A three judge appellate court panel ruled Tuesday that an Imperial County California clerk of the court lacks the legal standing to file an appeal in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last summer that the voter initiative banning same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution. Former Governor Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown both chose not to appeal Walker's decision.
In a desperate attempt to find some way to fight the ruling, the bigots at ProtectMarriage.com scoured the roster of thousands of state employees, looking for a sympathetic "official" to jump on board their sinking ship. The best they could come up with was a deputy clerk from Imperial County. According to the L.A. Times, the court ruled that the regulation of marriages is the purview of the state, not individual counties.
As for the question of standing for Protect Marriage.com, the creators of Proposition 8, the panel decided the send the case to the California Supreme Court. The L.A. Times reports:
The state's highest court, which has considered the issue twice in the last three years, was drawn back into the fray by a panel of federal appeals court judges. The panel asked for guidance on the seemingly technical, but perhaps decisive, issue of who has the legal right to defend the ballot initiative on appeal, what is known in court as "standing."
The groups that originally placed Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot have asked the courts to allow them to pursue the appeal in place of the state officials. The initiative represents the will of the people, they argue, and should not be struck down with no one to defend it.
If those groups are found to lack standing to appeal, then Walker's decision, which is on hold, would take effect with no review by any appellate court. That would probably allow same-sex marriages to resume in California. By contrast, if the backers of the initiative do have standing, the appeals court panel would rule on the constitutional issues raised by Walker, and whichever side lost would probably seek further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Equality California's Executive Director Geoff Kors told the Times, "We are optimistic that the case will be dismissed, marriage equality restored and that same-sex couples and their families will finally enjoy equality and dignity under the law."
A baptist minister from Rio Linda, Ca. is being held on $6 million bail, facing six counts of lewd acts and sexual conduct with a child under 14 years old. Pastor Tom Daniels, of The First Baptist Church was arrested December 9th. The news was kept under wraps until this weekend. A substitute pastor has been filling in for Daniels at his Sacramento area church, but the congregation was not told the reason for his absence.
The charges against Daniels involve claims of molestation between 2004 and 2007. According to reports, Daniels was a contributor to California's anti-gay Proposition 8. Queerty reports:
Daniels stands accused of sexually violating children between June 2004 and June 2007. This isn't the first time he's been on the radar of police: In 2008 a complaint was made against him, but police say they had insufficient evidence to pursue a case. Now another victim has come forward, and prosecutors slapped him with one charge of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, and another charge for engaging in multiple sexual assaults of a child.
It's so far unclear how Daniels came in contact with the children, but I'm going to take a wild guess: given the guy was a FOSTER PARENT and DAY CARE PROVIDER, he was around kids all the time.
I had my netbook with me at work yesterday so I could check in on the Prop 8 appeal yesterday. The bits and pieces I picked up on my breaks revealed the same awe-inspiring, pro-equality arguments being made by the legal dream team of Ted Olson and David Boies, with the help of Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney for San Francisco.
Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights breaks it down in a guest post at Pam's House Blend. There are two issues at stake in this appeal:
1. Do the proponents of Prop 8-and Imperial County, which is seeking to intervene in the case, have the right to appeal Judge Walker's ruling, even though they do not represent the State of California? The legal term for this question is whether the proponents have "standing" to appeal.
2. Is Prop 8 unconstitutional?
Keep in mind that Gov. Schwarzenegger and Atty. General Brown both declined to appeal Judge Walker's ruling that Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Pro-H8 side has to prove that can legally challenge Walker's ruling. To help bolster their position, they found someone who works for the state to join their fight, a clerk of the court from Imperial County.
That's right, folks. Nobody higher up on the food chain would give them the time of day, so they found some guy in a cubicle who is in no position to make any decisions about what goes on in the state of California.
Minter writes:
It is never possible to predict how any judge will rule based on the questions that are asked at argument, but overall, today's argument seemed to go well for the plaintiffs. The panel asked difficult questions throughout and were particularly tough, on both sides, on the standing issue. In the end, they seemed skeptical that Imperial County has standing to be in the case. They also seemed to recognize that recent U.S. Supreme Court cases raise serious questions about whether the proponents of an initiative like Prop 8 have standing.
