
CONTACTAbout UsCAREER OPPORTUNITIESADVERTISE WITH USPRIVACY POLICYPRIVACY PREFERENCESTERMS OF USELEGAL NOTICE
© 2025 Equal Entertainment LLC.
All Rights reserved
All Rights reserved
By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
We need your help
Your support makes The Advocate's original LGBTQ+ reporting possible. Become a member today to help us continue this work.
Your support makes The Advocate's original LGBTQ+ reporting possible. Become a member today to help us continue this work.
The legal team arguing against California's Proposition 8 case provided answers to 39 questions from U.S. district court chief judge Vaughn R. Walker in advance of the June 16 closing arguments.
Attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies sent the document to the court, disputing the constitutionality of upholding Proposition 8.
"If a state constitutional provision is inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it can no longer be given effect -- regardless of its level of public support," they wrote. "Whether or not Prop. 8 was motivated by discriminatory animus, it is unconstitutional because it facially discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and sex."
They also added that while some antigay people have insisted that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would bring a swath of consequences, "when asked point blank, their lead council admitted that [the] Proponents 'don't know' whether allowing same-sex couples to marry would harm heterosexual relationships."
For more of their answers, visit The American Foundation for Equal Rights.
From our Sponsors
Most Popular
Watch Now: Pride Today
Latest Stories
Kaiser Permanente ends gender-affirming surgeries for patients under 19
July 24 2025 3:17 PM
Trump’s chilling accusation against Obama will have cataclysmic consequences
July 24 2025 6:00 AM
Trump admin may end PEPFAR, replacing it with a program chiefly benefiting the U.S.
July 23 2025 3:02 PM