Posts filed under ‘Liveblogging’

Golden Oldies: Liveblogging Closing Arguments: Part V

Out of all the live-blogging threads for the District Court hearing, this was the one most requested.

We at P8TT are taking Christmas through New Year’s off. Golden Oldies you requested will run in the place of regular posts. Regularly scheduled programming will resume on January 3rd–Adam Bink

By Rick Jacobs

Fresh thread time. More of Judge Walker trying to get Cooper to make a legitimate argument.

Cooper: To come back to the immutability case, the 9th circuit said, “sexual orientation is not immutable.” Against the Supreme Court cases, we know of no case that sexual orientation meets heightened scrutiny. The characteristics of immutability simply do not apply to sexual orientation. Behavioral, attraction and self-identity are the three definitions that the plaintiff’s experts used and depending upon which you use, a different group falls into that, so the definition is not clear. The plaintiffs made clear that sexual orientation does change over time, especially in women. Peplau commented on the “astonishing elasticity” of women, whose sexual orientation changes many times over their lifetimes. Some 2/3 of women who identify as homo have changed their orientation at least once and 1/3 more than once over their lifetime.

C: Goes to Supreme Court question of immutability. Justice Ginsberg says, “Immutability is tightly cabined. Goes solely to accident of birth.” Heightened scrutiny goes to race, gender, illegitimacy, all accidents of birth. Ginsberg says, “Doesn’t say something can’t be changed.”

Judge: Does this have to do with national orientation?

C: Yes.

J: Sometimes of the year everyone is Irish. (Laughter). People may choose via an ancestor to have a national origin. These questions of immutability are not key.

C: Well, we then look at political powerlessness. We submit that gays and lesbians are not politically powerless as Dr. Segura says. Clearly in the Cleveland case in regard to mentally disabled, does the group have the ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers? 20 years ago in “high tech gays?” the court ruled that gays and lesbians can attract the attention of legislators. As Dr. Segura testified, since that time there has been a sea change.

J: Isn’t that the most important factor, the historical context? Women are hardly politically powerless, yet a law protects them, laws that single them out subject to strict scrutiny. African Americans have considerable power and yet a law that singles them out is subject to strict scrutiny. Isn’t the historical context what makes the point?

C: It’s an interesting question. Here’s a group whose political power has changed so dramatically (women). In 1970 and 1973 when the court had before it the political power of the group (women) needed extraordinary protection from a majoritarian electorate so they needed protection. At that time, only 2% of the offices held by them but 50% of the population. That’s not the case with gays and lesbians in California.

J: The DOMA Statute that has been mentioned, Prop. 8, exclusion of gays and lesbians from military for a long period of time, all indicia of discrimination?

[UPDATE 3:00]

J: P8, these other props in other states, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from military service – aren’t those all indicia of a long history of discrimination?

C: We have never disputed that gays and lesbians have been the victims of a long and shameful history of discrimination. Thankfully, the situation today in 2010 is not what it was in the past. The fact of a history of discrimination is not by itself sufficient to warrant heightened judicial scrutiny.

The question of political powerlessness was very different 20 years ago, but the 9th Circuit nonetheless believed that gays and lesbians could attract the attention of the lawmakers; thus, it follows that it must be true today.

Even though mental disability is an immutable characteristic, the disabled could not qualify for heightened scrutiny because the court found that they had political power (could attract the attention of lawmakers), sure they had to rely on allies to create that political power. If the mentally disabled weren’t politically powerless, I would submit that gays and lesbians are definitely not powerless. I submit that Court’s that have decided against heightened scrutiny have been correct.

Long pause….

j: Why should Mr. Blankenhorn’s testimony qualify as expert testimony. Does he meet the standards?

C: I submit that he does. I don’t have anything to add to the submission we made earlier. Under the 9th circuit standard of the qualification of an expert, he is amply qualified. His professional life for 20 years have been devoted to the study of marriage – the potential parenting structures, the potential for harm to marriage due to a variety of social phenomena, including same-sex marriage, he’s written books that have been received with respect by recognized experts.

J: Were they peer-reviewed?

C: No.

J: Am I correct that the only peer-reviewed article of Blankenhorn was not on the subject of marriage?

C: Sir, as I stand here right now. I don’t know…don’t remember.

J: Fair enough.

C: I didn’t come here prepared to argue that particularly. May I request a 5 min break?

J: Why don’t we take 10 minutes….back at 3:10.

[UPDATE 3:27] from Rick

(Here’s a bit of commentary and some color from the break while Arisha does the hard work.)

Bruce Cohen, the Academy Award-winning producer and key figure behind this case, said to me,” Can you believe that they are pointing to the one court ruling banning gays and lesbians from adopting (Florida) as their standard?” As Bruce said, there are only two states that ban adoption by gays and lesbians—Florida and Arkansas. Yet Mr. Cooper is saying Judge Walker should refer to that ruling for guidance here.

Kris Perry introduced me to her two wonderful, poised teenage sons. I also had the honor of meeting Kris’s mother. Of course ___ Steer was right there, wondering with all of us what Mr. Cooper is really filibustering about. Can you imagine being the subject of this case and having your kids and your mom sitting there with you throughout all of this? Imagine these young fellows, who have such wonderful, loving, caring parents, hearing a high-powered, gray-haired lawyer pontificating about how horrid lesbian mothers must be? I really can’t. It’s not removed at that point.

One distinguished lawyer (not on the legal team) said, “The only thing he has is the strict scrutiny test which has never before been applied to marriage equality.” He went on to say, “What he said about Loving is bullshit. The only reason society had to prevent black and white people from marrying was procreation. Society did not want mixed-race kids.” That’s right. Society did not want Barack Obama to be born.

Cooper has surrendered, really, on all of the other issues. He’s trying to say immutability is not assured, but the judge pointed out that that does not really matter here. And even though the judge keeps bringing this back to marriage as a right vs. sexual orientation, he keeps trying to say it’s about sexual orientation because that is his canard.

Short notes: Maggie has her shoes on. Lance Black is watching intently, having not been absent for a second of this. And there to my left is the (oxymoronic) Protect Marriage gang that sued us in January for having a logo that they say is indistinguishable from theirs even though ours has two women with two children instead of a man and a woman. That’s the point of the whole thing. There’s no difference. It’s about the right to love.

[UPDATE 3:33]

C: The US Supreme Court in Crawford vs. Bd. Of Education in 1982 upheld a California constitutional amendment that reduced the remedial tools given to the courts in the school segregation area. In that case the court rejected the contention that once a state chooses to do more than the 14th Amendment requires that the state could not return the “lower” federal standard.

J: What do we make of that in the context of this case? What baring does that have?

C: The California Supreme Court’s interpretation that we believe goes beyond the 14A, was something that the people of the state were empowered to reverse. The people of California are the ultimate appellate tribunal of the California Supreme Court. The Court’s decision was no more final in the state of California than the Appellate decision that upheld Prop 8. It was reviewed by the ultimate, judicial tribunal and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Crawford is on point here.

C: I also want to address whether there is a legit basis for California citizens to be concerned that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, does not show concern for the potential harm to the institution of marriage or show respect for the role that marriage is supposed to play (procreation, again). Redefining the institution will change the institution. Blakenhorn, our expert, said if you changed the definition of a thing, it’s hard to imagine how it would have no impact on “the thing.” Others have acknowledged that change will result. [He quotes a few “experts” who believe gays marrying will change the institution.] Redefining will divorce the institution of marriage from it’s core procreative purpose. It is not possible to predict with certainty what that change will beget. It seems undeniable that change as profound as this one, would have some consequences. The plaintiffs think that the consequences will be positive; we respect that point of view, but it’s not something that they can possibly prove – and their own expert (quoting Cott now) agrees that we can’t predict. Andrew Churling, a sociologist and equal marriage supporter, also states that “predicting the future of marriage is risky business.” He cites as example the fact that no sociologist forecasted the baby boom during the Great Depression; no sociologist predicted the rise of co-habitation.

Let me say 3 words that I haven’t said that often. “I don’t know.” Jokingly, I wish I could have those words back. Because usually whatever your question is, “I damn sure know.” Courtroom laughs.

J: What about Blakenhorn’s testimony about the negative outcomes that will result if gays can marry?