Some of the panel's questions hinted that they might ask the California Supreme Court to rule on whether California law gives the proponents of a ballot measure the power to force an appeal over the objections of the official representatives of the state (the governor and attorney general). Arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, attorney David Boies forcefully argued that even if California law would allow the proponents to defend the initiative, the proponents still could not meet the federal requirements for bringing this appeal because they cannot show that they are directly affected in any way by whether same-sex couples can marry.
There is no timetable for when the three-judge panel will rule, but it could be a few months, according to AmericaBlog's Lisa Keen:
The panel is expected to render its decision on both the standing issue and the constitutionality of Proposition 8 within a few months. Boies speculated during a post-argument press conference that the earliest the panel would likely render a decision is early next year and the earliest the case might be heard by the Supreme Court—during its almost inevitable appeal—would be 2012.
David Boies talks about Monday's hearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night.
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!"
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.
Update: Word from the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco is that the stay will be in effect for only 6 days, which means that after next Wednesday, gay couples will once again be allowed to marry in California.
Kudos to Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God., who scooped everyone on the story by a full 20 minutes, thanks to his mole in the courthouse. Joe writes:
While my mole in the SF courthousedidallow me to scoop everybody by 20 minutes or so, it was not until at least ten minutes later did I learn that the lift order doesn't go into effect until Wednesday. I quickly updated my posts here and on Facebook and Twitter, but I must apologize to everybody for my premature ejacutweeting. This is why bloggers aren't considered "real" journalists, I'm afraid.
This breaking news comes fresh from the steps of City Hall in San Francisco. Within the last 15 minutes, Judge Vaughn Walker released his decision to dismiss the claim made by the anti-equality side in his ruling last week to stay the implementation of his ruling to overturn Prop 8.
Just moments ago, Judge Vaughn Walker issued a decision that there denied an extension on the stay on gay marriages in California.
This means that gay couples in California may get married immediately. Proposition 8, voted in by the electorate in November 2008, limited marriage to opposite sex couples in California. The decision on the stay comes after last week’s historic decision denying the constitutionality of Prop 8 in California . In his decision, Walker wrote: “Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.”
It is not clear whether Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8 can be appealed; if it is decided that the plaintiffs have standing and may appeal, the case will advance to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – the nation’s largest and most unpredictable federal appeals court. This is a breaking news update – We’ll have more soon.
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.
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!):
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."
(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.
The Advocate reports that a long-pending lawsuit launched by the Log Cabin Republicans challenging the constitutionality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell will finally begin today in a southern California federal court.
Log Cabin Republicans will argue in the nonjury trial before U.S. district judge Victoria A. Phillips that the 1993 law barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military violates constitutional protections of due process and free speech.
Though President Barack Obama has publicly stated both his opposition to the law and his support for its repeal, the Justice Department is defending the policy in court after previous failed attempts to dismiss the suit.
“Though times may have blinded the Congress that enacted DADT to this truth, all available evidence, both at the time of enactment and since, shows that DADT is a law that serves only to oppress,” attorney Dan Woods, who represents the national gay Republican organization, wrote in a pretrial memorandum.
Log Cabin also contends that its standing to sue the government, one now at the center of a heated legislative repeal effort on Capitol Hill, rests on its members who are current, retired, or former members of the armed services. Attorneys identify two specific service members adversely affected by the policy: Lt. Colonel “John Doe,” who recently completed a tour of duty in Iraq, remains in the military and thus has been granted anonymity in legal proceedings; and J. Alexander Nicholson, the executive director of Servicemembers United, who was discharged from the Army in 2002.
Log Cabin spokesman Charles Moran said a federal judge in Los Angeles originally assigned to the case in 2004 had retired and that the suit was then reassigned to Judge Phillips in Riverside, Calif.
"It would be preferable for 'don't ask, don't tell’ to be repealed legislatively, but while there is legislation moving through now, President Obama has said he would veto the defense authorization bill if it contains too much pork, which will basically sink what our community is trying to do," Moran said.
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."
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.
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.
This week just keeps getting better. Marriage equality in DC, a papal gay sex scandal and now politician with a 100% anti-gay voting record, gets pulled over for DUI after leaving a gay club with a bootie-licious hook-up in his car.
