***Official Perry v. Schwarzenegger Thread***

[racaulk]

I thought it would be helpful to have a thread here at DU where those who are looking for information on this case can have a resource to find the latest updates. Please feel free to add information to this thread as you find it, and help keep this thread kicked during the trial itself and until the court releases its ruling. Any and all information you can find, including press releases, articles, and official announcements, will be appreciated.

The case will begin today at 9:00pm PST and the trial will last approximately two weeks. The case is being heard by the U.S. District Court for the Northern California District by Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker. The plaintiffs in the case are two same-sex couples (Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo) who were denied marriage licenses in California due to the passage of Proposition 8. Perry's last name is used to refer to all four plaintiffs in the case. Their case is being led by Ted Olson and David Boies (former Bush v. Gore adversaries), who will make their opening arguments today. Opening arguments will be followed by testimony from all four plaintiffs.

Although Gov. Schwarzenegger is listed as the lead defendant, he is actually not defending the case and has expressed a neutral position on the issue of marriage equality. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is also listed as a defendant, has filed papers with the court agreeing that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The case is being defended by those groups that worked for Proposition 8's passage in 2008.

Judge Walker ruled that the case will not be televised live, but will have delayed videos released via Youtube. This is still pending an appeal to the SCOTUS.

Links:
• The court's official website covering the case that will be frequently updated as the case develops.

• The American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER) has posted a good summary of the case.

• AFER's http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org">official website, which will have frequent updates on the case.

• A list of five remote viewing locations for the trial (San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Brooklyn, and Pasadena).

News articles:
• "Courtroom showdown set to begin over same-sex marriage" by Mallory Simon and Dan Simon, CNN: link

• "Groundbreaking Gay Marriage Trial Starts in Calif" by Lisa Leff, AP: link

• "A Risky Proposal: Is it too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage?" by Margaret Talbot with The New Yorker: link (An excellent --and lengthy-- article that details how we got here, the trial itself, and the ramifications of the court's decision.)

Again, please help keep this thread kicked throughout the trial and please share whatever information you have for the benefit of others here. Thank you, and best of luck to the plaintiffs and their legal team. The country is watching.

:hi:

[racaulk]

1. The faces of this case...

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier



Political strategist Chad Griffin with Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm rooting for Ted Olson to come through for us

This case will go to the USSC, no matter what. My hope is that as a former Solicitor General, and a conservative himself, Olson knows how these conservative judges think, and can structure arguments designed to win over Anthony Kennedy.

[plantwomyn]

4. By time this get to SCOTUS

Kennedy may be gone. So may I.

[racaulk]

5. I hope they pull it out also.

I agree that this case is, ultimately, meant to be heard and decided by one person - Anthony Kennedy.

I'm actually hoping beyond hope that if the District Court and the 9th Circuit Court both rule that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution (and I think they will), that the SCOTUS will deny writ and not hear the case. There is an off chance that this could happen, since there isn't an opposing opinion from a different Circuit Court (as far as I know) that says such bans are constitutional. However, the SCOTUS may decide to hear the case just because of the far-reaching potential implications of the lower courts' decisions. I just hope that Obama is able to nominate replacements for one or two of the more "conservative" SCOTUS Justices before the case gets that far.

I sure would feel a lot better about this case if Justices Thomas and Scalia were not sitting on that bench. :hi:

[beyurslf]

36. Only 4 justices have to want to hear the case, so there is little chance of that happening.

They have a solid 4 against.

[racaulk]

3. SCOTUS issues a temporary injuction preventing telecast of trial

Court blocks taping of gay marriage trial

The Supreme Court on Monday morning temporarily blocked a federal judge in San Francisco from showing on YouTube proceedings from a trial that will determine whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court's decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices "further consideration." The trial is scheduled to start Monday.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the only justice to object.

"I agree with the court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time-limited," Breyer wrote. But he said the court's standards for issuing a stay were not met because there is not a likelihood of "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were available on the Internet.

