Such an order would honor "the expressed will of the people," backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.
Lawyers for two same-sex couples who sued to overturn Prop. 8, on the other hand, are asking Walker to lift the marriage ban permanently. The measure violates the constitutional guarantee of equality, they argued, and must be struck down "regardless of its level of public support."
Walker heard 12 days of testimony in his San Francisco courtroom in January in the nation's first federal court trial on the constitutionality of a law defining marriage as a male-female union. Among those who took the stand were the plaintiff couples - two women from Berkeley and two men from Burbank - and a parade of academic witnesses who testified about the history and meaning of marriage and the status of gays and lesbians in society.
The judge has scheduled closing arguments to last all day today. His ruling, which could be weeks away, will be the first round in a battle likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court within two years.
In Prop 8 trial news, Judge Vaughn Walker has notified trial participants that he intends to close the evidentiary record, and seeks comments on that intention by this Friday:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the evidentiary record should not be closed. Show Cause Response due by 4/16/2010. Signed by Judge Walker on April 13, 2010. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2010)
The point of closing the evidence record, of course, would be to end the opportunity to submit any new evidence, such as the discovery materials sought by the Defendant-Intervenors from non-parties who fought Prop 8 during the election. These were the subject of last month’s hearing.
Additionally, the court filed an order earlier this week regarding new Amicus Briefs. Presumably, Judge Walker has had enough of those! While he did say (when last discussing them) that he would read them all, because the case was particularly ‘well-lawyered’ Walker expected that friends-of-the-court would have little new light to shed. But, he said, in case that new light did exist, he would read amicus briefs looking for it. But, now, he may be done with them.
They say Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, made a serious mistake by calling for a trial in a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage rather than deciding the case based on paper submissions.
“To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund and a member of the trial team for the people and groups who intervened to defend the ban after state officials would not. “There should not have been a trial.”
Theodore B. Olson, who was solicitor general for President George W. Bush and now represents the plaintiffs challenging the ban, said he had a theory about the new objections.
“They’ve got to complain about something,” Mr. Olson said. “They think they’re going to lose.”
Very interesting. I wonder if the tables were turned, would the opponents feel the same way?
The Bay Area's federal judges are again proposing to allow cameras in their courtrooms, a plan that could lead to telecasting of closing arguments in a suit challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage.If his court approves the new rule next week, Walker could allow camera coverage of the arguments along the lines of his previous order, subject to approval by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Telecasting lawyers' arguments, without witness testimony, might pass muster with the Supreme Court, which hasn't objected to televised hearings of arguments before the Ninth Circuit.
Prop. 8's sponsors, who opposed telecasting the trial, won't say whether they would challenge the airing of final arguments.
This would be good to see and hear these arguments. I hope this new plan works out.
Judge Walker’s bias has been so extreme, he’s earned a rare judicial “twofer.” Key elements of his “fishing expedition” rulings were already reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (notably one of the most liberal in the nation) and the Supreme Court had to step in to block his illegal attempt to broadcast the trial.
It is highly unusual for a higher court to have to intercede in a trial judge’s handling of a trial while it is going on — yet Walker has had that “distinction” twice in the same case — and we’re not yet even at closing arguments.
There’s only one saving grace to Judge Walker’s bias. It’s so big, and so obvious, not only the American public but the Supreme Court itself is already aware we have bias in the trial judge presiding.
You knew NOM would repond to Judge Walker's sexuality.
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 gayMany 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.
Although Blankenhorn was being offered as an expert witness on how same-sex marriages are detrimental to heterosexual marriages and children, Boies noted that Blankenhorn’s education had been in history.
“You’ve never taught a course in college,” said Boies, “and you have no degree in psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology.…”
“No,” said Blankenhorn, interrupting.
“And in preparation for this testimony, did you undertake any scientific study of what effects permitting same-sex marriages have been in any jurisdiction where same-sex marriages have been permitted?” asked Boies.
“No,” said Blankenhorn. And that’s about when Blankenhorn began to resist Boies’ punches. Rather than answer the yes-or-no questions that Boies posed, Blankenhorn began to try and give explanations for his points of view. But clearly some damage had already been done and, when time came for Judge Vaughn Walker to decide whether Blankenhorn could be qualified as an expert witness, it was clear the judge had some hesitation.
I'm sorry, but why was he there? David did nothing for the opponents, but hurt and embarrass their case. This is a hot ass mess, and proof that the haters never had a credible case at all.
These preachers are jokes.Earlier Monday, a team of lawyers led by prominent litigators Theodore Olson and David Boies rested the plaintiffs' case after spending more than nine days presenting evidence on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.
The last volley in their attempt to prove Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias and served no legitimate public interest was videotape of a simulcast in which supporters of the ban said gay marriage would lead to polygamy and bestiality.
