Prop 8 Appeal Recap with David Boies on Hardball with Chris Matthews

David Boies (L) and Ted Olson (R)

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.

Related articles

• Prop. 8: If governor and attorney general don't defend gay-marriage law, who can? (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• NCLR Praises Powerful Ninth Circuit Arguments by Plaintiffs in Prop 8 Oral Argument (lezgetreal.com)
• Prop. 8 analysis: If ruling overturning gay marriage ban is allowed to stand, court must decide who would be bound by it (latimesblogs.latimes.com)

Opening Arguments in Today's Prop 8 Appeal to be Televised

On August 4th of this year, Federal District Court Justice Vaughn Walker ruled that California's Proposition 8, the voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage in the gayest state on the planet, violated the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Today, four months later, a three judge panel in a San Francisco federal appeals court will hear opening arguments from the Pro-H8 side and the dream team of Olson and Boies, who won the case for us last summer.

Perhaps the most critical part of all of this is the question of standing. At issue is whether or not the Prop 8 defenders have the legal standing to file the appeal at all. Our side maintains that they do not, as they were not named in the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. The Governator and incoming Governor-elect/Attorney General Jerry Brown both chose not to appeal the case.

If you're not constitutional lawyer, it may be a little hard to understand all the legalese and what's going on this morning, so AmericaBlog Gay breaks it down for us and provides links to the legal briefs being filed by each side. It's all pretty dry and technical, but some of it makes for some very compelling reading, especially the Olson-Boies responses:

Prop 8 Proponents Opening Brief: The defenders of prop 8 are looking to establish that (1) they have standing to pursue an appeal of Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger; (2) Imperial County (a county in Southern California east of San Diego) also has standing to pursue the appeal; and (3) Prop 8 should be upheld. The Introduction (pp. 1-8) and Summary of Argument (16-18) provide a good outline of what they are arguing.

Main Response Brief filed by the Olson-Boies team: In this brief, our people are asking the court (1) to deny standing to the proponents of Prop 8 and (2) to strike down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Pages 1-28 encompass the Introduction, the Statement of Facts and the Summary of Argument. If you only have time to read one thing, read this.

Response regarding Imperial County: filed by the Olson-Boies team. This is the response to the argument that Imperial County should be permitted to pursue appeal. You might want to look at pages 1-2. They contain the Introduction and Statement of the Issues.

The blog Pop 8 Trial Tracker will be live blogging the proceedings, which begin at 10:00am PST today (1:00pm Eastern). TV cameras will be allowed in the court room this time, courtesy of C-SPAN. (Watch here.)

Related articles

• California's Prop 8 gay marriage ban goes before federal court - MiamiHerald.com (news.google.com)
• Appeals court Prop. 8 hearing likely key to result (sfgate.com)
• "Gay Marriage: All Eyes Are on the Ninth Circuit" and related posts (sanfranciscosentinel.com)
• Judith E. Schaeffer: Preview of Live Blog Monday: The Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Historic Marriage Equality Case (huffingtonpost.com)
• Prop 8 appeal arguments to be broadcast live Monday (secularnewsdaily.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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Prop 8 Day of Decision: Ruling Expected Today

The San Francisco Chronicle reported last night that the federal court of appeals in San Francisco announced that Judge Vaughn Walker will be disclosing his ruling on Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the federal court challenge to California's Mormon-backed Proposition 8, the voter initiative that amended the state constitution and defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The amendment was passed five months after a court ruling found that banning same-sex marriage was a violation of California's constitution. In the window of opportunity between the June 2008 ruling and the passing of Prop 8 the following November, 18,000 same-sex couples were legally married.

On the news of today's announcement, proponents of Prop 8 filed a motion to delay implementation of the ruling out of the fear that another window will be created until they can appeal it to the US Supreme Court. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Supporters of Prop 8 are expecting to lose this round and have already filed a motion to stay the ruling out of fear that another window of opportunity will be created until the ruling is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

After court officials on Tuesday announced plans to release the decision, Prop. 8's sponsors filed papers making it clear they expect to lose this round. They asked Walker, if he rules against them, to leave the ban on same-sex marriages in place while they appeal.

Lawyers for Prop. 8's backers told the judge they are confident that any such ruling would be overturned on appeal. They said a stay would honor the will of the voters and would not harm same-sex couples, who can still register as domestic partners.

