Boies, Olson Remain Optimistic about Prop 8

There’s a great post over at Gay City News by Paul Schindler that talks about the optimism that David Boies and Ted Olson (the attorneys fighting to repeal California’s Prop have that marriage equality will win.

Here’s an excerpt:

As the attorneys wait to return to Walker’s courtroom to make final arguments –– later this month or in early April –– Boies said, “I feel very good” about the outcome at this first stage. Walker, he said, outlined the issues he wanted addressed at trial, and if those remain the questions uppermost in his mind, “we win.”

Read more here!

So what do you think? Will Prop 8 stand or be overturned?

Gay Judge a Nonissue During Prop 8 Trial

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.

They also don’t believe it will influence how he rules on the case he’s now hearing – whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.

“There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view,” said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/

Cali’s Gay Marriage Trial Could Be Televised

From The Business Insider Law Review:

The challenge to California’s Prop 8 could be coming to a television near you.

Ted Olson and David Boies, who represented Bush and Gore, respectively, in that little known Supreme Court battle, have teamed up to challenge the constitutionality of Prop 8, California’s amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker refused to dismiss the case, called Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The WSJ Law Blog has background of that October 14 hearing here. And today, Adam Liptak details the case in his Sidebar article, discussing the concerns of some gay marriage proponents that a Constitutional-based article is ahead of its time.

More here!

87-Year-Old Mom Is Grist in Gay Marriage Case

In oral arguments two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker asked what harms may befall California if gays are allowed to marry there.

Charles Cooper, the lawyer for backers of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages, had an unusual answer, the New York Times reports. “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Cooper said. “I don’t know.”

Walker ruled against Cooper’s motion to dismiss and set a January trial date in the suit challenging the ban filed by lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies.

Cooper had argued that the purpose of marriage was to channel procreative activity into enduring unions, but Walker questioned that assertion, the Times story says. Walker said the last marriage he performed “involved a groom who was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?”

More at: ABA Law Journal

Will Gay Marriage Harm Your Baby? How? Judge Asks

The ongoing battle over gay marriage in California — legalized by the courts then overturned by voters who supported Proposition 8 in November — has prompted some intriguing new questions.

Can anyone prove gay marriage harms traditional marriage? What’s “harm” and what would “proof” be?

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker brought these up during a hearing on a lawsuit, brought by gay Californians and supported by the state’s attorney general, claiming that Prop. 8 is unconstitutionally discriminatory.

According to an Associated Press story, Charles Cooper, lawyer for the group that sponsored Prop. 8 argued that it is “constitutionally valid because it furthers the states’ goal of fostering ‘naturally procreative relationships.’ ” But Cooper was flummoxed when the judge asked him where’s the harm.

With no examples of harm at hand, Cooper argued that Californians are still “entitled” not to take the risk. Walker, however, ruled that the case could go forward.

Read more at: USA Today!

Next Page »