C: Blakenhorn was giving voice to sentiment that the threat of harm to vital social institution is too daunting to run the risks of gratifying what would otherwise favor the advent of same-sex marriage. There are many who went to the polling place with that sentiment – that’s my speculation. There are millions of Americans who believe in equality for gays and lesbians, but draw the line at marriage. Their hearts are pure – as pure as the plaintiffs – but they still believe that this is profound…could be profound. It could portend some social consequences that would not be positive and that reality

C: No one can know what tomorrow will bring. If there is a legitimate and rational basis to be concerned about that, couldn’t be more rational for people of California to say wait. We want to see what happens in Mass. and here. Perhaps Mr. Olson and his client’s whose sentiments are powerful (he’s speaking very haltingly) will be able to convince their fellow Californians they are right.

J: A disability has been put on marriage. Do you not have to show that there is need, that it’s enough to impose on some citizens a restriction from which others do not suffer? Is it enough to say “I don’t know?”

C: Yes. In looking at what society’s interests are and interests in regulating and caring and about marriage, if there is no basis for drawing a distinction from one to another, the distinction can’t stand. But if there is s distinction, it must stand. It’s been our position from the outset that we do not have to prove that exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage is a problem; we only have to prove that inclusion of those people would erode marriage.

J: Would you wrap up?

C: Yes. (Pause) The California court (missed which one) goes to the heart of the matter. It is the proper role of the legislature to set priorities and make difficult and imperfect decisions and approaching problems incrementally.” That process is at work in this state and the county. As the court considers this, there is a debate about the morals, the practicalities and the wisdom that really goes to the nature of our culture. The constitution should allow that debate to go forward among the people. Thank you.

J: Thank you Mr, Cooper.


Three things you can do right now to help us get the truth out about the Prop 8 trial:

  1. “Like” us on Facebook: facebook.com/EqualityOnTrial and facebook.com/CourageCampaign
  2. Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial and @CourageCampaign
  3. Chip in what you can today at couragecampaign.org/TrialTracker

December 27, 2010 at 4:37 pm 25 comments

9th Circuit Perry v. Schwarzenegger hearing: live thread and chat

By Adam Bink

Welcome to the live thread for the 9th Circuit hearing of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case appeal. If you Googled “Prop 8 trial” for coverage and found yourself clicking on the first search result, welcome to Prop8TrialTracker.com!

Today, we’ll have four P8TT folks covering the hearing. I will be live-blogging the coverage and running the show here at the P8TT mothership; Courage Chair/Founder Rick Jacobs, who helped make P8TT the go-to spot by live-blogging the Judge Walker hearing from the courtroom, and Field Director Arisha Michelle Hatch will be sending in dispatches, including photos, from their seats in the courtroom and at the events outside prior to the trial commencing; and P8TT legal analyst/Calitics blog publisher Brian Leubitz will be adding legal analysis in this thread. I will also be occasionally live-tweeting via my handle @adamjbink. You can also follow @rickjacobs, @equalityontrial and @couragecampaign for updates, as well as Equality on Trial on Facebook. And of course, we look forward to dispatches in the comments from commenters Kathleen, Ann S. and other folks who will be there, and thoughts from the rest of you!

As a reminder, the first hour will be spent arguing the issue of standing, and the second hour on the issue of the constitutionality of Prop 8 itself. All updates you see are from me unless noted otherwise. New updates will scroll from the top.

12:46: The court stands adjourned. Stay tuned for more analysis here.

12:45: Cooper concludes by quoting from Romer re Amendment 2 in arguing that Amendment 2 went too far in singling out a class of people, but the effort to “protect” marriage does not.

12:43: Brian’s take on Olson’s closing arguments:

In the record, there has been no showing of harm. Could distinguishing marriage from Dps in name only, that it is rational to encourage safe procreation? That would still not be a rational basis. The word is the institution, but children are not shown to be better off.

The California system is irrational, because there are different classes. Heterosexuals can marry. Some homosexuals are allowed to be married if they married in 2008, but they can’t even remarry the same person if divorced.

The citizens of California who are behind one fence, gays and lesbians, can not take part in the institution that everybody else can. (Marriage) That is not allowed under the Constitution.

Question: Can we go beyond California? Can we go beyond the Roemer rationale, that is taking away a right?

Olson: Yes you can. You can go beyond California, and the Roemer rationale. It can not be justified under any standard. All of the arguments are neither rationale nor Constitutionally permissible.

12:42: Cooper will spent a few minutes rebutting. Starts out by saying that if Loving wanted to marry the man with whom he had sexual relations and the case was brought on those grounds, it would not have been ruled the way it was.

12:38: Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney from the City/County of San Francisco steps up. The crux of her argument is that the only reason behind Prop 8 is animus towards same-sex couples- there is no rational basis. Notes that CA family law treats gay/straight couples as the same. Equal protection doesn’t allow the state to enact a measure based on a view that some people are unworthy. Her time spent arguing is short.

12:30: A quote from Olson so spot-on I typed verbatim (first part): “California has taken a class of citizens and put them in a separate category; that act of discrimination and there is no doubt that it is discrimination and there is no doubt that it does great harm, can it be justified under any standard of constitutional analysis and I argue it cannot be justified at the lowest standard of constitutional analysis.” He concludes his argument on an extension of this point.

12:28: Olson describes the “crazy quilt” of California laws e.g. some s-s couples who married can stay married, but if they get divorced they cannot get re-married, etc. in arguing that the current marriage system violates equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment.

12:25: Brian dropped in this summary of the last 10 minutes or so:

Olson: Taking away rights because of their identity as homosexuals violates Crawford in light of Roemer. How can a constitution right be taken away because of the constitutional activity under Lawrence, sexual activity? It cannot be taken away because of their orientation. It discriminates on sex and sexual orientation. Proponents have come up with no rational reason to repeal decision.

You can’t wall off a right because children shouldn’t be exposed to sexuality. It just doesn’t stand up to even the lowest level of rational basis.

In Roemer, Justice Kennedy said that the reasons behind the measure must be rational. Reasons cannot come out from the sky.  This is an important aspect of the “heightened” rational basis test emerging from the jurisprudence of Justices Kennedy and O’Connor.  Essentially, the reason must come from the record, and from the background of the measure.

12:22: Olson argues that gays/lesbians having immutable characteristics + the damage done by discrimination= heightened scrutiny in this case. Can’t name any damage that would be done. Smith interrupts. Cites a number of various pro-Prop 8 arguments (children likely to thrive when raised by both father and mother, etc.) and asks if that would survive the rational basis test. Olson challenges such an argument re children/mother/father and says it’s easy to say those things, but “the remedy doesn’t fit the so-called problem… 30K children in same-sex households today… if you had s-s marriages, it doesn’t change where the children will be raised.”

12:16: Hawkins asks about the pro-creation argument that Cooper made. Olson replies that same-sex marriage will not keep opposite-sex people from getting married, getting divorced, having kids, etc. Points to Cooper’s concession “I don’t know” when asked in the lower court case what harm there would be.

12:13: Olson cites Lawrence v. Texas in arguing that a Constitutional right be taken away because of a Constitutionally protected “activity.” It’s not just a right of same-sex persons, it’s a right of all individuals. Ridicules pro-Prop 8 supporters’ argument that opposite-sex marriage must be protected in order to protect kids, saying if that were a sound justification, we  should all be banning video games, comic books, and the like.

12:07: Olson deries Cooper’s discussion of “society’s interest in procreation.” He says rights are not California’s right, or the voters’ rights, but individual rights under the 14th Amendment, and denying marriage could take that away. Very sharp point.

12:04: Olson continues, the In re Marriage Cases makes all this (Prop 8 itself) worse. Olson says Cooper’s definition of marriage is wrong. Notes US Supreme Court has never said marriage is just between man and woman when ruling in the context of prisoners, contraception, divorce, other cases that marriage is (a) liberty (b) privacy (c) association (d) identity. Notes Supreme Court has said this 14 different times.

12:01: Ted Olson steps up to the plate. Off the bat, plainly notes that CA voters have enshrined discrimination into the Constitution. Voters have “denied access to what the Supreme Court has noted is the most important relationship in life.”

9th_Circuit_hearing_8

12:00: Brian Leubitz notes to me over e-mail, “The argument seems to be boiling down to the word. This is shaky ground for Cooper. He is now arguing that marriage (the word) is just special. He is arguing that marketing is somehow enough of a reason to discriminate. Cooper and Smith are going back and forth, looking at Roemer, and whether states can be damaged constitutionally by acting towards giving rights.”