CNN reports this morning that the ruling is expected at around 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. The American Foundation for Equal Rights has set up a page where you can sign up to receive an e-mail alert as soon as the ruling is announced.

Rallies are planned nationwide in anticipation of the ruling. The following schedule comes via Joe.My.God.:

LOS ANGELES: 6 p.m. | West Hollywood Park | 647 N. San Vicente
SAN DIEGO: March: 6 p.m. @ 6th & University | Rally: 7 p.m. @ LGBT Community Center | 3909 Centre St
SAN FRANCISCO: 5 p.m. | Castro & Market
LONG BEACH: 6 p.m. | Bixby Park | Junipero & Cherry @ Broadway
SACRAMENTO: 6 p.m. | Party | K & 21st | In the unlikely event Judge Walker rules against teh gay, there will be a march to the Capitol
SAN JOSE: 6 p.m. | Billy DeFrank Center | 983 the Alameda


New York City's event will take place in downtown Manhattan at the New York Supreme Court, 60 Centre Street, at 7pm.

Blogger Rex Wockner has compiled a list of other rallies taking place throughout the country. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Prop 8 Decision Comes Wednesday (sfist.com)
• Judge's ruling expected in gay marriage case (abclocal.go.com)
• Report: anti-gay TV ads swayed Prop. 8 voters (sfgate.com)
• Rumor of Prop. 8 ruling brings attorneys, media to S.F. courthouse (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• Federal judge to rule on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• SFgate.com Prop. 8 ruling coming Wednesday (sfgate.com)

Prop 8 Trial Re-entactment: Day 1, Part 3 (Video)

Here's the latest installment of the re-enactment of Perry vs. Schwarzenneger. This episode continues with the opening testimony of the plaintiffs who willingly put their lives up for public scrutiny in order to fight for our rights. It was so wrong for the Supreme Court to bar video recording of this historic event.

I don't mean to devalue the efforts of the film makers. They did an awesome job putting this together, but the audio is weak in places and the actors appear to be reading their lines. And why do the judge and all the attorneys seem so gay?

Prop 8 Trial: Defense Witnesses Torn to Shreds Under Cross

Image via Wikipedia

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lawyer Challenges Gay Marriage Opponent (online.wsj.com)
• Witness in marriage trial says gays face job bias (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Prop 8 Trial: Day 10 Recap & Day 11 Preview (laist.com)
• Proposition 8 Trial: Defense Witness Says Gays Face Job Bias (huffingtonpost.com)
• Audrey Bilger: Why Straight People Should Be Following the Prop. 8 Federal Trial (huffingtonpost.com)

Prop 8 Trial, Day 9 and what's up for Monday

Image via Wikipedia

Friday's proceedings saw an attempt by the defense to show that human sexuality is fluid, not fixed and that this phenomenon would make a same-sex marriage unstable. Dr. Gregory Herek, Associate Research Psychologist at UC Davis testified and presented evidence that sexual orientation is not chosen. He also talked about the damage done by "conversion therapy" and that both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from their respective lists of mental and emotional disorders over 35 years ago. Each of those groups provided statements about the damage caused by conversion therapy. 

Suffice it to say the all too familiar stories told of people marrying young and coming out late in life were debated. Research was presented and the pro-H8 side tried to dispute it, but Dr. Herek stuck to his guns.

The anti-H8 side is expected to rest on Monday and the pro-H8 side will begin calling it's two witnesses. That's right, the folks who devoted two years and tens of millions of dollars to overturn marriage equality could only manage to come up with two witnesses with the balls to testify. Six witnesses backed out when Judge Walker's plan to broadcast video of the trial on YouTube, claiming they felt intimidated by being publicly exposed for their rolls in the passage of Prop 8. Even after the U.S. Supreme Court prevented the video taping, these cowards refused to testify.

