CONTACTStaffCAREER OPPORTUNITIESADVERTISE WITH USPRIVACY POLICYPRIVACY PREFERENCESTERMS OF USELEGAL NOTICE
© 2024 Pride Publishing Inc.
All Rights reserved
All Rights reserved
By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
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.
Judge Walker showed his hand very early in the two hour argument when
he interrupted Cooper and announced with a chuckle that he himself had
just presided over the marriage of a "92-year-old and and 85-year-old"
opposite sex couple. Even Cooper smiled and laughed, as did the packed
audience, and Walker didn't need to elaborate further.
Cooper
argued that while the state could not "generally" differentiate between
fertile and interfile opposite sex couples, it was wise to draw the
line at same-sex couples who by definition were "not fertile" -- at least
with each other.
The judge pointed out that nearly 40 percent
of pregnancies were to single women, so that the state did not require
marriage as a precondition of marriage.
Cooper countered that
the state has an "interest" in insuring that as many children as
possible were raised in heterosexual relationships so the state does
not have to make children wards of the "welfare system" both in the
interest of the children and of the citizenry as a whole.
Judge
Walker cited a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that ruled that prisoners
had the right to marriage even thought they can't possibly serve the
traditional role of parent. He wondered out loud why prisoners should
have more rights than same-sex couples in the area of marriage.
Walker then asked, "How does same-sex marriage adversely affect opposite sex marriage?"
Cooper responded: "My answer is I don't know," generating gasps from the
audience. He conceded that there was little or no evidence where
same-sex marriage is legal that it has an relevance to opposite
marriage. But he said that the state has a right to "stand back" and
say no to same-sex marriage while watching it play out in "other
jurisdictions, such as Massachusetts" and that it made sense that a
majority of voters wanted "to move with caution" and to "proceed
incrementally" with civil unions and domestic partnerships on such a
big issue and not engage in a "radical experiment."
In his
argument, Ted Olson, sporting a big head of red hair, was more fluent,
and kept hammering home Walker's own questions about the supposed
threat to opposite sex relationships from same-sex ones. He even
slipped in a reference to the fact that his own mother had just gotten
married. Since Olson is well over 50, the implication was clear.
Walker
challenged Olson to explain why the definition of marriage mattered when
in fact both sides in the case had already argued that gays already
have the same legal relationship right as heterosexuals do in the state.
Olson
said that "100 years ago" the nation might have said that immigrants
could have all the rights of U.S. citizens but could not be called
"citizens" and that would have had a terrible effect on them too. Marriage, he argued, has symbolic and cultural meaning that can leave those left
out as "second class citizens"
Walker wanted to know why Loving
v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case overturning all laws prohibiting
inter-racial marriage, was relevant when in fact only 1/3 of states at
the time prohibited such relationships. He said the court ruled when it
was a far more established fact that Americans opposed racial marriage
distinctions.
Olson argued that in fact the state of Virginia's argument was exactly the same as that of same-sex marriage
opponents -- "that the law had been that way for a long time and so
should stay that way for a long time."
Olson said it was the
duty of the court to rule on the federal constitutional issue of due
process and equal protection of the law, and not simply defer to the
narrow majority of voters or to tradition.
Everyone had a
laugh when Olson pointed out that S. Court Justice Antonin Scalia had
opined in Romer that that the majority's logic that animus was the only
reason for the Colorado antigay initiative made it impossible to argue
against same-sex marriage. Walker said "it shows why those in the
minority sometimes should not write dissenting opinions" as they can be
used against them later.
Olson argued that the 18,000 same-sex
grandfathered marriages had created a crazy quilt of laws and that the
court need to address the inherent unfairness of that. "The
irrationality of marriage distinctions was now enhanced by the strange
patters of legal and illegal marriages today."
Want more breaking equality news & trending entertainment stories?
Check out our NEW 24/7 streaming service: the Advocate Channel!
Download the Advocate Channel App for your mobile phone and your favorite streaming device!
From our Sponsors
Most Popular
Here Are Our 2024 Election Predictions. Will They Come True?
November 07 2023 1:46 PM
17 Celebs Who Are Out & Proud of Their Trans & Nonbinary Kids
November 30 2023 10:41 AM
Here Are the 15 Most LGBTQ-Friendly Cities in the U.S.
November 01 2023 5:09 PM
Which State Is the Queerest? These Are the States With the Most LGBTQ+ People
December 11 2023 10:00 AM
These 27 Senate Hearing Room Gay Sex Jokes Are Truly Exquisite
December 17 2023 3:33 PM
10 Cheeky and Homoerotic Photos From Bob Mizer's Nude Films
November 18 2023 10:05 PM
30 Steamy Photos of Folsom Street Fair 2023 Debauchery
October 15 2023 11:06 PM
42 Flaming Hot Photos From 2024's Australian Firefighters Calendar
November 10 2023 6:08 PM
These Are the 5 States With the Smallest Percentage of LGBTQ+ People
December 13 2023 9:15 AM
60 Burly Pics from Bearrison Street Fair 2022
October 08 2023 8:30 PM
Watch Now: Advocate Channel
Trending Stories & News
For more news and videos on advocatechannel.com, click here.
Trending Stories & News
For more news and videos on advocatechannel.com, click here.
Latest Stories
Plus
Yahoo FeedInjectable HIV treatment, prevention: Everything you need to know
March 26 2024 10:45 PM
Ronna McDaniel, tied up by her Trump lies, drowns in an aquarium of her own making
March 26 2024 9:00 PM
The ultimate guide to cannabis in Provincetown
March 26 2024 6:40 PM
New York Times fails to include trans voices in coverage, say GLAAD, Media Matters
March 26 2024 6:31 PM
Pete Buttigieg commits federal resources to Baltimore bridge collapse recovery
March 26 2024 5:47 PM
The horrific reality of transgender individuals in Texas prisons
March 26 2024 4:30 PM
Three more arrested in murder of queer Brazilian politician Marielle Franco
March 26 2024 3:41 PM
New Hampshire advances trans-exclusionary sports bill
March 26 2024 3:24 PM
Pride
Yahoo FeedFind your perfect fit with gender-inclusive fashion from The Pride Store
March 26 2024 2:16 PM