Motion to Dismiss Fed. Prop. 8 Suit Denied
A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled against Proposition 8 supporters seeking to dismiss a high-profile lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the California ballot measure that stripped gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry last year.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the suit will go to trial in January as originally scheduled.
The suit was brought by former U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson and attorney David Boies, who argued opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case. The attorneys represent two California gay couples who sued the state after they were denied marriage licenses. Voters approved Proposition 8 in November.
Earlier this month, Judge Walker ordered ProtectMarriage.com, a conservative group that worked to pass Prop. 8, to turn over some internal campaign documents and e-mails. Lawyers for the group have appealed the order, claiming it violates Prop. 8 supporters' First Amendment rights.
Judge Walker rejected the notion that the 1972 case Baker v. Nelson, a Minnesota same-sex marriage challenge, was a relevant precedent in deciding the prop. 8 case. He said that Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, both of which established gays and lesbians as a discrete minority group, were much more relevant. He ordered both sides to move ahead with discovery.
It's interesting to watch the arguments unfold when the opponents of same-sex marriage are deprived of their main argument: anti-gay canards about the threat to children and to society.
Chuck Cooper, the attorney for Prop 8 proponents, made the case that only five states and seven countries worldwide had legalized same-sex marriage and that the cultural and moral imperative of heterosexual marriage was agreed upon almost universally and historically.
In his arguments for Prop. 8, Cooper returned again and again to the state's interest in promoting "natural procreative relationships of opposite sex couples" in producing the "next generation" of citizens. He said the onus should be on the plaintiffs to prove why this is not a compelling state institution.
Follow us on Twitter. 
Follow us on Facebook.
Page 1 of 3