Closing arguments from both sides are expected this week. Judge Walker is expected to take about two weeks to review the evidence and testimony before rendering a ruling on the case. Regardless of how the judge rules, this case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court at a time when the court rulings have been falling 5-4 along party lines favoring conservatives.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Prop 8 trial: Conversion therapy doesn't work, GLBT people experience violence, and the Kinsey scale (bilerico.com)
• What real threats looked like after Prop 8 passed (bilerico.com)
• Prop 8 trial set up aids gay marriage side (cnn.com)
• High Court Blocks Broadcast of Gay-Marriage Trial (online.wsj.com)
• Prop 8 Trial: Gay Not A Choice? (sfist.com)

Prop 8 Trial, Day 8: Boycotts, Vandals and "The Gathering Storm"

Image via Wikipedia

In trying to keep you all informed with daily updates of the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 challenge in California, my biggest obstacle is that I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak legalese so I've had to rely on daily summaries done by other bloggers. Today, I thought I'd try to do the wrap-up of yesterday's highlights myself. (Wish me luck.)

The day started off with a continuation of cross-examination of Prof. Gary Segura who provided expert testimony about the political powerlessness of Gays and Lesbians, despite the bits and pieces of progress we've made. Their side tried to suggest that when California approved domestic partnerships, our community cheered, Segura pointed out that DP's are preferable to having no rights, not preferable to full marriage rights.


The pro-H8 tried to show that when people voted according to their religious beliefs, they were not being bigoted or homophobic. They also tried to use the calls for boycotts of businesses that supported Prop 8 as a reason why people voted for Prop 8. Segura pointed out that boycotts are a tool used by the politically powerless and are an American tradition going back to the Boston Tea Party and were successfully used by African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement.

Their side showed news footage detailing isolated incidents of vandalism, fist fights and theft of "Yes On 8" yard signs as proof that people voted for Prop 8 because they were afraid of gays. Segura explained that sometimes individuals behave badly and that even though it's bad P.R. for the movement, it was not enough to significantly effect the way people voted. He also pointed out that many of these events happened after the vote.

Taking advantage of that fact that the pro-H8 side had introduced evidence that occurred after Prop 8 was voted into law, attorneys for the plaintiffs introduced the notorious ad "The Gathering Storm", produced by The National Organization for Marriage, into evidence to illustrate the misinformation and scare tactics used by proponents of the ballot measure to gain support for their side.

The afternoon session saw the the most action as Hak-Shing William “Bill” Tam was called as a hostile witness. Tam, an evangelical Christian, wrote the verbiage on the Prop 8 ballot and was heavily involved with orchestrating events in support of Prop 8, including creation of a website for Asian-Americans that posted a story he wrote with the headline, "Studies Show That Homosexuality Is Linked to Pedophilia". Tam was one five Prop 8 proponents who tried to get out of having to before the trial started.

The pro-h8 side has tried to distance themselves from Tam because his involvement shows that religious-based homophobia was the driving force behind the ballot measure.

To follow the trial updates as they occur, click the Prop 8 Trial Tracker links at the top, right of the page.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Prop 8 Trial - The Most Important Trial in (LGBT) History - (lezgetreal.com)
• Rick Jacobs: Prop 8 on trial: Justice and equality in the age of the Internet (huffingtonpost.com)

Prop 8 Re-enactment Trailer Now Online

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Final Decision: Supreme Court Blocks Taping of Prop 8 Trial (laist.com)
• Sitting in on the Prop 8 trial (johnaugust.com)

Prop 8 Trial, Day 7: "Explosive" Documents Reveal LDS Involvement in Prop 8

We've known almost since the beginning that the LDS (Mormon) Church was heavily involved in financing and orchestrating the effort to pass Prop 8, although they have tried play it down have and outright lied about their behind the scenes activities.

Rick Jacobs continues his live blogging for the Courage Campaign from the trial in San Francisco. In Wednesday afternoon's session, documents in the form of letters and e-mails between the Prop 8 campaign and the LDS, Catholic and certain evangelical churches were introduced as evidence outlining the official talking points regarding the churches' pro-H8 activities.

From prop8trialtracker.com: For example, one letter indicated that the LDS church had identified a volunteer for the campaign in every single zip code. This was a church document that was in the hands of a Prop 8 campaign official, and thus was discoverable. Andy Pugno, the general council for ProtectMarriage.com tried his darnedest to get Judge Walker to exclude it, but failed. 

From Rick’s liveblog:
    Pugno: Objects because document will be revealing.

    Judge: Not to make light of this, but the reason people want to produce documents is that they are revealing.

    Boutrous: It’s from an outsider to the core group. We are attempting to show the level of coordination with groups that Protect Marriage says were not even affiliated with the campaign.

