WATCH: The Prop 8 Oral Arguments Before 9th Circuit

Part 1:




Part 2:

Prop 8 Federal Appeal Will Be Televised On Dec. 6!

On Monday December 6th at 10am, A 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, also known as the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit. On August 4th, openly gay federal District Court judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the United States Constitution.

These facts have been known for awhile. The new information is that apparently the oral arguments in the Perry appeal will now be televised by C-SPAN and local channel KGO. This is a big deal, because the lower court was intended to be broadcast as well but the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 objected and appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court who overruled Judge Walker and banned the broadcasting of the oral arguments just days before the trial was scheduled to begin this past January.

Here are the details of the hearing on Monday, which will be in two 2-hour segments. The first session will be on whether the Proposition 8 propnents have "standing" to actually continue defending the statue, since the official parties to the lawsuit (the Governor and Attorney General) have refused to defend the voter-passed initiative in court. The second hour will be about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 itself.

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

The names of the judges who will hear the appeal have not been released yet. Whoever loses at this level will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, who may or may not accept the case.

Appellate Court Rejects Attempt To Force Prop 8 Appeal

Recall that earlier this week heterosexual supremacists from the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General claiming that they were trying to avoid a "constitutional crisis" by forcing these elected officials to appeal Proposition 8 in federal court, even though both men have declared their belief that the measure violates the U.S. constitution.

On Thursday came word that their lawsuit was summarily rejected. by the 3rd District Court of Appeals:

The institute said it would file an immediate appeal to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a reversal by Sept. 11, the deadline for state action in the Prop. 8 case.

"When the people peacefully enact a constitutional provision and the attorney general refuses to give them meaningful review in the federal judiciary, then you have a veto by the executive branch," said the institute's lawyer, Kevin Snider. "That is a constitutional crisis, usurping the power of the people."

The reason why this legal skirmish is important is that there is a very live question of who has "standing" (or legal authority) to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling declaring Proposition 8 violates the federal constitution. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal the week of December 6th.

9th Circuit Issues Stay On Perry; Expedites Appeal

Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a.k.a. "The Prop 8 case" which means that same-sex couples will not be marrying in California any time soon.The decision overturn's Judge Vaughn Walker's denial of a stay last Thursday of his previous landmark decision issued last Thursday. The 9th Circuit also set an expedited schedule for the court, setting a trial date for the week of December 6th, 2010.

Here's the order at the special website the 9th circuit has set up for the case:

“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.

The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

There are several significant part of this one-page ruling. 1) Having a federal appellate trial less than 4 months away is incredibly fast for appellate litigation. The Prop 8 proponents have to file their brief by September 17th (1 month away) and our side a month after that and then the bad guys get to respond two weeks later and then oral arguments commence two weeks after that. There is no time frame as to how long after oral arguments the 9th Circuit will issue its ruling,, but it is signalling that it wants to dispose of the case quickly. 2) The last sentence asking for a discussion (see students, it's an essay prompt!) about why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing is also a plus on our side.

Freedom To Marry Returns To California...August 18

The Freedom to Marry returns to California...soon. There are multiple (unconfirmed) reports that Judge Vaughn Walker has lifted the stay on his decision striking down Proposition 8.

The official word is now that the judge has indeed ruled that the losers in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are denied a motion for stay but has stayed his own decision in this matter until Wednesday August 18th at 5pm.

Judge Walker's Final Order Lifting Stay on Prop 8 Ruling

CA GOV and CA AG Oppose Stay in Prop 8 Case

The State of California filed motions today opposing a stay in Judge Vaughn Walker's landmark decision ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional; in other words Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown are on record saying they want same-sex couples to be able to get married while the decision is on appeal.

As governor, Schwarzenegger is named as a defendant in the case, although he remained neutral in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. The governor was against the initiative when it was on the ballot and chose not to defend the constitutional amendment in court. He filed his brief Friday in his role as a named defendant and on behalf of two other administration officials.

The Schwarzenegger administration contended in the brief that there is no governmental or public interest in continuing a ban on gay marriage after Walker's decision." Instead, the administration said that allowing such marriages to resume would further the state's interest in recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians. It also said that there would be no administrative burden for the state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. California issued 18,000 such licenses before passage of Proposition 8.

Schwarzenegger applauded Walker's decision earlier this week.

