June 16, 2010
By Rick Jacobs
Sorry for the delay folks. I’ve been having connectivity issues. Don’t worry, none of the action is missing.
And with that here is the liveblogging!
Come to order. We all stood for the Judge.
Olson: Good morning your honor. Theodore B. Olson on behalf of the eh plaintiffs David Boies for the plaintiffs. Theodore Boutrous for the plaintiffs. Christopher Dusseault for the plaintiffs.
Terry Stewart fro SF. City attorney Dennis Herrera.
Judge: Any others for plaintiff?
Charles Cooper, Howard Nilson, Nicole Moss, Peter Patterson, Brian Roth (?), James Campbell from Alliance Defense Fund.
Well we have some other defendants.
Alameda County clerk. Michelle and Manuel Madero on behalf of AG Brown. Lawyer for Schwarzenegger.
Judge: Any other lawyers?
Judge: Well, this is an impressive array of talent all focused on one person
J: Welcome back . Obviously I had hoped that we wood have been here before this. It’s appropriate that we are here now because June is, after all, the month for weddings. You have received the schedule. Let’s proceed.
O: Theodore B Olson on behalf of the plaintiffs. We conclude this trial where we began. This case is about marriage. The right to marry has been taken away from tens of thousands of Californians. This state has placed into the constitution stigmatization that is unworthy of marriage, not respected. Want to return to subject of marriage, what it means to marry and have right extinguished.
Four perspectives: Proponents of 8, plaintiffs, supreme court of US and subject of marriage.
In words of proponents lead counsel is that marriage has always been for procreation an narrowly defined as sexual activity to procreate. Sole reason for marriage is to meet child’s need.
Proponents said racial restrictions were never a restriction of marriage in response to your question.
You asked how does same sex marriage in any way denigrate marriage?
Lead counsel responded, it will change the institution. If the institution is institutionalized, will likely lead to more cohabitation, separation of parents.
[UPDATE: 11:31] O: Yes, because it’s taking rights away. Justifies strict scrutiny.
J: Focus on CA or across country?
O: Both. Want to include those four perspectives. Want to point out that plaintiffs have shifted.
J: Any difference?
J: Cloverleaf case says that classification is irrational…if there is any rational debate over the rationality of the proposition, the voters …
O: Supreme Court looks at this issue in different ways. Strict scrutiny. What Supreme said in Cleveland case is that mere negative attitudes are not supportable. Was in case of retarded person. Proponents just don’t know if SS marriage will harm the institution of SS marriage.
Evidence from experts is that strengthens marriage. After three week trial with witnesses, Prop. 8 constitutional because CA voters don’t know if it would yield to problems with marriage.
J: They have
Right of persons in jail, not paying child support. Not right of any state which could easily be withdrawn if state changes mind on procreation. Right to marry to choose to marry never conditioned on or tied to procreation.
Very different from what the campaign said. They said, “protect our children.” That was in every campaign piece. Their “gays are not okay message” was abandoned in the trial in favor of procreation argument. Then they affirmatively argued that they had no idea or evidence that any prognostications would come to pass if marriage legal.
Their counsel said you’ll hear nothing but predictions?
J: But it’s the plaintiffs who bear the standard of proof?
O: Yes, I want to juxtapose..
J: Strict scrutiny?
J: Why can’t Californians take away that right?”
O: They can if compelling state interest…
J: Would this be different if CA Supreme Court had invalidated all marriages?:
O: It would be different because it would be less worse.
O: Because now you people who are in prison can marry and many others, but homosexuals cannot. If you reduced it to three categories of ss people who cannot marry it would be less capricious.
J: Why not?
O: Because supremes have said marriage is a fundamental right. If it were intermediate scrutiny, supremes said in VMI v. Virginia post rationalization won’t work. One of the reasons I showed you the shift in position is that shifted from ballot arguments to what happened in court. Did not want to saying court that gays are like …s. So they are saying deinstitutionalization and procreation. This si social institution of marriage, so valuable that supremes said most fundamental. Plaintiffs said, security, dedication, public commitment to the world, the most important decisions you make as an adult.
O: They are taking away the right of a relationship, right of liberty and privacy. Have to have some statement that SS marriage will somehow stop people from procreating or hurting marriage?”
J: doesn’t CA accommodate LG people with all rights? Why isn’t that sufficient?
O: I’m going to play some testimony in a bit. We have heard proponents arguments. Now must view through prism of US Supreme Court. Supreme Court has said in 14 cases 1888, court has said that marriage is the most important relationship in life. It is the foundation of society, essential to pursuit of happiness, right of intimacy, older than bill of rights, a liberty right equally aviable to a person in a homosexual relationship as hetero.
[NOTE] New thread is up here.