11:59: Smith asks whether a state that doesn’t have domestic partnership benefits has a stronger argument for rational basis. Cooper says if this case is to be decided be “heightened scrutiny”, then it is a harder case to make. This concludes his remarks. Is given 2 minutes for rebuttal by the judges.

11:54: Reinhardt asks, isn’t it different when you take [marriage] away than when you’re giving it? Cooper replies that the people of California are “a tribunal over their Constitution.” Hawkins asks if this were about civil unions, would Cooper have the same argument? Cooper says yes. Hawkins asks if people denied the right of same-sex partners to visit one another in the hospital and had added that to the ballot language in Prop 8, what would Cooper say? Cooper replies that if rights “go beyond” what’s in the federal constitution, then the people have the right to return to what’s a general standard in all states- and that seems to be Cooper’s argument re what the people of California are doing here.

11:46: For those of you following along here and not watching, a quick image of what this all looks like (Cooper arguing):

9th_Circuit_hearing_1

11:44: Cooper seems to be arguing that the courts should respect the will of the people in passing Prop 8, and that in California, the people retain the ultimate power, so courts should defer when voters vote to amend the Constitution. Reinhardt acknowledges that the Constitution can be amended, but asks if there is a valid reason to amend the Constitution.

11:42: Brian’s legal analysis of this section:

Cooper: The central point is that the distinguishing characteristics of opposite sex couples. We are arguing that the rational basis test applies. There is some rational basis, so it must be upheld. Only if the court concludes that there is no rational basis, that there is nothing to say of the definition of marriage from time immemorial, there is no rational basis. But, we have a rational basis. The key reason of marriage was procreation. Society has an interest in a sexual relationship. It needs another generation. Society is threatened by an unintentional and unwanted pregnancy.

Cooper is bringing up the concept that “single parent families” need help. This is fascinating, and really, nowhere in the record.

Judge Reinhardt: That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce. How does allowing marriage equality damage procreation.

Cooper: Opposite sex couples can procreate unintentionally, and create unwanted pregnancies.

Judge Smith: What is the purpose of the initiative that says they have the same rights as opposite sex couple, but they don’t get the title. What is the rational basis for just excluding the word marriage.

Cooper: The word is the institution. If you redefine the word, you change the institution. Historic Tradition.

11:39: It is difficult to follow Cooper’s argument- he is talking himself in circles. Or as Rick put it well to me, the only case he has is a tautology: marriage is between a man and a woman. If it’s not between a man and a woman, it’s not marriage.

11:36: Cooper replies that Amendment 2 (as passed by Colorado voters) was different because it was a sweeping case that affected all basics of civic life for [homosexuals] and that’s why it was struck down in Romer v. Evans.

11:35: Hawkins asks about the famous Romer case. Cooper replies that that case referred to a lot of rights. Hawkins interjects, if you take away a bunch of rights, it’s not okay, but if it’s one right [marriage], then it’s ok? Very interesting point from Hawkins and promising to see him say that.

11:33: Reinhardt asks why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to be married and live together in a happy, healthy home. Cooper replies that same-sex couples cannot procreate w/o a 3rd party and that’s the rational basis. Smith asks what the rational basis is to deny marriage, if same-sex couples have all the rights that opposite-sex couples have, and we’re left with the word “marriage”. Cooper discusses re-definition of “the institution”. “You cannot separate the two” [referring to the name and the institution]. If we do, what we are left with is a genderless institution that bears no comparison to the real institution of marriage.

11:28: Cooper says a rational basis test must be applied here. There is a rational basis to limit definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and it must be upheld.

11:25: And we’re back. Cooper is up to address the constitutional issue. Hawkins asks if people of California could re-institute school segregation by vote. Cooper concedes no, because the Supreme Court has ruled that’s unconstitutional. Hawkins asks how this situation is different. Cooper replies that this case is nothing like, for example, Loving v. Virginia, where the Supremes ruled that there is no rational basis for the gov’t to deny the right of a mixed-race couple to marry. It’s interesting that Hawkins led off with that.

11:14: While we’re on recess, Rick notes over e-mail to me that this is also the courtroom in which en banc hearings take place because it’s so gorgeously ornate. The losing party can appeal to the full 9th Circuit and obtain an en banc hearing of 11 judges.

11:07: Ten-minute recess before the 2nd hour addressing issue of constitutionality. Lots to process.

11:06: Cooper is back up. He says Reinhardt nailed distingushing Karchner and Arizonans. Nobody in Arizonans found any law that showed proponents could appeal. Cooper brings a State Court Supreme Court, the Strauss case. The proponents were allowed to intervene in Strauss. He says if 9th Circuit doesn’t agree with him on standing, then they should ask CA Supreme Court before dismissing this case and allow a single district court decision (Judge Walker’s ruling) to nullify the will of 7 million Californians.

11:04: Here’s Brian Leubitz’s summary:

Boies: CA Supreme Court gave a one sentence denial as to forcing the AG to appeal, there was no rationale provided.

No clerks are technically bound by the injunction, save Alameda or LA. However, the remainder of the state, the power to execute the laws go to AG and Governor. The deputy clerks will be required to act by the AG and Governor. Clerks are ministerial, as defined by Lockyer case. They are required to act as the Governor and/or AG tells them. Thus, the deputy clerk of Imperial County should not be allowed.

Nullification Question: Does AG and Governor not defending nullify the people’s decision in the form of Prop 8? Boies says no, because they have seen the district court’s decision and are not bound under California law to seek further decision. The Supreme Court could have required AG action, but did not do so.

Scope of the injunction:

Boies: If the court concluded that the district court exceeded subject matter jurisdiction, but Boies is not aware of any precedent to edit the injunction. He is relying on AG to affect the injunction. The injunction goes to those who are controlled by the defendants, in this case the AG.

11:01: Boies wraps up by saying this case is similar to In re Marriage Cases. Proper “respondents” are AG, Gov, legislature. Appellants here do not have a particularized injury that the Supreme Court said you must have.

10:57: Reinhardt asks, doesn’t the injunction affect all those who act to perform the marriage (e.g. doesn’t it cover Vargas, the county clerk, and therefore she has standing?). Boies: The injunction itself didn’t go as broad as it might have, so no. Caveat, we haven’t talked about the registrar, who will under this injunction, have to change the form and content of the marriage license. Boies also notes that CA Supreme Court could have ordered the Gov/AG to intervene and defend, but didn’t.

10:55: Reinhardt jokes that if Boies has to depend on the AG and Gov (to not appeal), he’s lucky the [2010] election came out the way it did. Ha.

10:52: Boies notes that one does not have standing to act as defendant unless he/she/organization has “personal, concrete, or particularized injury.” Which, he’s arguing, an Imperial County clerk and ProtectMarriage.com does not have. He notes that U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in this manner over and over.

10:51: Boies notes that in the Arizona case, Justice Ginsburg said proponents aren’t authorized to act under state law.

10:45: Boies replies, citing other California-specific cases in which proponents did not have standing. Reinhardt suggests that perhaps the 9th Circuit court should ask the California Supreme Court about what the standing law is. Notable: “The fact that there’s no one to defend doesn’t give standing [to the defendant-intervenors].”-Boies

10:42: Smith continues that the governor has an effective veto if he does not appeal.

10:41: Smith discusses how if Prop 8 (and all initiatives) could not be vetoed or amended by the legislature, right? So if that’s so, the AG’s actions and Gov’s actions have nullified the basic efforts of the initiative to be placed on the ballot and to obtain passage. He’s arguing that if Jerry Brown and Schwarenegger didn’t appeal, they effectively nullified it.

10:39: Boies is arguing that because all the clerks are ministerial officials who simply issue marriage licenses to whomever the state determines gets marriage licenses, that function will be the same now or later. Meaning, their duty will not be impacted, as Tyler is arguing.

10:37: Boies: Lockyer tells that county clerks are just “ministerial officials… who must apply the law as set forth by the AG’s office and the  government.”