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves," the governor said in a statement Wednesday.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat, filed a similar motion. Brown had argued that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional when the measure went before the California Supreme Court last year.

Read Attorney General's motion below.

CA AG Brown Motion To Oppose Stay in Prop 8 Case

Walker Stays Ruling Until Friday August 6

The Court has issued the following statement:

ORDER granting [706] Motion to Shorten Time. Plaintiffs,
plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Doc #705 on
or before August 6, 2010. The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein
until the motion to stay pending appeal has been decided. (vrwlc1, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010)

This means that no same-sex couples can get married right now. A hearing will be held on Friday August 6th and then the Judge will rule on the possibility of a stay. Even if he does NOT issue a stay, it is very likely that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will do so, pending the appeals process.

Federal Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has announced that the decision in the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be released tomorrow, Wednesday August 4th (Barack Obama's 49th birthday!)

Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is widely expected to strike down Proposition 8, but his reasoning and the extent of his ruling should be very interesting. Ted Olson and David Boies were the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

UPDATE TUESDAY 08/03/2010 6:41PM

The decision will be released electronically on the federal court's website between 1pm and 3pm on Wednesday August 4th.

Olson-Boies Response To Prop 8 Judge Questions

Tomorrow the federal judge in the Proposition 8 case Perry v. Schwarzenegger will hear closing arguments. Last week he issued questions to both sides of the case. The American Foundation for Equal Rights has posted the answers provided by the good guys, Ted Olson and David Boies, who are fighting to have Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional.

Here are the plaintiff responses in SCRIBD. The defendants of Prop 8 have also responded:

Plaintiffs Responses to Prop 8 Judge's Questions

Judge Walker Issues Questions In Prop 8 Trial

Judge Vaughn Walker has issued questions for the litigants in Perry v. Schwazenegger to answer during closing arguments which are scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday June 16th. Some of the questions are fascinating:

What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?

What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?

If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?

The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?

Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?

What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37

Very interesting questions, eh? I believe the Williams Institute could provide data which answers the first question. The answer to #2 should be very, very important. If the judge wants to know the answer to #3, he should watch 8: The Mormon Proposition, the documentary on the LDS church's involvement in the Proposition 8 electoral battle. I believe it's irrelevant whether some people claim to have a choice in their sexual orientation. Most people clearly do NOT choose their sexual orientation, and obviously constitutional rights do not go away because the issue in question is a choice, since most people's religion is a choice.

A full list of the Judge's questions can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677

Openly Gay Man Nominated For Federal Judgeship

United States Senator of New York Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is making news today with the announcement that he is recommending the first openly gay man for a federal judgeship: Daniel Alter.

From the press release from the Senator's office:

Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that he is recommending Daniel Alter to President Obama to serve as a judge in the Southern District federal court. Mr. Alter is a history-making pick, as he is the first openly gay male nominated for the federal court in American history. Schumer laid out several reasons Alter would make an excellent fit for the job. Schumer said that Alter’s stellar legal background, close ties to New York, even-handedness, temperament and demonstrated leadership skills would make him an excellent choice for the Southern District Court. Schumer also said that he is highly capable and very qualified for the position.

“Daniel Alter couldn’t be a more perfect choice. He is a brilliant attorney who possesses the knowledge, balanced views and temperament required of a federal judge,” Schumer said. “His outstanding leadership skills, his commitment to justice, and his extensive experience make him an exceptional choice for a position on the federal bench. I’m proud to nominate Daniel Alter. Period. But I am equally proud to nominate him because he is a history-maker who will be the first openly gay male judge in American history.”

Alter is a graduate of Columbia College and Yale Law School. As a young lawyer, Mr. Alter clerked for the Hon. John M. Walker and the Hon. Guido Calabresi, who both served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The sexual orientation of federal judges has been in the news recently with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting over the weekend that U.S. District Court judge Vaughn Walker, who just happens to be conducting the most important gay rights case (on the federal constitutionality of California's Proposition 8) of the decade (century?) is openly gay.

There are currently 875 federal judges under Article III of the United States Constitution and exactly two are known to be openly gay or lesbian: Vaughn Walker and Deborah Batts (who is also Black).

Human Rights Campaign Joe Solmonese released a statement:

“Daniel Alter is eminently qualified for a position on the federal bench. America is taking a step forward towards equality by evaluating an individual based on his accomplishments and without regard to his sexual orientation. We commend Senator Schumer for his historic recommendation, and look forward to the President’s nomination.”

Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments and have been a flashpoint with Republicans in the past. It should be interesting to see how long it takes the Alter nomination to get through the Senate, and how long it takes the Obama administration to formally initiate the process.

I'm also curious if this will encourage any other federal judges to come out. After all, 2 out of 875 federal judges being gay or lesbian is a statistically unlikely number.

SF CHRONICLE Outs Prop 8 Federal Judge

The San Francisco Chronicle has published a story revealing to the general public an open secret that many of us have already known: Vaughn Walker, the federal judge conducting the federal trial into the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 known as Perry v. Schwarznegger, is gay:

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.

[...]

Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco's Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.

"Life is full of irony," the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.

And did he have any concerns about being characterized as gay?

"No comment."

Shortly after our conversation, we heard from a federal judge who counts himself as a friend and confidant of Walker's. He said he had spoken with Walker and was concerned that "people will come to the conclusion that (Walker) wants to conceal his sexuality."

"He has a private life and he doesn't conceal it, but doesn't think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn't bring it to bear in any decisions," said the judge, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the Prop. 8 trial.

"Is it newsworthy?" he said of Walker's orientation, and laughed. "Yes."

He said it was hard to ignore the irony that "in the beginning, when (Walker) sought to be a judge, a major obstacle he had to overcome was the perception that he was anti-gay."

In short, the friend said, Walker's background is relevant in the same way people would want to know that a judge hearing a discrimination case involving Latinos was Latino or a Jewish judge was ruling in a case involving the Anti-Defamation League.

Walker, by the way, didn't seek out the Prop. 8 case - it was assigned to him at random.

I am actually glad that this story is being published. It is newsworthy that the judge is gay, and if reporters can come up with enough sources to be confident of printing that fact, they should write a story about it. Being gay is not something to be ashamed about.

Now, being appointed to the federal bench by a Republican President, that is not something I would want very many people to know about!

Text of Ted Olson Opening Statement in Prop 8 Trial

Here is the full text of the opening statement Ted Olson made before Judge Vaughn Walker arguing that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Read it, and weep, Maggie Gallagher!

OPENING STATEMENT
(as prepared)

This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied
both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the
right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to
the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;”
a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy,
association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support
and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a
fulfillment of one’s self.

In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is
“the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance
for all individuals.”

As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to
life in America. It promotes mental, physical and emotional health
and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a
marital union. It is the building block of family, neighborhood and
community. The California Supreme Court has declared that the right
to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to
live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of
society.”

Proposition 8 ended the dream of marriage, the most important relation
in life, for the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of Californians.

______________________________

_____

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that under this
State’s Constitution, the right to marry a person of one’s choice
extended to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, and was
available equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that
decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on
the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage
to gay and lesbian citizens.

The plaintiffs are two loving couples, American citizens, entitled to
equality and due process under our Constitution. They are in deeply
committed, intimate, and longstanding relationships. They want to
marry the person they love; to enter into that “most important
relation in life”; to share their dreams with their partners; and to
confer the many benefits of marriage on their families.

But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept
away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their
relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.

In the words of the California Supreme Court, eliminating the right of
individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to
“second class” citizenship, and told them, their families and their
neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital
partnership was not worthy of recognition.

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of
history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three
fundamental points:

First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry,
Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay
men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter
to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable,
discriminatory harm for no good reason.

I

MARRIAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATION IN LIFE

Plaintiffs will present evidence from leading experts, representing
some of the finest academic institutions in this country and the
world, who will reinforce what the highest courts of California and
the United States have already repeatedly said about the importance of
marriage in society and the significant benefits that marriage confers
on couples, their families, and the community. Proponents cannot
dispute these basic facts.

While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout
the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to
shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and
limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of
the past. Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of
disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated. These changes have
come from legislatures and the courts. Far from harming the
institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory
restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its
vitality, and its importance in American society today.

II

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS, THEIR CHILDREN AND
THEIR COMMUNITIES

Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose:
to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their
previously recognized constitutional right to marry. The official
title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex
Couples to Marry.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would
foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm
because they have been given the opportunity to form something called
a “domestic partnership.” That is a cruel fiction.

Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because
they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how
demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to
marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex
instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

And the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians
to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of
inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as
different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a
commercial venture, not a loving union. Indeed, the proponents of
Proposition 8 acknowledge that domestic partnerships are not the same
as traditional marriage. Proponents proudly proclaim that, under
Proposition 8, the “unique and highly favorable imprimatur” of
marriage is reserved to “opposite-sex unions.”

This government-sponsored societal stigmatization causes grave
psychological and physical harms to gay men and lesbians and their
families. It increases the likelihood that they will experience
discrimination and harassment; it causes immeasurable harm.

Sadly, Proposition 8 is only the most recent chapter in our nation’s
long and painful history of discrimination and prejudice against gay
and lesbian individuals. They have been classified as degenerates,
targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized,
fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested
for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their
fundamental rights by popular vote. Although progress has occurred,
the roots of discrimination run deep and its impacts spread wide.

III

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS FOR NO GOOD REASON

Proposition 8 singles out gay and lesbian individuals alone for
exclusion from the institution of marriage. In California, even
convicted murderers and child abusers enjoy the freedom to marry. As
the evidence clearly establishes, this discrimination has been placed
in California’s Constitution even though its victims are, and always
have been, fully contributing members of our society. And it
excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even
though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual
orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of
their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the
California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.

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.

“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8
permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of
producing children. Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in
this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those
seeking to marry.

Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children
because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally
permitted to have and raise children in California. The evidence in
this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every
bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as
heterosexuals. The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but
the content of the heart.

And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t
know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the
marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and
speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In
fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting
loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no
impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were
encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay
religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm
the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be
taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry.
Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably
pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents,
Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern
entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at
least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1)
heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and
sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples
married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain
married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3)
thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states
prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and
recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples
in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying
by Proposition 8.

There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of
discrimination. Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of
California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no
legitimate state interest. All it does is label gay and lesbian
persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it
brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than
those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and
lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain,
isolation and humiliation.

It is unconstitutional.

The text was provided by the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Follow The Federal Prop 8 Trial Online Now!

The federal Proposition 8 trial began at 9:30am in San Francisco. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker is presiding over the case, which is called Perry v. Schwarzenegger with Bush v. Gore opponents Ted Olson and David Boies joining forces to claim that California's ban on gay marriage passed by voters in November 2008 violates the federal constitution guarantees of Equal Protection and Due Process. Proposition 8 is being defended by heterosexual supremacist attorney Charles Cooper, because the state of California, in the form of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have declined to defend it in court, because they agree that the measure is unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court issued an emergency stay this morning which said:

ORDER IN PENDING CASE
09A648 HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL.
Upon consideration of the application for stay presented to
Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, it is ordered
that the order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, case No. 3:09-cv-02292,
permitting real-time streaming is stayed except as it permits
streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in
which the trial is to be held. Any additional order permitting
broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order
of this Court. To permit further consideration in this Court,
this order will remain in effect until Wednesday, January 13,
2010, at 4 p.m. eastern time.

Justice Breyer, dissenting.
I agree with the Court that further consideration is
warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time limited.
However, I would undertake that consideration without a temporary
stay in place. This stay prohibits the transmission of
proceedings to other federal courthouses. In my view, the
Court’s standard for granting a stay is not met. See Conkright
v. Frommert, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 1–2)
(Ginsburg, J., in chambers). In particular, the papers filed, in
my view, do not show a likelihood of “irreparable harm.”

With respect, I dissent.

What this means is that the proceedings (which I believe are still being videotaped) will not be streamed to any other courthouse except the one in San Francisco, and the video will not be uploaded to YouTube.com.

However, if you want to follow the trial there are numerous different ways:

Rick Jacobs of Courage Campaign is liveblogging from the courtroom at http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Dan Levine is tweeting the trial at http://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie

Bilerico has a web page showing all the relevant tweets on the issue

Firedoglake has numerous live bloggers at http://firedoglake.com/prop8trial/

Follow the twitter hashtags #prop8 and #prop8trial

I really don't understand how the heterosexual supremacists who are so scared that Proposition 8 supporters will be intimidated if videotape is uploaded to YouTube think that the identities of every single person who testifies in the trial will not be broadcast all over the blogosphere ad twitterverse. This is 2010, it is absolutely impossible to keep the information private, especially when you are talking about a trial which is determining the constitutionality of the most hitly contested ballot measure on a social issue in U.S. history!