federal trial

...now browsing by category

 

CA: Both Sides File Written Arguments in Prop 8 Trial

Sunday, February 28th, 2010

Opposing sides in the legal battle over same-sex marriage in California have laid out their cases in writing to a federal judge, disputing the status of gays and lesbians in society, the nature of marriage, and the motives behind the ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. “Californians voted for Proposition 8 because they thought it would strengthen the institution of marriage (and) … because they thought it would benefit children,” sponsors of Prop. 8 said Friday night in papers filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Their opponents, representing two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, said those purported goals of Prop. 8 were contradicted by overwhelming evidence at a 12-day trial in January that allowing same-sex couples to wed would benefit their children and the institution of marriage. Regardless of the intentions of individual voters, they argued, the Prop. 8 campaign was designed to appeal to fear and deep-seated prejudice.

“The evidence demonstrates that Proposition 8′s actual motivation was moral disapproval of gay and lesbian individuals,” said the measure’s opponents, plaintiffs in the federal court case. They said the ballot measure “sends a message to gay and lesbian individuals that they are not welcome in California.”

Full Story from SFGate
Click here for gay marriage resources in California.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: Court Proposes Televising Prop 8 Closing Arguments

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

The U.S. district court in San Francisco has proposed that closing arguments in the trial over the anti-gay-marriage measure Proposition 8 be televised, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. An attempt to televise the entire trial failed after the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, saying the pro-Prop. 8 side feared its witnesses would be subject to intimidation. The anti-Prop. 8 side had supported televising the proceedings.

The proposal to televise the closing arguments was posted on the court’s website, and the court has taken public comments on it. The plan to televise the full trial had received overwhelmingly positive comments from the public before the Supreme Court quashed it.

No date has been set for closing arguments; Judge Vaughn Walker had postponed them until after he received a final round of briefs, due Friday.

Full Story from the Advocate
Click here for gay marriage resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: NOM Tries to Muddy the Water With Post on Prop 8 Judge's Impartiality

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

What’s that adage about spin – say it long enough, hard enough, loud enough and eventually it will take on the cloak of truth? Well, the latest missive from National Organization Executive Director Brian Brown reads more like a fairy tale – showing that this Emperor has no clothes.

Brown’s email to supporters was in response a San Francisco Chronicle column published Sunday ostensibly “outing” Judge Vaugn Walker – who was not in the closet. That bit of “news” was not really new – which blogger Michael Petrelis pointed out with a Cheshire cat grin since he was the one who first raised the issue publicly in July. Queerty picked it up as a stand-alone story, while other bloggers and reporters referenced it in passing or didn’t feel it was relevant to Walker’s ability to try the case. After all, if Walker’s sexual orientation is an issue in him deciding an LGBT-related case, well then, what about a straight judge who’s been divorced judging a case involving marital relations? Indeed, US Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas would have to recuse himself from any case involving gender equality or sexual harassment.

Here’s Brown’s email so I’m not accused of taking anything out of context- after which I’ll have some fun with facts.

Full Story from the Huffington Post
Click here for gay marriage resources in California.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: First Episode of the Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment Posted

Monday, February 1st, 2010

In its January 13, 2010 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the public broadcast of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a U.S. District Court case challenging the constitutional validity of California Proposition 8. Working from court transcripts and first-hand accounts from bloggers who are present at the trial, we are re-enacting the trial and posting it here for public viewing.

We offer context for each episode from our two experts, David Cruz and Linda Hirshman. First, Cruz gives an overview of what is happening during the day’s proceedings–introducing the players and providing an explanation for the legal strategies being employed. Then, Hirshman recounts her first-person experience in the courtroom from San Francisco–describing the dynamics in the room and pointing out the social significance of what you are watching unfold.

See the First Episode Here
Click here for gay marriage resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

Recap of the Final Day of the Prop 8 Trial

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

WELCOME BACK we missed you, we love you, we’re glad you’re back. This is the last day of the trial where evidence (like witnesses) can be entered, and also the day we say goodbye to the man who has brought us such a bright and beautiful rainbow of feelings, Dr. David Blankenhorn. Does it feel like the last episode of Friends? Are you going to cry? I hope not. His cross-examination continues right… now!

If you’re a person of the future, catch up on the entire trial here: Judgment Daze. And look, we made it all the way to the end without Alex fixing the typo in the Judgment Graphic. However, it is good looking isn’t it? And as Alex has pointed out, they spell it that way in the UK.

Queerty was watching yesterday and they also found Blankenhorn to be a big disaster.

Full Story from Autostraddle
Click here for gay marriage resources in California.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: Prop 8 Trial Final Day Recap

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Today was the final day of testimony in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Like every day before it, today was remarkable. The majority of the day was spent on finishing up the cross-examination of David Blankenhorn, an expert witness for the defendants. As he did yesterday, renowned attorney David Boies absolutely nailed the examination. Blankenhorn did nothing to help himself, fighting Boies’s yes-or-no questions at every turn even when Boies was simply laying a basic foundation with uncontroversial points. Blankenhorn’s defensive behavior verged on the histrionic, contrasting sharply with Boies’s calm, matter-of-fact approach. At one point, Judge Walker stepped in and instructed Blankenhorn to keep in mind that a fact-finder, meaning a judge or jury, can consider a witness’s demeanor when deciding how credible that witness is and how seriously to take his or her testimony. Although Judge Walker delivered it with great diplomacy and tact, this was a fairly sharp rebuke.

