|| News ||
1 2 NEXT  Page 1 of 2

Prop. 8 Judge Raises Tough Questions


JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER X390 (BILL RUSSELL) | ADVOCATE.COM

The federal judge presiding over a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, California’s anti-marriage equality measure, has distributed to attorneys on both sides a list of 39 questions to be addressed during closing arguments next week.

One veteran gay legal scholar said that the breadth of inquiries posed by U.S. district judge Vaughn R. Walker means that his decision likely will be “blockbuster in its scope.”

Among the questions Walker has posed:

What does it mean to have a “choice” in one’s sexual orientation?

What is the import of evidence showing that marriage has been historically limited to a man and a woman?

If spouses are obligated to one another for mutual support and ... if legal spousal obligations have no basis in the gender of the spouse, what purpose does a law requiring that a marital partnership consist of one man and one woman serve?

High-profile attorneys Ted Olson (challenging Proposition 8) and Charles Cooper (defending it) will attempt to answer those questions June 16 in a San Francisco courtroom.

Nan Hunter, who for nine years directed the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Gay and Lesbian Rights Project, said Walker’s questions suggest he may have already drafted an opinion in the four months since he adjourned the evidentiary phase of the trial in January.

The detail and breadth of the questions “are literally all over the place, but in a good way,” Hunter said. (The full list of questions is available here.)

One question that stands out for Hunter and other LGBT attorneys following the case is whether voters’ belief that Prop. 8 served a legitimate state interest has any bearing on the constitutionality of the ballot measure.

“That,” said Hunter, “alludes to a fundamental conflict in constitutional democracy that has been with us since the founding.”

The key question before Walker as a judge, however, is whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage, passed by voters in 2008 as Prop. 8, violates the U.S. Constitution.

Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter. Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Facebook. 1 2 NEXT  Page 1 of 2
Reader Comments
  • Name: Jim
    Date posted: 8/4/2010 2:58:35 AM
    Hometown: L.A.

    Comment:

    First: I would like to point out that if the law is the same for everyone then it is not biased. The law in reference to marriage is the same for eveyone. You can marry a member of the opposite sex. That law is the same for everyone, THE SAME. If it is THE SAME then it can not be biased. I have only the same rights as the gay man, or woman, in SanFrancisco. NO MORE! The LAW doesn't deal in, and doesn't even mention LOVE. No one has the right to marry who they LOVE. Show me the law that says "STRAIT PEOPLE MAY MARRY WHO THEY LOVE." The law doesn't mention the word LOVE anywhere. We can't go around changing laws just because some folks don't like them. "Chee, I want to live different from eveyone so they should change THE LAW, it's my right!" Is it? It's your right to live differently, true, but to change the LAW? Everything in this life comes with a price, that's just the way it is. Changing a law isn't going to change that.

  • Name: Bob
    Date posted: 6/10/2010 3:32:33 PM
    Hometown: Madison

    Comment:

    May I just say that Judge Walker put together some very interesting, and in my opinion, great questions. I'll be interested in reading the responses.

  • Name: Juli
    Date posted: 6/10/2010 3:08:44 PM
    Hometown: Des Moines

    Comment:

    For David in Tampa: (from Wikipedia) In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state"

  • Name: David
    Date posted: 6/10/2010 10:33:07 AM
    Hometown: Tampa

    Comment:

    @Roger in Santa Cruz: Please show me in the Constitution where it states, describes, or even alludes to this Separation of Church and State that you refer to, as if it was the Zeroth Amendment or something. As much as I believe in correctness and moral requirement of the (lower-case-s) separation of Church and State, it is not in any way a 'law' under which charges can be brought.

