Posted on 06/15/2010 6:27:47 PM PDT by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- As the trial over California's prohibition on same-sex marriage enters its final stage Wednesday, the ban's sponsors are urging the judge to go a step further and revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before voters passed Proposition 8.
Such an order would honor "the expressed will of the people," backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.
Lawyers for two same-sex couples who sued to overturn Prop. 8, on the other hand, are asking Walker to lift the marriage ban permanently. The measure violates the constitutional guarantee of equality, they argued, and must be struck down "regardless of its level of public support."
Walker heard 12 days of testimony in his San Francisco courtroom in January in the nation's first federal court trial on the constitutionality of a law defining marriage as a male-female union. Among those who took the stand were the plaintiff couples - two women from Berkeley and two men from Burbank - and a parade of academic witnesses who testified about the history and meaning of marriage and the status of gays and lesbians in society.
The judge has scheduled closing arguments to last all day Wednesday. His ruling, which could be weeks away, will be the first round in a battle likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court within two years.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Totally not biased in any way imaginable...
Silly me.
I thought "Prop. 8 forces target" the 10's of millions of existing marriages in California.
-PJ
Such an order would honor “the expressed will of the people,”
Hahahahahaha - THAT old chestnut. We all know that the “will of the people” - expressed or otherwise - doesn’t mean anything anymore in post-modern America.
YES! The California State Constitution, as amended, is Unconstitutional!!!
makes sense, don't it?
The licenses should’ve never been issued in the first place when they knew it would be appearing on the ballot.
...and the same Andy Pugno who just won the Republican nomination to the California State Assembly's fifth district (a solid Republican district).
I’m glad the Prop 8 team had the courage and boldness to make this an issue instead of timidly beseeching the good graces of the homo-phile community. The Constitution means what it says; the people of California who voted for the amendment knew what the wording intended; and no amount of legal contorting can get around this.
Andy is experiencing an all-out attacked by the evil viciousness of the homo-left in California - he is an unforgivable sinner for his work in passing and defending Proposition 8. It was good to see him win the Republican primary (I contributed - from Texas! - but am keeping most of my powder dry for the general election.) It will be even more wonderful to see him win despite the vile assaults of his enemies.
Other then trying to provoke the gay judge, I don’t see the sense or usefulness of challenging the existing gay marriages. They were legal during the short interim between the legislature approving them, and the referendum banning them.
An ex post facto challenge won’t touch the validity of the pre-existing marriages. As the California Supreme Court already stated when the gay marriages were maintained even as the Court approved the validity and force of the anti-gay marriage referendum. New laws apply from the time of their date of application, not to the past.
What’s confusing? The state constitution is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution...
(I’m not saying they’re correct that Prop 8 conflicts with the U.S. Constitution)
The reason for the pre-ballot allowing of the state created fiction was to force an impossible situation by judicial manipulation. By making a POLITICAL statement of allowing the marriages, the judges were essentially telegraphing this can’t be undone.
Keep in mind we have some former conservative power lawyers on the enemy’s side on this issue.
The judge also set the outline for closing arguments and restricted the speeches. This will be appealing all the way up.
With a homosexual woman radical about to hit the bench, this is not good.
I'm not sure if this was a slip of your posting hand, or if you are just ignorant of the course of events. Same-sex "marriage" was enacted by judicial edict by an activist court in California in May 2008, not by the legislative process. You may be thinking of when the legislature tried passing a law several years ago, but was vetoed by Gov. Schwartzenneger.
As far as ex post facto treatment, this is just a ruse as the legislature has also retroactively extended this loophole for the homosexuals by allowing out-of-staters to call themselves "marriage" from other homo-"marriage" states.
I agree with the Prop 8 defenders; the CA Constitution means what it says without any ambiguity. The process to pass this amendment had been in the works well before the court made its edict, and the intent of the citizens is beyond doubt. The cost to those who "relied" on the law at the time they were "married" lose absolutely nothing material by having the CA Constitution upheld - their status merely reverts to what they already have in California - domestic partnerships.
Well, I guess they do lose something - the "right" to flaunt their ability to deconstruct marriage.
Yes, this will be appealed all the way up, but I hold onto a shread of hope that the finding in this trial will be that Prop 8 is constitutional. Otherwise, Walker is more than likely to let faux "marriages" resume, further muddying the waters and allowing the homo-philes a bigger wedge to push their agenda in the future.
As far as the addition of Kagan to the USSC, she will just be replacing a staunchly pro-homo justice anyway, so for the short term, the balance isn't disturbed. This still all rests with Kennedy.
Good catch. tfb must be a leftist troll. Proposition 8 “banning” homosexual marriage is the propaganda term used by the leftist media when Prop 8 bans nothing. It simply defines marriage as between a man and a woman as it always has been understood in American society.
It's tragic and maddening, but the media is in lock step with the homosexuals on the terms used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.