Pro-Prop 8 Motion to Vacate Ruling Denied

California Prop. 8 proponents filed a motion in Federal District Court to vacate the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.  They asserted that, because Walker was gay and in a relationship he stood to benefit from his ruling.    Basically, he was biased due to gayness.  The bullshit, desperate motion which was just shy of sanctionable, was denied today by Judge James Ware. 

"Equal protection and due process benefit all society, not just minorities, Ware writes, and "all Californians have an equal interest in the outcome of the case." ... "The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the Plaintiffs ... gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits."

Olson and Boies on Prop. 8 Ruling

Quote of the Day

"In 2008, when you won, many of you stood with your arms raised in defiance of the bitter tears you caused in the lgbt community.
What a difference two years makes indeed.
But let me explain to you why you lost today. It’s not complicated, but rather simple.
Your side lost because you lied.
Oh I know that folks on your side will whine about “activist judges who make laws rather than interpret them,” but let’s be real here.
Your entire narrative has been a lie from the beginning."

--Alvin McEwen in an open letter to Prop. 8 Supporters.  Read the rest from this South Carolinian on his excellent blog Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.

Victory in Prop. 8 Trial!

Judge Walker has released his decision in the Prop. 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and it's a significant victory for equality.  He ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional under both the equal protection and due-process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.  This ruling is an absolute defeat for Prop. 8.

Prop. 8 Decision Due Tomorrow

The Federal Court has announced that the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be released tomorrow.  All indications are that it will go our way, but there are certainly no guarantees.  Any way you look at it, tomorrow will be a significant day for equality in America. 

Prop 8 Closing Arguments Complete

The closing arguments in the Prop 8 trial concluded yesterday with Ted Olson arguing for equality and Charles Cooper arguing for continued discrimination (I'm biased, sue me).  By all accounts, things went very well for our side.  Olson is one of the best lawyers in the nation and we are lucky to have him advocating for us. 

Cooper contended that Prop 8 can only be overturned if there is no rational basis for it.  His arguments focused on procreation as that rational basis. Amazingly, when Judge Walker asked for evidence that procreation is the basis for marriage, he said evidence is unnecessary because it's self-evident.  As a lawyer, I find that answer stunning.  When a judge asks for evidence that means you have failed as a lawyer unless you can point to some.  As a human being, I find it absurd.  My sister married at the age of 57 with her grown daughter as her maid of honor.  I really don't think procreation was the basis of that marriage, yet the Catholic priest did not hesitate to perform the ceremony.  My sister is straight and married a man.  If procreation really is the basis for marriage law, why are gays the only ones prohibited from marrying because of our supposed inability to procreate?

Olson, on the other hand, argued brilliantly, by all accounts.  He argued that marriage is a fundamental right and there is no good reason to deny that right to gays.  He argued that Prop 8 fails under either rational basis or strict scrutiny.  Strict scrutiny is the legal standard by which laws affecting people due to race are examined.  Federal courts have not applied it to gays.

Here's Kate Kendall of the National Center for Lesbian Rights on her impressions of the closing arguments:

Prop 8 Case Closing Arguments Right Now

The closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case that challenged the Constitutionality of California's ban on marriage equality, are beginning now.  You can follow a live-blog here. 

Prop. 8 Trial Opens

The Prop. 8 trial opened yesterday.  Ted Olson's opening statement is set forth in its entirety here.  An excerpt: 

The State of California has offered no justification for its decision to eliminate the fundamental right to marry for a segment of its citizens.  And its chief legal officer, the Attorney General, admits that none exists.  And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.

It's a brilliant opening statement well worth reading.  Olson and Boies are the best of the best in the legal profession.  I'm cautiously optimistic about this case because we're in such good hands.  Excellent coverage of the trial can be found here, here, and here,  

Check out Olson's answer when the judge asked why this case should be in court at all:

That’s why we have courts, to protect those who are discriminated against, when their children can’t go to school because of their skin color. We would not need a constitution if we left everything to the political process. We’d just let the majority prevail and that’s a good thing about democracy, but it’s not so good if you are different, new. It causes gays and lesbians unrelenting pain. We have the courts to take our worthy, upstanding citizens who are being hurt to be protected by the courts. That’s why we are here today.”

Concise, accurate, brilliant.