  • Name: CountryBoy
    Date posted: 6/10/2010 9:55:52 AM
    Hometown: MO

    Comment:

    @BobnFred in Charlotte... You're absolutely right! Scalia is a catholic first and a jurist, second. His opinion will be to parrot the dictates of his church and the Constitution be damned. This is what worries me about the make-up of SCOTUS, now. Of the nine justices; six are catholics! I just hope that IF Judge Walker rules in favor of S-S marriage; the decision takes immediate effect. LGBT people in California, and nationwide, have been treated like second-class citizens long enough. What worries me further, is the possibility that IF he rules against us; what ripple effect might his ruling have on the repeal of DADT and other matters of critical importance to LGBT Americans...

  • Name: BobnFred
    Date posted: 6/10/2010 7:23:55 AM
    Hometown: Charlotte, NC

    Comment:

    I wonder if Scalia will recuse himself when this hits SCOTUS. Remember, his formal opinion in Lawrence v Texas, which he read from the bench, made it clear that he opposes gay marriage. In effect he has prejudged any case arguing for the legality of gay marriage. Bets, anyone?

  • Name: Roger
    Date posted: 6/10/2010 3:28:44 AM
    Hometown: Santa Cruz

    Comment:

    What puzzles me is why this trial only seems to be addressing the constitutionality of Prop 8 under the equal protection clause; it seems clear to me that there is just as strong a case to me made under the separation of Church and State. The word 'marriage' has two frequently conflated meanings: a religious ceremony and a civil contract. Nothing in the wording of Prop 8 makes it clear which it is referring to, and the presence of large contributions on both sides of the Prop 8 funding makes it look a lot like an argument between different religions (Mormons, Catholics vs. Unitarians, Episcopalians, liberal Jews) about the correct requirements for a religious ceremony. In particular, the mainstream Mormon church has a strong doctrinal interest in defining marriage as being between one man and ONE woman, as part of it's struggle against the polygamist Mormon splinter churches. So it looks like government recognizing one set of religious institutions over another set.

  • Name: JamesStone
    Date posted: 6/9/2010 11:24:34 PM
    Hometown: Ohio

    Comment:

    To me the most unconstitutional aspect of this whole thing are these ballot initiatives!! I just don't understand how the "majority" can put "minorities" rights on a ballot and vote them away??? Can you imagine if let's say in 1960 if "the people" were allowed to put interracial marriage on the ballot?? I think we all know how that would come out. I have no idea how this trial will affect my partner and I here in Ohio. We had one of those ballot initiatives here six years ago and they not only stripped away marriage they stripped us of civil unions!! Regardless of what happens my partner and I of 20 years will still be together-I cannot imagine life without him. It would be nice as a taxpaying citizen to have the same rights as my straight married friends..ESPECIALLY my straight married friend who is on marriage number three!!!!

  • Name: Charles
    Date posted: 6/9/2010 7:43:09 PM
    Hometown: Rock Hill, SC

    Comment:

    The answer to why marriage has historically been only between a man and a woman is that until the late 20th century, homosexuality was ILLEGAL. I think that makes the whole 'traditional, historical marriage' argument silly. It's like saying: Women have historically never been allowed to vote, therefore women should not be given the right to vote. There is any number of things that weren't done in the past because they were illegal but are allowed now: stores open on Sunday, selling liquor on Sunday, pornography, etc.

  • Name: Tom
    Date posted: 6/9/2010 6:21:01 PM
    Hometown: Va Beach

    Comment:

    To Daniel R: Traits? Religious and political beliefs are not traits. Thos are indeed choices. You choose to believe in a diety, or Rush Limbaugh ( for some thats the same thing). Even though someone may be born a Jew because of where they are born, they may choose to follow a different religion, for instance. Religous views already enjoy a broad protection that we all have the right to believe or not believe in religion of our choosing. I was born gay. I knew at a very early age, without knowing or seeing another gay person that I was attracted to other men. People are not born knowing what the believe religously, they are taught that by their family.



 
 
Advocate Subscribe Promo Banner 300x50
 
Follow Us Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterSubscribe to our RSS feedsDownload our app
Facebook Activity