Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Judge eyes quick action on Calif. gay marriage ban
07.03.2009 2:25pm EDT
(San Francisco) A federal judge in San Francisco said a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban will likely one day reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker made the comment Thursday during his first hearing on the suit in explaining why he wants to conduct a full trial. It’s a trial judge’s job to settle any factual disputes surrounding the voter-approved ban and its effect on the civil rights of gays and lesbians before the case goes to a higher court, he said.“I am reasonably sure that, given the personalities in this courtroom, this case is only touching down in this court and it will have a life after this court,” Walker said. “What happens here is in many ways a prelude to what happens later.”
The judge, who was named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, has been asked to strike down Proposition 8 as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process and equal protection.
The November ballot initiative supplanted a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages, but the state high court upheld the measure in late May as a valid exercise of the electorate’s power to amend the California Constitution.
The case has generated much attention because it was brought on behalf of two unmarried same-sex couples by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies, the attorneys who represented opposing sides in the disputed 2000 presidential election tally.
Walker on Thursday rejected a request from the Boies/Olson team that he suspend enforcement of the gay marriage ban while the challenge to it proceeds.
He said he agreed with California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that allowing gay marriages to resume now would create unnecessary confusion for the state and same-sex newlyweds if Proposition 8 is upheld down the road.
But Walker added that he wants to put the case on an accelerated timetable because it involves serious civil rights issues. He directed lawyers for the two couples and the ballot measure’s sponsors to report back to him in writing by Aug. 7 with the issues they agree on up front and those that would need to be resolved at trial.
Olson said afterward that he was pleased by the judge’s desire to explore in depth the issues raised by the case. He said he expected the two sides in the case to agree easily on some issues, such as Proposition 8’s ballot history, and less easily on others, such as whether eliminating the right to wed for gay people constitutes discrimination.
“When it does get to the U.S. Supreme Court, we expect to win,” he said.
Andy Pugno, one of the lawyers representing Proposition 8’s proponents, said his clients, too, were eager to have the fate of Proposition 8 settled.
“This is a very complex case. The judge and both sides are attempting to narrow down the factual issues that need to be addressed to avoid an unnecessary, full-blown trial,” Pugno said. “I don’t think that’s in anyone’s interest, and it would absolutely delay the outcome.”
Anthony Pugno is pretty dumb. My guess is he’s borderline idiot. If not full-blown. Where did he get his law degree? And what kind of practice does he have where he thinks civil rights aren’t worthy of a full-blown trial?!?! He doesn’t want to delay the outcome? That’s about as self-serving as it gets. And intellectually sloppy. Every time I read something about him he get’s dumber. What’s up with this guy?!
It is bad enough that proposition 8 denies marriage equality for same sex couples, but the recent California Supreme court ruling subjects ALL minority rights to the approval of the majority. Now, my teachers– in Christian schools, I might add– always taught that majority rule without protection for the rights of minorities is mob rule, not democracy. While the religious right may cheer the court ruling to deny rights protection for LGBT people, they will not be so happy if the California court ruling is used as a precedent under common rule to justify denial of the rights they want protected.
Wayne M.:
Well said.
Ironically, in LDS youth seminary when I was in high school, we were taught that our Church believed that free will was sacred, and that it doesn’t believe in a civil enforcement of religious doctrine on those who don’t share it.
Since I am and pretty much always have been a liberal, I have always believed that the right to free choice and conscience for individuals (including me) was the individual’s domain to exercise, even if everyone else around them chooses to disagree. People’s spirituality is meaningless if they’re not even allowed to follow the dictates of their own conscience for their own lives.
Right now I’m at schism with the Church and I associate with progressive gay-affirming Mormon social movements. The at-large culture of the Church has long since been poisoned by the Bible Belt out of many decades of desperate desire to be recognized by them as fellow Christians. But that never fully materialized, and in the process the culture picked up some of the worst trends of Bible Belt culture. In a culture of blind absolute obedience of the most far-right of interpretations, not enough soul-searching is being done. As a church is only the agreement of a group of mortal individuals in common worship, perhaps it’s time for another collapse and renewal, as societies often do when they become far too recursively stiff-necked (like what Puritan New England had to do in the aftermath of the Salem Witch Trials).
Oh, I appear to have gone off on a tangent.
What I mean is, the LDS Church membership was one of the largest lobbying groups for Proposition 8, and completely alienated a great many perfectly good people in the process. And this also goes for a lot of religious of socially conservative groups and individuals who did the same. But for most of them, a time may come to either collapse in bitter denialistic opposition, or reform and accept that gay affirmation is not the end of the world they fear it to be. And if they still deny it and try to use force against it, like what Wayne M. said, it’s the same as mob rule. And that was the point of my little exercise.
Dermot: I not only went to all 4 years of Mormon seminary, but went to BYU, served a mission and taught Gospel Doctrine in Sunday School for 6 years. The problem with saying that the doctrine of the Mormon church is not anti-gay only the culture is, is that it has recently changed!
The Presidency of the Church has said in no uncertain terms that it is against the DOCTRINE of the Church to live as a gay or lesbian. As a lesbian, I had to come to terms with this after dedicating so much of my life to this same church that now wants no part of me.
For so long I used the same reasoning you did to remain in the church, “it’s all about free-will and the Church isn’t against it.” Well, within the last few years that has changed, my friend, and the Mormon church like many other Christian churches has used it’s “free-will” and taken a stand against equality. Would be happy to talk with you about it.
Christina in AZ
“Unnecessary confusion”? You mean, like having 18000 married same-sex couples in a state that “doesn’t have” same-sex marriage?
But you see, as a church *is* a gathering of mortals in common agreement, they can be imperfect and quite human in their conclusions. Even the highest figures are not immune from human error. So it may be someone’s doctrine, but it’s not mine. And my family’s mostly on board. Until my fundamental identity and dignity are recognized and respected (and likely after that too, because the betrayal has been rather great), I search, ponder and pray on my own. I will not have someone telling me that who and what I am is some kind of mistake or preconceived as some kind of cross to bear on purpose. That’s a cop-out and a poor excuse at best. No, there is absolutely nothing wrong or shameful with being 100% gay, because it is nothing to apologize for. This is why I associate with Affirmation ( http://www.affirmation.org/ ).
And as for free will…it applies to one’s personal domain. When someone forces their free will against someone else’s free will, it’s a violation, and I find it unconscionable to do to someone else. It’s not just wrong because someone tells me it’s wrong – every fiber of my ethical and spiritual being affirms that it’s grievously wrong, and gravely unjust.
I still think this case could go against us in the US Supreme Court, because there is no way the 5-4 conservative majority will rule our way.
The 9th Circuit is perceived as fairly liberal. They could shoot down Prop 8 and the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the appeal. That would be the ideal outcome. Even if the US Supreme Court was to say Prop 8 is valid, that doesn’t preclude our going back to the voters. I don’t think the case is any more dicey a venture than a popular vote. It just might work.