The footage was shown as an example of the work of San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, who helped organize evangelical Christian support for the ballot measure.
In one video rally led by Garlow, an unidentified pastor warned "the polygamists are waiting in the wings, because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument, and they probably are going to win."
It appeared the lawyers were introducing the material to demonstrate the campaign for the ban appealed to religious-based, anti-gay bias to scare voters into supporting the measure.
Proposition 8 sponsors objected to the video, saying the content of the simulcast was not controlled by campaign managers or leaders.
However, Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker allowed the material to be put into the record because the coalition of religious and conservative groups behind Proposition 8 paid for Garlow's work.
The plaintiffs also introduced clips from promotional videos produced by other groups for distribution to churches during the Proposition 8 campaign. In one, produced by the American Family Council in Mississippi, the chairman of the California campaign, Ron Prentice, spoke against same-sex couples raising children.
"Children need and deserve the chance to have both mother love and father love" because men and women "don't bring to a marriage and a family the same natural set of skills and talents," Prentice said.
Plaintiffs will likely rest their case Monday in the federal trial over California's Proposition 8, setting the stage for backers of the ban on same-sex marriage to open their line of defense."We're pleased with the way it has gone," said David Boies, an attorney for the gay couples who want to wed.
He said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied that right and that marriage wouldn't be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples. "We've proven all three of those," he said.
Judge Vaughn Walker will decide whether the 2008 voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman codified discrimination or protected a legitimate state interest. This is the first federal challenge to state gay-marriage bans.
Defense lawyer Andrew Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.
The opponents had a weak case from the gate, from citing bogus internet sites to quoting crazy ass myths that died out with claymation. I can't wait to hear their closing arguments.
That Netherlands issue was a myth and debunked in 2005. I'm sorry, but Tam lack of knowledge is unacceptable and should not be telling anyone about God, civil rights or how to make sandwiches."Do you believe that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children?" the lawyer continued.
"Yeah, based on the different literature that I have read," Tam replied.
*************************
Under questioning by Boies, Tam also said he agreed with a statement on the Web site for the Chinese-American Christian group that said if same-sex marriage was treated as a civil right, "so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest."
**************************
Boies: "You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy?"
Tam: "Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward."
"Who told you that? Where did you get that idea," Boies asked incredulously.
"It's the Internet," he said. "Another person in the organization found it and he showed me it. ... I looked at the document and I thought it was true."
***************************
Judge Walker interrupted Ted Olson’s opening statements several times, showing he’s going to be an engaged judge. San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who is part of the case, told me she thinks he may even ask questions of the witnesses.
Olson laid out their case very well, I thought – though Walker did ask some hard pertinent questions – more on this tonight.
Charles Cooper for the defense seemed all over the place – arguing what we’ve heard often before – that marriage is historically and culturally been defined as between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and a stable society. Judge Walker asked how same sex marriages effected heterosexual marriages – and he says it does because it “de-institutionalizes” the institution. Again, more on this later. I don’t think Cooper did well – and it turns out that three more of their witnesses dropped out this morning, per Stewart.
This morning’s testimony was basically by the gay male plaintiffs – Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. Jeff went first and was emotional at several points talking about the difficulty coming out and being categorized as a second class citizen. No questions from Cooper.
Paul is on the stand now. He, too, has been emotional at times. David Boies is leading this part of the examination. There have been several technical objections – including one that Walker agreed to – re not showing the National Organization for Marriage ad “The Gathering Storm” because the link to Protect Marriage is “tenuous.” Ted Olson told me that “it’s not over,” regarding admitting the NOM ad as evidence.
CNN has this about the opponents:
However, Charles Cooper, an attorney representing Protect Marriage, the group that came up with Proposition 8, told the judge in his opening statement the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation between men and women.
Same-sex marriage "will likely lead to very real social harm; it's too novel and experimental," he argued.
Californians "are entitled to make this critical decision for themselves," he said, pointing to voter support of the proposition.
Except for the issue of marriage, gays and lesbians have been successful in attaining policy goals, Cooper said, adding that California has some of the most comprehensive protections in the nation.
Sorry this is choppy, but I will try to get more info.
“But there’s a topline message here about this trial even many informed voters don’t yet realized: It’s not about California, it’s about the whole country. Gay-marriage advocates are in federal court arguing for a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that would trump not only Prop 8, but the laws of 45 other states, including the 30 other states where the people have passed state constitutional marriage amendments.
That’s right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage–in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy.
Gay-marriage advocates believe they have a right to win. They think you and I don’t count. NOM will be filing an amicus brief in this litigation, and will work with Protect Marriage and the lawyers for Prop 8 in every way we are asked.”
We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.
