Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Prop 8 trial: Plaintiffs to appear before CA Supreme Court in hearing on standing

Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

Via press release:

American Foundation for Equal Rights
September 1, 2011

ADVISORY: Plaintiffs to Appear Before CA Supreme Court to Debate Proponents’ Standing in Prop. 8 Case

Proponents Not Harmed by Marriage Equality

DATE: Tuesday, September 6, 2011

TIME: Hearing scheduled to begin at 10:00am Pacific Time

WHERE: Supreme Court of California
Earl Warren Building
350 McAllister Street (4th Floor)
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797

**Press conference with AFER lead attorney Theodore B. Olson and Board President Chad Griffin immediately following hearing outside courthouse.**

DETAILS: On Tuesday, September 6 at 10:00am PT, plaintiffs in the Perry v. Brown case will be at the Supreme Court of California for a hearing regarding whether under state law proponents of a ballot initiative have a right to represent the state on appeal when state officials do not do so (i.e., “standing”).  Plaintiffs maintain that proponents of Proposition 8 do not have standing because they cannot show specific and concrete harm. Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional in August 2010. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is the sole sponsor of the Perry case.

This hearing falls on the very first day of the court’s fall calendar. The question was certified to the Supreme Court of California by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit earlier this year.

Plaintiffs’ Brief on Standing


  • 1. Ann S.  |  September 1, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    I'll be there!

  • 2. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Glad you will represent us in person! I'll watch as I can!

  • 3. Alan_Eckert  |  September 1, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Will be watching through my phone while on the road. Twitter and P8TT better be lively!

  • 4. Ed Cortes  |  September 1, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Let me see….
    The suit was filed against the (elected officials) governor and Attorney General. The proponents (who are NOT elected officials by ANY stretch of the imagination) want to represent the State in this suit. I bet the proponents will lose!!

  • 5. bJason  |  September 1, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Transcripts for yesterday's hearing in the Perry Case:

  • 6. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    tx! (from Monday, August 29 2011)

  • 7. bJason  |  September 1, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Yes, Monday! OOPS! I was so excited I wasn't even thinking! I'll get better. :)

    Ann Caught this, too, on the FB page.

    Thanks, Gregory!

  • 8. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  September 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Will be there with my wonderful son.

  • 9. Carpool_Cookie  |  September 1, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    NEAT ! !

  • 10. Dee  |  September 1, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Drive carefully, now…

  • 11. Kathleen  |  September 1, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I'll be there too.

  • 12. Reformed  |  September 1, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    They shouldn't have standing. If proponarty's standing to appeal is precluded by an elected offical appealing (I suppose they could file a "friend of the court" thing), then that party does not have standing if the elected offical chooses not to appeal. An elected official not appealing is the same as appealing and providing their desired evidence in support, none. I am sure if the elected officials did that, the proponents would be crying that the elected offical didn't put on a very good case. But who would be to know. Where along the line from no evidence to anything short of winning on appeal would the threshold giving the proponents standing take place. I don't think it exists. The proponents have made California their play lot and California has both elected officials and due process. The proponents should have to find some other way to move their dying campaign forward.

  • 13. Reformed  |  September 1, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Well, I meant proponent's but proponarty's doesnt sound so bad. :)

  • 14. DaveP  |  September 1, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Unfortunately I won't be able to be there on Tuesday. At least I got to be there last week, and it was great seeing people from CC and P8TT!

    For anyone who is able to attend but has never done so, I strongly recommend that you attend. It's a great experience in more ways than one. You actually get to meet some of the P8TT participants in person, which is a lot of fun, and you get a front row seat for a bit of history in the making.

  • 15. truthspew  |  September 1, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Yeah I bet they will too. They really can't present any cogent example or evidence as to why they should have stranding in the case.

  • 16. James A. Tuttle  |  September 1, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    I really want to attend but I have college and I can't start missing classes right away. I'll be following on P8TT and twitter with great excitement though.

  • 17. Kevin  |  September 1, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Also notably, the California Supreme Court will be sitting in special session the day after at the University of California Hastings College of Law just down the street. This is also where Justice Ginsburg will be speaking a week later! As many of you may remember, Ginsburg wrote the unanimous opinion for Arizonans for Official English where she expressed "grave doubts" as to the standing of ballot initiative proponents. Moreover, Ginsburg also noted in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, that the Court has never differentiated between status and conduct with regard to gays and lesbians. This latter point dealt a sharp blow to arguments against including LGBTs within the protective umbrella of heightened scrutiny because their condition was "conduct" rather than "status." A very interesting time for her to visit 😉

  • 18. Adam Bink  |  September 1, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Ana and Rick will be there again.

  • 19. Ronnie  |  September 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Me two…… ; ) ….Ronnie

  • 20. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Another DADT film

    Eisner's Vuguru Debuts 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' on Sept. 20

  • 21. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Post-"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": SLDN Stays Relevant in the Fight

    Read more:

  • 22. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    From North Carolina

    Carrboro symbolically passes resolution against DOMA

    And this.

    Gay Marriage Battle Heats Up in North Carolina — and Gets Personal

  • 23. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    Illinois Catholic Charities To Appeal Gay Adoption Ruling…

  • 24. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    : D !

  • 25. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Yay! : D

  • 26. Zander1986  |  September 1, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    A bit OT, but a friend of mine shared this with me and even though it may be a little vulgar, I love the song… lol

    [youtube cTQNwMxqM3E youtube]

    I wouldn't play this in a normal workplace. Great message at the end though!

  • 27. Kathleen  |  September 1, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    James, if you can get to a computer, the hearing will be available live on the California Channel on the web.

  • 28. Santa Barbara Mom  |  September 1, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    We're passing through over the week-end, but will be at Tahoe………….glued to the computer.

  • 29. Steven  |  September 1, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    I suspect that the court will tell or ask Cooper that this case IS TOTALLY different than previous cases. and ask him will they have best interest for CA if they say they could have standing, did they get permission from CA TO appeal? i think within 20 mins or so in what way the court will decide by the questions that they are going to ask.

  • 30. loaferguy  |  September 2, 2011 at 4:05 am

    White House website could be used to petition Obama on LGBT issues:

  • 31. Brad M  |  September 2, 2011 at 4:13 am

    Mistrial declared in Lawrence King case. The apparent argument against convicting McInerney is that Lawrence King should have known better than continue flirting. Can you imagine if a young man were to use that defense for killing a young woman who had made unwanted advances? This baffles me.

  • 32. Sagesse  |  September 2, 2011 at 4:22 am

    Matt Bomer Joins Upcoming Reading of Dustin Lance Black Prop 8 Play as Husband to Cheyenne Jackson

    Read more:

  • 33. Sagesse  |  September 2, 2011 at 4:28 am

    We needed to hear Scott Lively's point of view. Or not.

    Video release could be problem for Prop. 8 supporters

  • 34. Sagesse  |  September 2, 2011 at 4:41 am

    O’Malley to headline Equality Md. event

  • 35. Sagesse  |  September 2, 2011 at 4:46 am

    Baffling indeed. It sounds as though the jury may have dealocked over whether to convict on a lesser charge.

  • 36. Fluffyskunk  |  September 2, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Can you imagine if a young woman were to use that defense for killing a young man who had made unwanted advances? That's the real issue here – heterosexual men are afraid of being treated (or so much as thought of) the way they treat women, which is why they must aggressively defend their masculinity from the merest threat of such treatment, such as the existence of a gay man somewhere. Unwanted advances, my fluffy tail – try being a girl for five minutes.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!