Sacramento's CBS-13 reports that California State Senator Roy Ashburn was arrested on suspicion of DUI after leaving the gay night spot Faces in Sacramento. Ashburn's blood alcohol level was measured at .14%, well over the .08% legal limit. The senator's state-issued vehicle was stopped at around 2:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning by police after is was seen swerving. The homophobic hypocrite was released on $1400 bail.
Senator Ashburn released the typical statement Wednesday afternoon. I can't help but wonder if these words are printed on a laminated card and handed out to every politician on their first day in office:
"I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."
Perhaps the biggest part of this story is that at least two California newspapers knew of Ashburn's secret gay life and did not report it. Bakersfield.com's Lois Henry wrote last night that she called Ashburn last summer to ask him about reports she had heard that he was about to be outed by an LGBT community newspaper. Henry says she asked him flat out, "Are you gay?", to which Ashburn replied, "Why would that be anyone's business? Including The Californian's? I think there are certain subjects that are simply not relevant and this is one of them. It has no bearing on the job I do."
Henry says based on the cryptic answers Ashburn gave and a lack of corroboration, she and her editor chose not to publish the gay allegations.
According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.
The first two installments of the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger are now available for viewing at marriagetrial.com and on the Marriage Trial channel on YouTube. The two videos, each over an hour long, cover day 1 of the trial in two parts. The script was put together based on transcripts of live blogging done from the courtroom by MarriageTrialTracker.com and Firedog Lake.
The cast is largely made up of unknowns, however you may recognize Adrienne Barbeau as expert witness Dr. Letitia Peplau, professor of psychology at UCLA and Tess Harper, in the roll of Sandy Stier, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
This morning I'm getting caught up on my Prop 8 trial reporting. Sorry I let my mind wander off subject for a couple of days. Week three is proving to be just as riveting as the first two.
As you recall, weeks one and two of the trial were spent with witness after expert witness testifying for the Prop 8 challengers, detailing the history of descrimination against gays and lesbians throughout the history of the U.S. and the church. We heard about the proponents of H8 colluding with churches, raising tens of millions of dollars while depicting us as pedophiles and threats to traditional marriage. The plaintiffs showed video produced by the pro-H8 side warning that same-sex marriage would lead to bestiality, pedophilia and incest and we heard each witness stand their ground under cross examination.
While this is by no means a slam dunk for our side, Boies and company have demonstrated that they've really done their homework. The defense, not so much.
On Monday, the defense called its first "expert" witness, Professor Keith Miller, who teaches political science at Claremont McKenna College. Dr. Miller's testimony consisted largely of asserting that gays and lesbians already have significant legal protection and political power in California and therefore do not need the benefit of marriage. He cited the numerous laws that protect gays and lesbians from workplace and housing discrimination as well as California's domestic partnership law. In essence, Miller says, we should be happy with our piecemeal civil rights and be grateful for what we have.
Under cross examination, however, Boise not only punched holes in most of Miller's assertions, but actually got Miller to agree with the plaintiffs, as reported by the L.A. Times:
During cross-examination, David Boies, an attorney for the challengers, got Miller to admit that the entities that support gay rights also support rights for other minorities.
Boies asked Miller for examples of official discrimination against gays. Miller mentioned the federal law banning openly gay people in the military.
Under further questioning, Miller cited a federal law that defines marriage as an opposite-sex relationship and California's marriage ban that was enacted as Proposition 8. "Looking at the institution of marriage, the state does treat heterosexual couples differently than same-sex couples," Miller said.
David Boies, who cross-examined Miller, read aloud written statements Miller made that said minorities were vulnerable to ballot initiatives, and federal courts needed to step in and protect them. One of the statements was from a paper Miller wrote in 2005.
Boies also got Miller to admit, "At least some people voted for Proposition 8 on the basis of anti-gay stereotypes."
Tuesday's testimony for the defense came from David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values who testified that same-sex marriage would encourage polygamy bring about the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage. That's right folks, if you can't find the words to make your case, you just make up new words.
Boies once again rose to the occasion and tore Blankenhorn to shreds, getting him to admit that he has no academic credentials and that the work of others that he has used in the past to back up his homophobic statements was, in fact without merit. Boise even got Blankenhorn to contradict his own words in a book he wrote in 2007, where he said this country would be, "more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."
The L.A. Times wrote Tuesday that Blankenhorn "previously had feared domestic partnerships would both undermine marriage and discriminate against gays, but concluded that they were more legal arrangements than marriage.