10:33: David Boies is up. Bring it, Boies. He is quickly asked if Judge Walker is wrong about the registrar controlling the functions of county clerks and she is not bound by the injunction, and if she is not, how does she have standing? Boies says that’s correct, and she does not have standing. Reinhardt asks, are the clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles counties bound by injunction? Boies says no. Marriage is a statewide, not local/municipal, concern. Hawkins asks if the injunction was enforced, could county clerks refuse a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Boies says yes, but if she did so, the AG would act to make the enforcement uniform, which would be a state proceeding.

10:30 Brian sent in his analysis of the last 15 minutes:

Robert Tyler: Attorney for Imperial County, actual client is a deputy clerk.  Their client is Ms. Vargas, a deputy clerk.  Judge Hawkins is grilling him on whether Imperial County even has the right client.

Judge Smith: “All political functions remain vested in an officer.” Imperial County doesn’t have authority to act without the clerk. Here, the clerk has not given power to the deputy clerk. Deputy is a mere agent, and cannot act without the clerk.

The judges are looking at whether the deputy clerk is bound as a state officer. But the bigger issue seems to be that the Imperial County intervention doesn’t actually have the clerk here.

“When you are asked a question, and you don’t know the answer, say so.” Highlight of the day.

10:29: Closing up, Tyler argues (the crux of his case) that the county clerk will be affected by the outcome of this case, which will alter Vargas’ (the county clerk) duties as she is placed in a conundrum. Hawkins asks, yes or no, whether Vargas is bound by Walker’s injunction (pointing out that she isn’t placed in a conundrum). Tyler concedes no, she is not.

10:28: Reinhardt asks if Board of Supervisors agrees with the Imperial County clerk. Tyler says yes, in fact she is appointed by the BOS. Then he’s handed a note saying, no, she’s elected, and tells the judges so. Whoopie.

10:26: Reinhardt is lambasting Tyler for not knowing the answers and instead of saying he doesn’t know, jumping around the issue. Hawkins asked if a deputy clerk in Los Angeles or Alameda county come in and seek standing, saying they don’t agree with “my boss”? Tyler says yes. Hawkins asks, humorously, how long they would last taking such an action? Ha.

10:24: Interesting exchange:

Judge Smith: Are they state officers performing state functions?

Tyler: No, they are local officers performing state functions.

S: How do I get around the language [in what I’m reading] that they ARE state officers?

T: They are performing state functions, e.g. marriage.

S: So they’re state officers if they do that?

T: I don’t know if that’s what the case turns on. This case turns on whether her duties will be altered as a result of this outcome of the case.

Reinhardt: Clerk is not attempting the court to get the ruling. In Lockyer, it’s the opposite.

T: In Richardson v. Ramirez, there were 3 clerks who were sued. SecState required registration by felons in order to vote. In that case, a local county clerk was able to take the case when there were no other defenders. Same thing here! We have a case where there is a county clerk wanting to intervene who will be affected by the outcome of the case.

10:18: Robert Tyler, arguing for Imperial County to have the right to have standing for representing the entire state. He is getting pressed hard by Judge Hawkins on whether the individual he is representing (the clerk in Imperial County) actually has the ability to act, which Judge Smith is appearing to concur with.

10:14: Brian Leubitz, P8TT’s legal analyst, sent in the following analysis:

Cooper: Looking at two standing issues. First, the big issue of whether the 9th Circuit, the standing issues that we’ve been talking about for a while now.  However, Cooper is interested in looking at the district court jurisdiction as well.

On the 9th Circuit: Cooper is looking at a New Jersey case that was decided before Arizonans for Official English.  The big question here is whether proponents of a measure have standing, and Cooper is asked as much.  His response is rather stunning:  “I don’t have a case to show Article 3 standing for proponents.”

Now, in Arizonans, Justice Ginsburg says that proponents do not have Article III standing, that is to say whether they have standing under the judiciary article of the Constitution.  Cooper is trying to avoid that comparison, by pointing to the prior New Jersey case (Karcher).  In Karcher, the Legislative officers were given standing.  As noted, Karcher was before Arizonans, so it must be read in context of Arizonans.

Cooper is pointing to the Strauss case in state court, where the proponents successfully defended Prop 8 in state court.  The California Supreme Court allowed proponents to defend Prop 8, but blocked other anti-equality groups from intervening, showing that proponents have special standing.

10:13: Cooper finishes and would like to reserve the balance of his time  for rebuttal, which is granted by Judge Reinhardt.

10:11: Cooper is asked if he sought to enjoin the case. He replies no. He notes that the NJ Attorney General declined to appeal the case (Karcher v. May), just as the CA AG (Jerry Brown, currently) declined to appeal. And yet the Supremes noted that the NJ legislative leaders did have the authority and were the proper parties not just in the trial court, but in the 3rd Circuit. He continues, when no one else would defend the statute in the Strauss case, the only party defending the constitutionality of the statute in Strauss were the proponents. In the marriage cases, at the court of appeals level, court of appeals denied intervention to a group that was not the official proponents, but made no ruling whether the official proponents in the default of the state officials would be authorized to come in and represent the state’s statute.

10:06: Cooper is asked if he knows of any California law that allows Article 3 standing. Cooper argues that the Strauss case is similar. Judge interrupts and notes that Strauss only talks about proponents as agents of a proposition, not as agents of the state, which defendant-intervenors are asked to do here. Cooper is being interrupted repeatedly and pressed hard to make the case that this case is similar to the ones he is citing.

10:03: Interrupted and asked to explain the case further, Cooper is asked for the “best case” example of a federal case re allowing proponents Article 3 standing. Cooper says he doesn’t have one, but this is the one he’s bringing forward.

10:00: Charles Cooper gets up to speak. He notes that the two “jurisdictional” issue at stake, as we all know, are (a) standing (b) constitutionality. With respect to the standing issue, he notes a Supreme Court case in which New Jersey state education officials were required to defend the moment of silence statute. The court allowed the Assembly speaker/Senate president on behalf of the legislature to defend the state’s interests on the statute. Supremes rejected the claim that they did NOT have standing. Reason is b/c NJ Supreme Court previously allowed the legislative officers to intervene on behalf of the legislature to represent the state’s interests in a redistricting case.

9:59: And here we go. Gavel and all rise.

9:54: Arisha writes in that about 20 members of the public who got up early enough were lucky enough to gain entrance into courtroom one to watch the historic hearing live. Evidently, some staunch equality supporters began lining up at 4 am to get a seat. Other hopefuls are being sent into several media overflow rooms
to view the hearing. As a reminder, you can watch on C-SPAN, the California Channel streaming online (which now has images of the scene Rick describes below).

9:39: Arisha writes in that there are six total attorneys for the plaintiffs (us) and three for the defendant-intervenors.

9:38: More on the scene inside the courtroom from Rick (for those of you who are wondering why the verbal description, they don’t allow photography inside the courtroom):

There are only four rows of pews here.  Unlike the courtroom of Judge Walker, which was larger, lighter and more modern—that 1960s light wood look—this one could be in Spain or Washington, DC.  The floors are one inch square mosaic tiles covered in most places by gray, short-nap carpet.  The wooden pews are stained in a mahogany, with fluted, low arm rests on either end.  The benches are much more comfortable than the ones in the Burton building.
There are only three people seated in the audience section behind the defendant-intervenor side, whereas our side is almost full.  The general public will now be admitted to the room to fill the remaining three pews on the defendant-intervenor side.  Interestingly, our side is on the left, theirs on the right. I’m sure that must be accidental. Regardless, it’s nice to see Ted Olson here on the left.

The pool TV cameras are situated at the front, facing the lawyers’ podium and in the back, over my left shoulder, facing the judges’ bench.

Over there is Jenny Pizer of LAMBDA Legal schmoozing with Cleve.  Behind me is Linda Hirschman, the brilliant author whose book about the history of the LGBT movement is being published by Harper Collins.  She’s still working on it, and it’s going to be terrific. There’s also Jo Becker, the NYTimes correspondent who, in her spare time, is writing a book chronicling the Prop. 8 Trial.

I have never been that excited by Hollywood celebrity and the like.  I don’t watch enough TV or see enough movies to identify with it all.  But I admit that I love this.  Having live-blogged the trial itself, knowing Ted Olson for so long, knowing Cleve and Lance and Bruce and Chad and now the plaintiffs and most of all, having lived through Prop. 8 with all of you, this is exciting.  It’s history.