On cross, Boies established a couple of key points that gravely undermined Blankenhorn’s authority as an expert on marriage. First, Boies elicited testimony that Blankenhorn had not read many leading scholarly articles addressing the question of how society would be affected by allowing same-sex couples to marry. For example, of the dozens of articles cited in policy statements supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples by leading professional organizations, Blankenhorn admitted that he had read scarcely more than a handful. In contrast, all of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were demonstrably well-versed in the entire range of scholarly literature on the topics about which they testified.

Second, Boies elicited extensive testimony from Blankenhorn acknowledging that permitting same-sex couples to marry would “almost certainly” benefit those couples and their children. Blankenhorn also testified that the most important dimensions of marriage (as defined by Blankenhorn in one of his publications) are the same for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. In short, by the end of Blankenhorn’s cross, his own testimony had provided multiple powerful reasons to permit same-sex couples to marry, and his opposition to marriage equality seemed virtually inexplicable.

Full Story from Pam’s House Blend
Click here for gay marriage resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: Another Prop 8 Trial Day 11 Recap

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Hellloooooooo gorgeous! How are you? Are you ready for more of our terrible/AWESOME make-you-laugh-then-cry-then-laugh-harder Professional Frenemy Kenneth Miller? Good, because that’s what’s happening. When I was a babyqueer I used to play Little League baseball (on a boy’s team, obvs) and we had a “Slaughter Rule,” which was that if the other team was more than like seven runs ahead you could just give up. I would be lying if I said I were not hoping a little bit that that might just happen today, and everyone could leave the courthouse and go to Panera. Let’s find out!

We are going pretty easy on the guy to start; Boies is pretty much just saying numbers and asking Miller to confirm that these numbers exist, which seems like it should be doable. “32% of population that attended church weekly voted yes on Prop. 8 84% of the time. Consistent with your understanding?” Yes. Duh.

Remember when Miller was all up in our grills about how gays are Super Powerful Like Superman because farm workers’ unions are on our side? Yeah, it turns out that when asked how labor unions tended to vote on Prop 8, he doesn’t know. Okay, Jesus, this is getting ridiculous. He is like a giant baby!

Full Story from Autostraddle
Click here for gay marriage resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: Prop 8 Trial Update Day 11

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Today was one of the most dramatic days of the trial, with startling admissions by the proponents’ two expert witnesses: Professor Kenneth Miller, testifying about the political power of gay people, and David Blankenhorn, testifying about the purposes of marriage.

The morning began with the conclusion of David Boies’s cross-examination of Professor Miller. Boies confronted Prof. Miller with several of Prof. Miller’s own earlier writings, which were highly critical of the ballot initiative process and particularly highlighted the risk that majorities will use the initiative process to target minority groups. Prof. Miller admitted that ballot measures can, and have, drawn upon anti-minority sentiment. Indeed, one of Prof. Miller’s own articles cited Proposition 22, the California initiative prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples that passed in 2000, as an example of such an anti-minority initiative.

Following the conclusion of Prof. Miller’s testimony, the afternoon was taken up by questioning of the proponents’ final witness, David Blankenhorn, the president of a private think tank called the Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn is best known as the author of a book called Fatherless America, in which he argued that fatherlessness is “the most harmful demographic trend of this generation” and the leading cause of “our most urgent social problems, from crime to adolescent pregnancy to child sexual abuse to domestic violence against women.” Blankenhorn is also one of the most visible and culturally influential opponents of marriage for same-sex couples.

Full Story from Pam’s House Blend
Click here for gay marriage resources in California.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: Another Prop 8 Trial Recap From Edge Boston

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Monday, Jan. 25, was not a good day for Claremont McKenna College political science professor Kenneth Miller. Appearing as an expert witness for proponents of Proposition 8, he was the defense lead-off in the federal bench trial challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban. He was originally called in to show the political clout of the LGBT community that the proponents say make court intervention unnecessary. But his testimony came off as ill informed and ill prepared under cross-examination from plaintiffs attorney David Boies.

Boies conceded Miller’s expertise in American politics but challenged his credentials as an expert on LGBT discrimination. Defense attorney David Thompson claimed he had focused on LGBT politics from the 1970s on.

Boies, however, sharply asked him what the Mattachine Society was. Miller did admitted he didn’t know what that seminal pre-Stonewall gay-rights organizations was when he was deposed earlier. Since then, he countered, he studied their role in LGBT activism. OK, Boies, continued, so who’s Allen Spears and Elaine Noble? He didn’t know.

Full Story from Edge Boston
Click here for gay marriage resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: Prop 8 Trial Recap Day 10

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Today was another exciting day as the Prop 8 trial heads into the home stretch. The plaintiffs finished their case today, and defendants got started with their first witness, Professor Kenneth Miller.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys closed their case by playing excerpts from two simulcasts that were broadcast to gatherings of evangelical voters during the Prop 8 campaign. These simulcasts were sponsored and paid for by ProtectMarriage.com, the official Yes on 8 campaign organization. In the portions shown, one speaker said, “The polygamists are waiting in the wings, because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument and they probably are going to win.” Another speaker referred to a man marrying a horse, and a third speaker compared the impact of permitting same-sex couples to marry to the 9/11 attacks.

The videos of these outrageous statements, made in a forum sponsored and paid for by the official Yes on 8 campaign, provided a fitting end to the plaintiffs’ case. It brought the focus back to the long history of demonization the LGBT community has faced in the public sphere– from the grim historical events described in Professor George Chauncey’s testimony two weeks ago to the themes of the Yes on 8 campaign, as shown in today’s videos and the highly inflammatory testimony of Prop 8 proponent Dr. Bill Tam. The plaintiffs have done an admirable job of laying out the case that Prop 8 was a product of the same kind of prejudice that has driven many other anti-gay laws throughout our nation’s history.

Full Story from Pam’s House Blend
Click here for gay marriage resources in California.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.