More from the Times: Under cross examination by David Boies, an attorney for challengers of the ballot measure, Blankenhorn admitted he knew of no study showing that children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared worse than those raised by biological parents.
Blankenhorn also conceded that same-sex marriage would probably "improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children."
I wish there had been cameras to record it. Based on the live blogging from Courage Campaign and Firedog Lake, it seemed like Boise was about to make Blankenhorn cry.
The defense is expected to rest today. Judge Walker will then use the next few weeks to review evidence and testimony. Court will then reconvene for closing arguments after which, Walker will render his verdict.
Film makers John Ireland and John Ainsley have completed the trailer for their series of videos re-enacting the events taking place in San Francisco Federal Court in the landmark legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger.
Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled that video of the trial would be posted on YouTube under a pilot program. Proponents of Prop 8 challenged the ruling in the US Supreme Court, claiming pro-H8 witnesses would feel intimidated by public exposure. The Supremes ruled in favor of the pro-H8 side.
Last week Ireland set about assembling a cast and production crew to recreate the trial and has posted the first video on his site, marriagetrial.com and on his YouTube channel. The video features highlights of the opening arguments and witness testimony. It's about 3 and a half minutes long. Like most of us, I'm anxious to see more, but I understand the tremendous amount of work it takes to film and edit. Can't wait to see the rest.
Ireland told On Top Magazine, “People want to see this drama unfold and there is a tremendous narrative that was propelled by that first day of testimony. This is the first time that gay and lesbian people have talked about their lives in federal court. It's historic from that point of view.”
The video is based on transcripts of live bloggers who have been posting details of the proceedings from the courtroom every day since the trial began.
The video postings are not currently embeddable, meaning I can't post them here, but can be shared via FaceBook, Twitter, MySpace, etc. and e-mail.
The San Diego Union reports that the Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, will take the stand on Tuesday to testify about why same-sex marriage is important from a government perspective.
According to the Union, The mayor is set to testify at 8:30 a.m., and address the media afterwards on the courthouse steps in San Francisco, spokesman Darren Pudgil said.
Sanders, a Republican, has gained the respect of gay-rights advocates -- and the animosity of opponents -- with his turnaround on the issue. He announced in December 2007 that he would no longer oppose marriage rights for gays, including his lesbian daughter.
"He's testifying essentially on his experience on the issue and why he believes marriage equality is important from a government perspective," Pudgil said.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vFN6twGdZ_PeOsB4DZyhiuLL7QTnwMEJ_0STes2jt1P7OKQMasqaCvSv7By1J4Axil3I5k59Fawn_VhTXbswxNH1sg7GZVVvit6EySQYtCCf5ywxRf6I4wAK1b-fXjrjC6Q7JqbkieHyu6AWJk3FtN=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uDFnKf7Km31M1ZyaNps2oOcB3V_ip71YEJj75NMw0Jnd4NmkaLn7MfmOud0bW5IiK9cKDAwtw5mhIAxULnzIJDTfAQEOw_wdcRcsDnsGTN6NLldj6RLjRXfWgWvmez1COichTZUZsyzevUk19K864=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vP034qJQf7rmwxH_-RARJ54W00iqc_yDZl-x0kEpoaydInQpKWsdrjGuLaJDWzZkjXAaQpZ_mnWR2MtTHMpSJo7giSc-hf2B9V-q5hxr5LXnn0YSPS_h-qfDPmIM7E6nSPVNqbF2oz9HSx4FHF9TMT=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_syJ5KYgA3hKKNxkLWYBvuuZL4b_PTFj2_HWFf1ocwXGLcGg18Jzv_xHTyE2TQwMnlK6SIv_rF1AbkHIZeg0MYcJAz3jeB3wRZtMyVul7A8s23nQVvIas8Tz3NBpnvOBd70hOKOwtvpsqcvPG8CHDJi=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_utTQBRZY6EqInuNYPetqGpf_b0FRMyGd546ICMr3Z5A-mNYhxSnSR7xlurlE3m750pkpSpMiQuY2bKRyVRWiDBmJsTl3ZvXudOdFqoFFZYiWRC5Nl4JIagI3HI7f9UazAJf9mNW0kcqPnsopIHSkxt=s0-d)