With the change in political climate in this country, which I think the right-wing has misinterpreted, we see marriage under threat in New Hampshire.  We saw three judges be roundly rooted out in Iowa by NOM and its secret money slush fund.  But here, in the stained-glass skylight formal courtroom, justice is at work.  The slush funds don’t prevail here.

9:14: Another dispatch from Rick on what things are looking like inside: “We’re in the courtroom.  It’s a small room, with baroque, vaulted ceilings, oranate plaster arches that surround three deep hued mosaic images of the history of justice in this state.  Arisha and I are seated in the first two seats of the front row right behind the plaintiff’s family.

The entire gang is here:  we said hello to Ted Olson, whom I greeted with that “farewell” remark of my old friend Howard Baker, Jr:  “Don’t screw up.”  I think he won’t.

David Boies will begin for our side, followed by Ted. Ted Boutros, Chris Dusseault, Terry Stewart, Cleve Jones, Lance Black,  Chad Griffin, the sons of Kris and Sandy, the parents of Paul Katami in from New Jersey, and of course the four plaintiffs themselves are here.

Ron Prentice made a point of shaking my hand, saying “Good morning, Rick.”  I hope he’s right.

Andy Pugno won’t make eye contact, but there he is.  So far, his post-Prop. 8 record is unblemished by success.  He lost the Walker ruling. He lost his assembly race here in California.  So let’s hope his streak continues.

We’re sitting in front of Ryan Kendall, the witness who so eloquently told of his forced attempted “conversion” by NARTH, which you saw at P8TT.

Next to us are Judge Walker’s three clerks plus his wonderful administrator.

9:07: I’ve got photos rolling in from Arisha I’m starting to get up. Here’s Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs, with AFER at a pre-trial presser:

AFER press conference

And crowds of marriage equality supporters:

Marriage equality supporters

Also, it’s our very own Kathleen along with Ann S. from the comments!

Kathleen + LLB from comments

And Alan!

Alan from comments

9:06: Rick sent in the following: We are in line now behind the plaintiffs and lawyers waiting to check in. A half dozen satellite trucks, a hundred or so at a demonstration for our side. A huge garbage truck just went by and fog horn honked in support of our side. Standing next to Imperial County lawyers who said, “we’re in a funny position. We’re defendants but we’re not part of the case.” To which another apparent lawyer said, “tell me about it. We’re here to uphold the law.

9:05 AM PST: A few more items of note before the trial starts in less than an hour.

  • If you missed yesterday’s preview of how things will proceed to today, you can find it here.
  • A few months ago in the period between the Walker ruling and today, we had NCLR’s Shannon Minter (who was the lead attorney on the original 2008 In re Marriage Cases, the case striking down restrictions on same-sex marriage at the California Supreme Court) and deputy Chris Stoll stop by to answer your Prop 8 legal questions on standing, appeal process, timeline, what strict scrutiny means, and more. If you’ve got a question about what’s coming up, you can probably find that question answered in the thread.
  • My colleague Chris also has some useful FAQ on potential outcomes.
  • The defendant-intervenor brief filed for this hearing can be found here. The response brief filed by Olson/Boies et al can be found here.
  • If you’re feeling nostalgic or want some feeling for how courtroom back-and-forth may go, you can read Prop8TrialTracker’s live-blogging of the original hearing with Judge Walker from inside the courtroom itself. All those threads can be found here. That was the trial that led to more than 4 million pageviews and 80,000 comments here.
  • Recalling that Judge Walker struck down Prop 8 on both equal protection and due process grounds, it’s worth recalling Judge Walker’s conclusion in his ruling as we enter this one: “Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.” On due process: “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as ‘the right to same-sex marriage’ would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy — namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”

December 6, 2010 at 9:07 am 705 comments

BREAKING: Prop 8 legal team files argument to 9th Circuit attacking Judge Walker

By Eden James

The defendant-intervenors filed their written arguments to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals shortly after 9 p.m. PST — just 3 hours before the court’s deadline. We will be posting it here ASAP.

According to Lisa Leff at the Associated Press, it targets Judge Vaughn Walker for being “egregiously selective and one-sided.” More to come.

UPDATE: Here it is (h/t to both Kathleen, in this thread, and Ann S. in the previous thread, where the news broke almost immediately in the comments):

View this document on Scribd

More from the Associated Press:

In written arguments to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the ban’s sponsors alleged that Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker “quite willfully” disregarded a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court precedent and other relevant information when he decided the voter-approved measure was an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians’ civil rights.

“The district court based its findings almost exclusively on an uncritical acceptance of the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs’ experts, and simply ignored virtually everything — judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive historical and documentary evidence — that ran counter to its conclusions,” they wrote in their 134-page opening brief.


UPDATE:
Trial Trackers are quickly digesting the document and posting their thoughts in the comments. Below are some of the best comments posted so far.

James UK:

I’ve just read the Proponents brief. The problem I think that they have is the cursory treatment given to Lawrence v Texas, and to a lesser extent, Romer v Evans, which cases have so changed the landscape regaring the classification of lesbian and gay people, to the extent that Baker v Nelson is unlikely any longer to be good law. Whilst Lawrence specifically did not mandate recognition of gay marriage, which it could not and was not required to do, since the subject matter under discussion was a Texas criminal statute, it did not foreclose such a finding in future cases. It merely left that argument to be made in future cases. Lawrence did not apply standard rational review. It applied some higher level of scrutiny, whether rational review with bite or intermediate scrutiny. Thus the Propents complaints on rational basis review are probably nothing to the point.

The brief is noticeably silent on Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence too, where he asserted, rightly, that if moral approbation was not an acceptable basis upon which to legislate against lesbians and gays as a class, then same sex marriage could not be prevented either, because procreation was not and never has been a requirement for marriage.

Justice Ginsberg’s recent note in Christian Legal Soc v Martinez that the USSC”s recent jurisprudence does not distinguish between behaviour and status as regards lesbians and gays also goes unmentioned.

“Lightning Baltimore” posted this gem of a quote from page 33 of the brief:

The State, it follows, “has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of” its laws. Heller, 509 U.S. at 320 (emphasis added). To the contrary, the State’s “legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”

Here is Kathleen Perrin’s response to the above quote:

It’s true that it can be based on rational speculation…. but the key word here is “rational.”

IF the standard of review is only “rational basis”, then the court can actually come up with its own rationale for the law, even if the parties have not presented one. However, neither the Proponents nor Walker could come up with any justification for the law that was “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.

Anonygrl:

They wrote: “The trial proceedings were skewed from the outset, given that four of Proponents’ expert witnesses refused to testify…”

Basically they are claiming that the fact that the judge videotaped the proceedings EVEN THOUGH NOT FOR BROADCAST scared away the experts. And THAT is why they had no evidence! The fact that they were unable to explain properly to their own witnesses that this was for court records, not broadcast is why this should be overturned.

This leaves me somewhat speechless. I think that Olson and Boies must be laughing their asses off somewhere right now, as they read this.

UPDATE (h/t to Kathleen): Imperial County just filed their brief on the standing issue:

View this document on Scribd

Finally, AFER released the following statement shortly after the Prop 8 legal team filed their brief earlier tonight:

OFFICIAL PROP. 8 PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT ON TODAY’S 9th CIRCUIT FILING
Statement from Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights

“Regardless of the defendant-intervenors’ protests, the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial. There is no getting around the fact that the court’s decision was based on our nation’s most fundamental principles, and that the Constitution does not permit unequal treatment under the law,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “We are eager to proceed with affirming the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8, and the equality of all Americans, in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court.”

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sole sponsor of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. After bringing together Theodore Olson and David Boies to lead its legal team, the Foundation successfully advanced the Perry case through Federal District Court and is now leading it through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before the case is brought to the United States Supreme Court.

(more…)

September 17, 2010 at 9:35 pm 240 comments

At the AFER Press Conference

By Rick Jacobs

I’m at the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) press conference. The set is a replay of the set at the opening press conference in May 2009 in LA when AFER publicly launched itself and the case.

Andy Pugno, General Counsel of (the oxymoronic) Protect Marriage opened by saying that now the judge can rule. Cooper said he awaits the judge’s ruling so this case can go to its next phase. Cooper ran out unwilling to take questions. We know he has no answers.

Now Austin R. Nimocks, the guy from the Alliance Defense Fund is trying to answer a question about the dangers that Charles Cooper mentioned over and over. He said that it’s about protecting the institution of marriage.