(Rick's comment) This is perhaps the most explosive bit of all, from a document between the LDS Church and the campaign:

    "With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved."

(Rick's comments) Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8.

Republican San Diego Mayor Testifies in Prop 8 Trial

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testified about his support for same-sex marriage from a political standpoint, why he changed his mind on domestic partnerships and how his daughter's coming out helped to change his heart and mind in 2007

In his testimony, Mayor Sanders (via prop8tracker.com) said, "Lisa called me in her sophomore year in college, and said that she wanted to talk to wife and I. She told us that she was a lesbian, and in a lesbian relationship." 
"I felt overwhelming love. I understood how difficult it was for her. I told her that we loved her more than ever. I would support her. I told her that it was very tough on gay people in society."

"I was concerned because I seen what had happened to people who were openly gay. I saw a sargeant who came out in the 1970s who was driven out of the police department. I have seen violence against the gay community simply because they were gay. We had a series of gay bashings in San Diego. I had heard the slurs and the comments that people made."

"I took a position that domestic partnership was a fair alternative. I took the position because San Diego was in a tough spot. I thought civil unions were fair. I changed my position in September 2007. The city council passed a resolution on behalf of the City of San Diego to file an amicus on behalf of marriage equality in San Francisco’s marriage case."

Following is the video, presented in evidence at the trial, of Mayor Sanders announcing his support for marriage equality in 2007.

Repub. Mayor of San Diego to Testify for Gay Marriage in Prop 8 Trial

Image via Wikipedia

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.

Prop 8 Trial to be Re-enacted for Posting on YouTube

Judge Vaughn Walker's plan to tape the proceedings of the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger lawsuit for posting on YouTube was killed by the US Supreme court at the request of the pro-H8 side last week. Without the video, we've relied on the efforts of dedicated live bloggers to get the latest information out of the courtroom. Now, thanks to the efforts of journalist and film maker John Ireland, we'll be able to watch a recreation of the trial on YouTube.

Ireland told On Top Magazine in an interview posted Sunday, “People want to see this drama unfold and there is a tremendous narrative that was propelled by that first day of testimony,” Ireland told On Top Magazine on Sunday. “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.”

Ireland's production is much like what went on during the Micheal Jackson child molestation trial, where cameras were also banned from the courtroom. Casting and filming  began over the weekend. Dialog is based on the text of live bloggers who have been working non-stop to bring us the day-to-day details. Ireland says, “I don't think you have to be gay or lesbian to see that there is a tremendous human story being told but so few people are actually hearing it."

Filming is complete of last Monday's opening session and Ireland plans to post the video on YouTube Tuesday. I'll post the video, or a link here as soon as it is available.

Ireland and his partner are one of the 18,000 California couples that were legally married in 2008 during the window of opportunity between the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage and the passing of Prop 8, which relegated the state's lesbians and gays to second class citizenship.

Supreme Court indefinitely blocks YouTube broadcast of Prop 8 Trial

 From the San Jose Mercury News:

With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep the Prop 8 trial dark on the Web, rejecting Judge Vaughn Walker's attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the federal court's Web site by using YouTube., as well as allowing it to be circulating for viewing at various federal courthouses around the West. The majority opinion said that Walker and officials with the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, including Chief 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, did not follow proper procedures in changing federal court rules that would allow the broadast. The majority stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast." Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, decried the decision, saying there was no reason to interfere with the broadcast and that there would not be any harm in allowing the webcast.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Judge Kozinski Unrelenting On 'Cameras in the Court' Issue (blogs.wsj.com)
• Gay Marriage Trial Revives Camera Controversy (abcnews.go.com)
• Cameras in the Prop 8 Courtroom: Why Not? (abovethelaw.com)
• Proposition 8: Gay Marriage Trial Defendant Wants Out Of Case (huffingtonpost.com)

Strange Bedfellows: Prop 8 Atty's Olson & Boies on Rachel Maddow Show (video)

There could never be a more unlikely coupling than Ted Olson and David Boies. The two faced off during the supreme court case, Bush v. Gore in the wake of the 2000 presidential election in which the court awarded the presidency to Uber-Douche  George W. Bush.

The unlikely gay rights champions spoke with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night where they talked about why they took the case and what their strategy may be.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy