies, his rival in the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, said that antigay forces have argued that gay marriage “is too novel an experiment. That is the essence of their case to the end of the trial: They just don’t know whether same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage.”

Plaintiffs’ evidence presented in court, Olson said, proved otherwise: that same-sex couples marrying has no detrimental effect on heterosexuals marrying and raising children, and that the children of gay and lesbian couples fare better when their parents are able to marry. The latter point was made earlier this year under cross-examination by defense expert witness David Blankenhorn, whose testimony Olson referenced repeatedly during his closing arguments.

Walker’s wide-ranging questions to Olson during closing arguments included why domestic partnerships are inferior to marriage and whether the case would be different if California had never permitted same-sex marriage in the first place. Olson responded that domestic partnerships were, by definition, separate and unequal, lacking the symbolic import of marriage. He said that if his legal team were to present a similar case in a different state, the arguments would remain the same.

Defense attorney Charles Cooper spent much of his time before the court arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was vital to maintaining “responsible procreation” in society. The state, he said, had a vested interest in “channeling” natural human impulses into the formation of enduring relationships suitable for raising children.

 The San Francisco Chronical reports that the pro-8 side introduced a motion asking the court to effectively nullify the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place during the brief window of opportunity between legal same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop 8, that took it away.

As the trial over California's prohibition on same-sex marriage enters its final stage today, the ban's sponsors are urging the judge to go a step further and revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before voters passed Proposition 8.

Such an order would honor "the expressed will of the people," backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Did Olson + Boies Just Secure the Death of Prop 8? (queerty.com)
• Prop. 8 trial judge has questions for attorneys as closing arguments begin (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• You: Trial to End in California's Gay Marriage Case (nytimes.com)
• Closing Arguments in Landmark Gay Marriage Case (abcnews.go.com)
• Prop. 8 backers: Marriage promotes procreation (sfgate.com)
• California gay marriage trial ends with a bang (reuters.com)
• Prop. 8 forces target 18,000 same-sex marriages (sfgate.com)
• If Judge Vaughn Walker Declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional, How Long Before Californians Can Get Gay Married Again? (queerty.com)

Judge Walker to Hear Closing Arguments in Prop 8 Challenge Today

After what seems like years but was only a couple of months, Judge Vaughn Walker will hear closing arguments in the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, the Mormon-funded voter initiative that allowed bigoted voters to take away the marriage rights of people they'd never met.

The folks at Prop 8 Trial Tracker will again be live blogging the proceedings. You can follow the updates on the FaceBook page Equality on Trial and following them on Twitter, @Equallityon Trial. There really isn't anything new that's expected today. This will be a summary of the arguments and testimony made by both sides during the trial.

As the case comes to a close and Judge Walker prepares to deliberate, you may want to catch the documentary "8: The Mormon Proposition" which follows the money trail of the tax-exempt Mormon Church in their efforts to restrict the rights of tax-paying Americans. The film opens this weekend in selected cities.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Judge Walker's Interesting Prop 8 Questions (bilerico.com)
• No TV for closing arguments in Prop. 8 trial (sfgate.com)
• In Prop 8 Trial, Judge Asks About Churches Trying to 'Enforce Private Morality' (laist.com)
• Prop 8 Closing Arguments Not to be Televised (lezgetreal.com)
• 5 Things We'll Miss After The Prop 8 Trial Ends (queerty.com)
• Why Judge Walker's Questions Are Important (bilerico.com)
• Prop. 8 forces target 18,000 same-sex marriages (sfgate.com)