Pugno says that the court rests on the scrutiny issues.

Questioner says the argument you made says that marriage is to protect people who want to have children and those children. How does this work with married couples who cannot or do not procreate? ADF guy says that mothers and fathers are needed. And no public policy is perfect, not for stop signs, or traffic or marriage, but 99% of kids are born from opposite sex couples.

Pugno says that only a man and a woman can inadvertently have children. That’s why the state wants them to marry.

Questioner: Are you saying that ss couples cannot procreate?

Pugno: You don’t understand my answer. Let’s move on. Only men and women can procreate.

Q: SS and opposite sex couples can engage in irresponsible sex.

Pugno: Courts have right to channel (there he goes again).

Nimocks: Defending Prop. 8 is playing defense. Judge not necessarily critical of our not having witnesses. We did not need to have any. All we have to do is have rational basis. We do. Someone may not agree with that basis, but it’s still rational.

Q: Cooper said end of marriage would lead to end of society.

Pugno: I think he was quoting from Supreme Court. All of these questions are great for legislative debate where we change hearts and minds. We don’t ask judges to substitute their will for the will of the voters.

There is a phalanx of cameras here, at least 12 big TV cameras and another dozen small ones plus many, many stills.

Chad and Ted Olson and David Boies and the plaintiffs took the stage. Everyone applauded wildly. Chad is speaking. He said this is not a political campaign with bumper stickers and ads. The law and facts mattered here and the other side had trouble with that. At its core this case is about every person being treated equally. Equal protection is founding principle of country. Plaintiffs want same rights—not special rights—same rights.

I want to thank these plaintiffs before you who represent their own families and so many others across the country. I also want to thank Olson/GibsonDunn and Boies/Boise Schiller. We have become a family and we’re staying together until we get equality.

Kristin Perry thanks Chad and AFER and Ted and David for leading a legal team the likes of which we have never seen and not for a better cause. You gave two moms our day in court. Sandy and I just want the same thing everyone else has. That’s all the case is about: fairness and equality.

Paul Katami thanks everyone. Jeff and I are ordinary Americans. We work hard and pay our taxes. We want fairness. That’s all we ask.

Olson came up and grabbed Boies. “I don’t do anything without David Boies.”

Boies said, “One thing he did without David Boies was the best argument I have heard in 45 years.”

Ted thanks all the folks in both firms, AFER and the plaintiffs. We could not in this country stand any longer without doing something about a proposition that gets placed into the constitution that prohibits people from entering into the relationship that the Supreme Court says is the most important relationship.

I grew up in CA, now live in the east. Chad and the Foundation and so many others—so many names I won’t start going through them all. Every day, David and I have had in mind our clients. We don’t do a thing without thinking about them, about fighting for them. We want the judge to see that on our faces is the interest of our clients. Clients got out there everyday and put their faith in us. Very courageous people. They stand for millions as Chad has said.

We put together a team of lawyers that tries to live up to the promise. We’re a few steps ahead of where we were a year ago. Judge offered to have cameras in courtroom but Supreme Court did not allow. If there was ever a trial in the history of our country that the American people should have seen it was this trial. To see our clients stand up there and talk about their feeling and families was heart wrenching for everyone.

TO hear the most prominent experts in the world talk about discrimination and the history of marriage was terrific. Judge was one of most competent I have ever seen. He moved us along, but he gave us the opportunity to establish a record for the appellate courts and the American people.

Working with David Boies an honor. I said in my closing statement that they had few witnesses on the other side because many of them learned in deposition what it means to be cross-examined by David Boies. Two showed up and they understood why the others did not show up.

I feel very good that we did as good as we could.

Boies said if ever there was trial that should have been televised, it was this one. If it gets out of the darkness, people will be fair and this will all end. Thanks to Chad. No case without him. This has been a challenging, enormously gratifying case. I understand that when Ted finished in overflow room, people cheered. It’s now in the hands of the judge. We made a great case. I’m very hopeful that the facts and the law really will matter in this case. Facts and law are on our side.

[UPDATE 5:25]

Q: Is this the case that will go to the Supreme Court?

O: I believe it is. It is California. There is no other case in federal court that challenges a state. Whether or not we win or lose, we will appeal, I cannot imagine the other side won’t. Someone will bring this to the Supreme Court.

To your other question, of course it is civil rights. Supreme Court said marriage is key right. It also said intimate private sexual matters are a right. How can you then not say that marriage is not linked to that?

Presumptuous to say how judge will rule. Top graduate of Stanford. Chief judge. Been on bench for 25 years. Was at a law firm. I’m confident that he’ll do the best job he can. I don’t know how he’ll rule. He could rule on a narrow basis because California has such a bizarre set of rules.

I don’t know how long it’ll take him to rule. It’ll take him as long as it takes. He gave us 39 questions. He’s a very thoughtful judge.

Ocamb asks questions.

Olson: You sensed how passionate I was in this trial. There may have been a few times when I had more emotion running through my body, but felt that way all day today and most of time in trial. I need to be able to convey those emotions to the judge. Partially academic exercise because we are talking about the law. I think about discrimination.

Boies: I have no answer to the 18,000. Assuming that the plaintiffs win, what should remedy be? Answer they came up with, invalidate the 18,000 marriages. No one knows how they came up with that. I won’t predict, but I will make one prediction: the 18,000 marriages will not be invalidated.

(I paused to talk to Cleve. I missed a couple of questions.)

O: One of the judge’s questions was how did we get to this traditional view of marriage between a man and a woman. It is not correct factually that it has been that way which is why our opponents did not bring it up today.

Intimate relations, spirituality, family are not connected to their definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with it.

I could go on and on, but you heard the closing arguments.

Thank you.

June 16, 2010 at 5:10 pm 58 comments

Liveblogging Closing Arguments: Part VI

By Rick Jacobs

This should be the last thread of the day, with the plaintiffs up to rebut the defense’s arguments.

Judge Walker: Mr. Olson, let’s pick it up there. Isn’t the danger that you might win this case? That happened thirty years ago and continues to fester in society. Isn’t the same danger present here that society will still be restive and unsettled?

Olson: I believe the cases to which you refer are to abortion. The arguments we look to are civil rights. Look at the Loving case. The Supreme Court struck down 15 or 16 anti-miscegenation statutes in 1967 unanimously. Looking back only 43 years, we see that it was a felony in Virginia to marry another race.

O: The same arguments were made to MLK, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Thurgood Marshall. I know that Mr. Cooper wishes he could take those words back, “I don’t know.” He could only get two witnesses into court because they did not want to be cross-examined by Mr. Boies and some did not come because they were cross examined by Mr. Boies (Laughter).

O: Mr. Cooper sites from books of people who would not come into court to be subjected to the judicial process. Mr. Cooper used a new term today, that the State of California is in the business of channeling us through marriage, I’ve never heard of that. (Laughter). He says that gays and lesbians are a threat to procreation and that channeling function if you accept that channeling is a function. 14 Supreme Court decisions, testimony of Dr. Kott, other experts say that marriage is not an issue of 30 years, but older than the bill of rights.

O: Mr. Cooper says first you have to accept my definition that marriage is between a man and a woman and marriage between man and man or woman and woman would change definition. Of course it did because you defined it. How does it help to keep gays and lesbians out of the club?
O: It turns out that Mr. Blankenhorn has some things to say. Mr. Cooper wants him to stay as an expert in this case and we’ll accept that because it turns out he’s quite helpful to us. (Laughter).

(Plays Blankenhorn testimony: “heterosexuals did the deinstitutionalization. It predates the discussion of gays and lesbians marrying.”)

O: Dr. Kott points out that no fault divorce led to higher divorce rates. So much for the channeling function! Mr. Blankenhorn did testify that gays and lesbians have nothing to do with the increase in divorce rates and good for him that he came here to be cross examined.

(Plays Boies: you did not mean to imply that bio parents are better than adoptive? Blankenhorn: No. Boies: In fact, two bio parents… Blankenhorn: IN fact adoptive parents on some outcomes outstrip bio parents in providing better care for their children.”)

O: Well, there you have it. Children in same sex families are better off, maybe, than those of natural. Or maybe not. Blankenhorn says that if ss couples can marry better off still.

O: Now a word on pro-creation. What if the state changes its mind? There are governments that have ruled that too much pro-creation is bad. If CA so decides in 10 years, would the state have the right to cut off marriage? No. None of the cases to which Mr. Cooper referred, including Maynard, referred to divorce, mandatory leave for public school teachers, family occupancy of homes, prisoners, and the last case in Texas which ruled for homosexuals. Mr. Cooper cites Justice Stevens in Bowers and then he is in the majority in Lawrence. IN other words, his earlier opinion really reversed and confirms that marriage is not about procreation. That’s what the oracle of justice, Mr. Stevens said. It’s not about sex.

O: Why are we all of a sudden talking about SS marriage? It’s no longer against the law to work for the federal government if you are a homosexual. It’s no longer against the law in most places to go into a bar if you are a homo. It’s no longer considered a disease. Even some of that stuff was in the Prop. 8 ads. With this changes in society, no wonder people are talking about marriage.

[UPDATE] 4:02

Judge: 1967, it wasn’t 41 states – it was about 14 or 15 states that prohibited inter-racial marriage. 27 states removed the restriction and in that first one, there was already a political tide running with respect to inter-racial marriage and the Supreme Court took note of that. Now, do we have a political tide that is going to carry to the Supreme court?

Olsen: I believe your honor that there is a political tide. But that does not justify saying that the polls need to be a little bit higher before change, because even if they change it here in California we still have to go to every state. There will never be a case with such a wildly crazy system like California had, there will never be case like Romar. The right to privacy is the same right we’re talking about in the context of marriage.

The most compelling thing that I’ve read on that subject were the arguments made to Dr. King – people saying that the people weren’t ready, that there would be backlash – and his letter from a Birmingham jail about why we can’t wait any longer. The threat of irresponsible procreation – what does that mean? I can’t figure out what that means. Because the clients that I represent are not irresponsible procreators; on the other hand, heterosexual couples who have sex outside of their marriage are a much bigger threat to the institution.

We had a discussion about the motivation of the voters and whether the procreation protection goal part of the reason that voters approved Prop 8. Mr. Cooper cited two exhibits during this poriton, but we looked at those 2 exhibits and protecting procreation was not mentioned in either of those (he’s referring to the voter guide and Prop 8 campaign). I could not find the words procreation….I could find the phrase “activist judges” (laugh), what I also could find was about protecting children. Protecting children is the argument that proponents made and I submit that is discriminatory animus.

[UPDATE 4:04]

O: We relied on a definition of marriage as I pointed out was supported by 14 Supreme Court decisions on privacy and other issues. Mr. Cooper has cited some appellate court decisions. With all due respect, the 134 year history of Supreme Court rulings on marriage trumps that. Then we had experts testify on immutability—all kinds of evidence on that. No idea how my opponent can say it’s a matter of choice. Some people may change. But it’s a characteristic and the experts testified. Supreme Court decisions, testimony by eight of the best experts in the world and the animus behind Prop. 8 and then Mr. Blakenhorn came over to our side (laughter).

O: Then Mr. Cooper cited High Tech Gays case was in 1990. I must have heard that in his testimony six or eight times. It relied on Bowers. Bowers has since been reversed by Texas. Cites case that talks about immutability. Points your honor to 9th circuit opinion which guides.

O: No we get to gender discrimination. Choice of gender of whom you want to marry leaves some out. It’s about a fundamental right to marry, not to marry in June or some other time, but to marry whom you love. Can’t rely on post-hoc. We have to take a group of people who have bee victims of discrimination and we want to foreclose them from a basic right_ marriage. Strict scrutiny, rational basis or something in between, you have to have a good reason to take those rights away. “I don’t know” doesn’t cut it when you take a basic right from a group is not good enough. 14 Supreme Court cases, including Romer and Lawrence that says sexual orientation is private. You cannot say that we are taking away the intimate rights and take away your freedom to marry. Not acceptable under our constitution.

O: Mr. Blankenhorn is right. The day that ends, America will be better off. Thank you, your honor.

J: Very well. I’ll remand.

Adjourned.

[UPDATE 4:09]

After nearly three weeks of testimony and a day of final arguments, it’s over. Now it’s all up to the judge. All.

Ted Olson just wrapped the whole thing up with these words: “I don’t know doesn’t cut” when you are removing the fundamental rights of an entire group of people.

I’m going to go hug folks. I almost cried. I have to think. We have our work to do. Everyone has to know.


Three things you can do right now to help us get the truth out about the Prop 8 trial:

  1. “Like” us on Facebook: facebook.com/EqualityOnTrial and facebook.com/CourageCampaign
  2. Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial and @CourageCampaign
  3. Chip in what you can today at couragecampaign.org/TrialTracker

June 16, 2010 at 3:52 pm 38 comments

Liveblogging Closing Arguments: Part V

By Rick Jacobs

Fresh thread time. More of Judge Walker trying to get Cooper to make a legitimate argument.

Cooper: To come back to the immutability case, the 9th circuit said, “sexual orientation is not immutable.” Against the Supreme Court cases, we know of no case that sexual orientation meets heightened scrutiny. The characteristics of immutability simply do not apply to sexual orientation. Behavioral, attraction and self-identity are the three definitions that the plaintiff’s experts used and depending upon which you use, a different group falls into that, so the definition is not clear. The plaintiffs made clear that sexual orientation does change over time, especially in women. Peplau commented on the “astonishing elasticity” of women, whose sexual orientation changes many times over their lifetimes. Some 2/3 of women who identify as homo have changed their orientation at least once and 1/3 more than once over their lifetime.

C: Goes to Supreme Court question of immutability. Justice Ginsberg says, “Immutability is tightly cabined. Goes solely to accident of birth.” Heightened scrutiny goes to race, gender, illegitimacy, all accidents of birth. Ginsberg says, “Doesn’t say something can’t be changed.”

Judge: Does this have to do with national orientation?

C: Yes.

J: Sometimes of the year everyone is Irish. (Laughter). People may choose via an ancestor to have a national origin. These questions of immutability are not key.

C: Well, we then look at political powerlessness. We submit that gays and lesbians are not politically powerless as Dr. Segura says. Clearly in the Cleveland case in regard to mentally disabled, does the group have the ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers? 20 years ago in “high tech gays?” the court ruled that gays and lesbians can attract the attention of legislators. As Dr. Segura testified, since that time there has been a sea change.

J: Isn’t that the most important factor, the historical context? Women are hardly politically powerless, yet a law protects them, laws that single them out subject to strict scrutiny. African Americans have considerable power and yet a law that singles them out is subject to strict scrutiny. Isn’t the historical context what makes the point?

C: It’s an interesting question. Here’s a group whose political power has changed so dramatically (women). In 1970 and 1973 when the court had before it the political power of the group (women) needed extraordinary protection from a majoritarian electorate so they needed protection. At that time, only 2% of the offices held by them but 50% of the population. That’s not the case with gays and lesbians in California.

J: The DOMA Statute that has been mentioned, Prop. 8, exclusion of gays and lesbians from military for a long period of time, all indicia of discrimination?

[UPDATE 3:00]

J: P8, these other props in other states, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from military service – aren’t those all indicia of a long history of discrimination?

C: We have never disputed that gays and lesbians have been the victims of a long and shameful history of discrimination. Thankfully, the situation today in 2010 is not what it was in the past. The fact of a history of discrimination is not by itself sufficient to warrant heightened judicial scrutiny.

The question of political powerlessness was very different 20 years ago, but the 9th Circuit nonetheless believed that gays and lesbians could attract the attention of the lawmakers; thus, it follows that it must be true today.

Even though mental disability is an immutable characteristic, the disabled could not qualify for heightened scrutiny because the court found that they had political power (could attract the attention of lawmakers), sure they had to rely on allies to create that political power. If the mentally disabled weren’t politically powerless, I would submit that gays and lesbians are definitely not powerless. I submit that Court’s that have decided against heightened scrutiny have been correct.

Long pause….

j: Why should Mr. Blankenhorn’s testimony qualify as expert testimony. Does he meet the standards?

C: I submit that he does. I don’t have anything to add to the submission we made earlier. Under the 9th circuit standard of the qualification of an expert, he is amply qualified. His professional life for 20 years have been devoted to the study of marriage – the potential parenting structures, the potential for harm to marriage due to a variety of social phenomena, including same-sex marriage, he’s written books that have been received with respect by recognized experts.

J: Were they peer-reviewed?

C: No.

J: Am I correct that the only peer-reviewed article of Blankenhorn was not on the subject of marriage?

C: Sir, as I stand here right now. I don’t know…don’t remember.

J: Fair enough.

C: I didn’t come here prepared to argue that particularly. May I request a 5 min break?

J: Why don’t we take 10 minutes….back at 3:10.

[UPDATE 3:27] from Rick

(Here’s a bit of commentary and some color from the break while Arisha does the hard work.)

Bruce Cohen, the Academy Award-winning producer and key figure behind this case, said to me,” Can you believe that they are pointing to the one court ruling banning gays and lesbians from adopting (Florida) as their standard?” As Bruce said, there are only two states that ban adoption by gays and lesbians—Florida and Arkansas. Yet Mr. Cooper is saying Judge Walker should refer to that ruling for guidance here.

Kris Perry introduced me to her two wonderful, poised teenage sons. I also had the honor of meeting Kris’s mother. Of course ___ Steer was right there, wondering with all of us what Mr. Cooper is really filibustering about. Can you imagine being the subject of this case and having your kids and your mom sitting there with you throughout all of this? Imagine these young fellows, who have such wonderful, loving, caring parents, hearing a high-powered, gray-haired lawyer pontificating about how horrid lesbian mothers must be? I really can’t. It’s not removed at that point.

One distinguished lawyer (not on the legal team) said, “The only thing he has is the strict scrutiny test which has never before been applied to marriage equality.” He went on to say, “What he said about Loving is bullshit. The only reason society had to prevent black and white people from marrying was procreation. Society did not want mixed-race kids.” That’s right. Society did not want Barack Obama to be born.

Cooper has surrendered, really, on all of the other issues. He’s trying to say immutability is not assured, but the judge pointed out that that does not really matter here. And even though the judge keeps bringing this back to marriage as a right vs. sexual orientation, he keeps trying to say it’s about sexual orientation because that is his canard.

Short notes: Maggie has her shoes on. Lance Black is watching intently, having not been absent for a second of this. And there to my left is the (oxymoronic) Protect Marriage gang that sued us in January for having a logo that they say is indistinguishable from theirs even though ours has two women with two children instead of a man and a woman. That’s the point of the whole thing. There’s no difference. It’s about the right to love.

[UPDATE 3:33]

C: The US Supreme Court in Crawford vs. Bd. Of Education in 1982 upheld a California constitutional amendment that reduced the remedial tools given to the courts in the school segregation area. In that case the court rejected the contention that once a state chooses to do more than the 14th Amendment requires that the state could not return the “lower” federal standard.

J: What do we make of that in the context of this case? What baring does that have?

C: The California Supreme Court’s interpretation that we believe goes beyond the 14A, was something that the people of the state were empowered to reverse. The people of California are the ultimate appellate tribunal of the California Supreme Court. The Court’s decision was no more final in the state of California than the Appellate decision that upheld Prop 8. It was reviewed by the ultimate, judicial tribunal and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Crawford is on point here.

C: I also want to address whether there is a legit basis for California citizens to be concerned that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, does not show concern for the potential harm to the institution of marriage or show respect for the role that marriage is supposed to play (procreation, again). Redefining the institution will change the institution. Blakenhorn, our expert, said if you changed the definition of a thing, it’s hard to imagine how it would have no impact on “the thing.” Others have acknowledged that change will result. [He quotes a few “experts” who believe gays marrying will change the institution.] Redefining will divorce the institution of marriage from it’s core procreative purpose. It is not possible to predict with certainty what that change will beget. It seems undeniable that change as profound as this one, would have some consequences. The plaintiffs think that the consequences will be positive; we respect that point of view, but it’s not something that they can possibly prove – and their own expert (quoting Cott now) agrees that we can’t predict. Andrew Churling, a sociologist and equal marriage supporter, also states that “predicting the future of marriage is risky business.” He cites as example the fact that no sociologist forecasted the baby boom during the Great Depression; no sociologist predicted the rise of co-habitation.

Let me say 3 words that I haven’t said that often. “I don’t know.” Jokingly, I wish I could have those words back. Because usually whatever your question is, “I damn sure know.” Courtroom laughs.

J: What about Blakenhorn’s testimony about the negative outcomes that will result if gays can marry?

C: Blakenhorn was giving voice to sentiment that the threat of harm to vital social institution is too daunting to run the risks of gratifying what would otherwise favor the advent of same-sex marriage. There are many who went to the polling place with that sentiment – that’s my speculation. There are millions of Americans who believe in equality for gays and lesbians, but draw the line at marriage. Their hearts are pure – as pure as the plaintiffs – but they still believe that this is profound…could be profound. It could portend some social consequences that would not be positive and that reality

C: No one can know what tomorrow will bring. If there is a legitimate and rational basis to be concerned about that, couldn’t be more rational for people of California to say wait. We want to see what happens in Mass. and here. Perhaps Mr. Olson and his client’s whose sentiments are powerful (he’s speaking very haltingly) will be able to convince their fellow Californians they are right.

J: A disability has been put on marriage. Do you not have to show that there is need, that it’s enough to impose on some citizens a restriction from which others do not suffer? Is it enough to say “I don’t know?”

C: Yes. In looking at what society’s interests are and interests in regulating and caring and about marriage, if there is no basis for drawing a distinction from one to another, the distinction can’t stand. But if there is s distinction, it must stand. It’s been our position from the outset that we do not have to prove that exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage is a problem; we only have to prove that inclusion of those people would erode marriage.

J: Would you wrap up?

C: Yes. (Pause) The California court (missed which one) goes to the heart of the matter. It is the proper role of the legislature to set priorities and make difficult and imperfect decisions and approaching problems incrementally.” That process is at work in this state and the county. As the court considers this, there is a debate about the morals, the practicalities and the wisdom that really goes to the nature of our culture. The constitution should allow that debate to go forward among the people. Thank you.

J: Thank you Mr, Cooper.


Three things you can do right now to help us get the truth out about the Prop 8 trial:

  1. “Like” us on Facebook: facebook.com/EqualityOnTrial and facebook.com/CourageCampaign
  2. Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial and @CourageCampaign
  3. Chip in what you can today at couragecampaign.org/TrialTracker

June 16, 2010 at 2:52 pm 113 comments

Liveblogging Closing Arguments: Part IV

By Rick Jacobs

The last thread was getting a bit long so here is a new one.

Cooper: Only 16 states had a prohibition against inter-racial marriage. They actually made people have illegitimate children. The purpose of marriage is to have legit children. This racial restriction is at war with that purpose.

Judge Walker: Why isn’t the prohibition of marriage by SS couples at war with marriage for children?

C: Again, the 8th circuit recognized that there is a state interest. (He talks in circles) Only opposite sex couples can procreate and therefore they can minimize irresponsible procreation. When procreation between men and women not in binding vows, more frequently, society itself has to cope with that adverse consequences of that kind of irresponsible procreation.

J: But you don’t draw any distinction when opposite sex couples can conceive on their own or when ss couples require intervention, which is increasingly common. State’s interest is the same.

C: Not quite the same, no.

J: What’s the difference? If a child is born from a egg or sperm donor is society’s interest in the child different?

C: Without intrusive inquiry into fertility, society’s interests are also furthered whenever opposite sex couples are married because that strengthens the societal norms in order for this channeling function to be performed. Whenever opposite couples are cohabitating as happens now more than in previous times in history. Now we have social norms to try to channel into marriage. (He makes no, no sense. It’s not just me. He talks in circles because his only point is, as Olson said this morning, “because I said so.)

C: State’s job is to minimize irresponsible procreation. It’s not a good term, but I can’t think of a more serviceable one. Procreation that isn’t bound by social obligations than the marital one is, children raised by one parent or another, but not both. It is not a phenomenon that the court has to concern itself with with ss couples. SS couples cannot have kids by accident.

(The bailiff just made Maggie NOM put her bare feet down. She is so disrespectful)

(I just walked out to send this. Arisha, one of our organizers is teaming up with me so we get it all. A woman who is 8 months pregnant walked out with me. I said, “don’t threaten society.” She said, “that guy would be better off just sitting down and shutting up now.” (more…)

June 16, 2010 at 1:57 pm 123 comments

Older Posts


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,301 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...