<---snip--->

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011101606.html

Although the stay is only temporary, I find this highly infuriating. :grr:


Edited for spelling and formatting.

[t0dd]

6. Olson: Yes, it does. There are now FOUR categories of Californians, and that matters a great deal.

Walker: What disability do they operate under b/c they can’t marry? Are these differences of a legal nature? Is this a product of state action or of society?

Olson: What the state has done is sanctioned and labelled a formal relationship called domestic partnership which has nothing to do with love. The other relationship, marriage, is now reserved for opposite sex couples. CA has put people into categories.

I'm glad this man is on our side, no matter his past actions.

[Ian David]

8. I'm not 100% convinced he's on our side. n/t

[RetiredTrotskyite]

9. Well, On Our Side or Not...

it's showtime!

[racaulk]

10. Agreed.

There's no going back now. Let's hope for the best! :hi:

[t0dd]

11. If he is somehow against us,

it's the greatest performance I have ever seen. Look at how passionately and emotionally he is arguing for same-sex marriage. I am touched.

[Ian David]

12. He MIGHT just want to get to the USSC so he can lose THERE.n/t

[Unvanguard]

13. He can lose here and still get to SCOTUS. The outcome of this trial doesn't actually matter much.

Though the facts established by it might matter a little.

[TheWraith]

17. Glad I'm not the only one.

Even if I agree with what he says at any given moment, I'm going to be watching him carefully, won't turn my back for even a minute.

[Ian David]

7. Live Twitter feed of Prop 8 trial

Live Twitter feed of Prop 8 trial
Filed by: Bil Browning
January 11, 2010 12:30 PM

Now that the US Supreme Court has put a stay on cameras in the federal courthouse for the Prop 8 trial (including delayed YouTube videos and satellite watching locations) for at least three days, the only way you can keep up to date while it's happening is via Twitter.

I've picked some of the folks who are tweeting the trial and put them into a widget so you can follow along as it happens. Widget after the jump to keep it from slowing down the load time for the front page.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/01/live_twitter_feed_of_prop_8_trial.php

[galledgoblin]

16. yup, watching in another window.

http://twitter.com/#list/Karoli/prop8
http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23prop8
http://twitter.com/theadvocatemag

[racaulk]

14. Jenny Pizer: ‘There is cause for optimism’ in the federal Prop 8 trial

At 8:30 Monday morning, the curtain will rise on one of the compelling legal dramas of our time. At the helm of Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be former Bush v. Gore courtroom adversaries, Ted Olson and David Boies, standing together against Proposition 8 and the petitioners and strategists who pushed that measure on California voters.

Perry was brought on behalf of two same-sex couples who have the burden of proof in the case. But it’s fair to say that it’s really Prop 8 and the goals of the initiative’s proponents that will be on trial. And a core question is whether the initiative advances any valid public purposes—at all—adequate to justify having changed “equal protection” in California into “equal-if-we-like-you protection.”

<---snip--->

And there is cause for optimism. As we await the joyous images of lesbian and gay couples exchanging vows in the shadow of our Nation’s capitol, increasing numbers agree that the promise of “liberty and justice for all” has to include gay people, too. And as people think again, more and more agree that equal liberty has to mean the freedom to marry the one you love according to your own traditions, conscience and heart.

As the gavel starts the proceedings Monday morning, gay people across the country will be rooting for plaintiffs’ legal team, as we all passionately want to see Prop 8 recognized as the constitutional offense that it is so the four Perry plaintiffs and the rest of our community again will be free to exercise the right marry in the Golden State.

Link: http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/01/jenny-pizer-%E2%80%98there-is-cause-for-optimism%E2%80%99-in-the-federal-prop-8-trial/

[marginlized]

15. Edwin Meese' Op Ed at NYTimes

I didn't see it referenced, so thought I'd post it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11meese.html

[Hello_Kitty]

18. FDL is liveblogging it.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/23376

Pretty riveting stuff. Cooper, the pro-Hate attorney is spewing inane garbage about marriage being for procreation and the need to protect Teh Children^TM.

[FreeState]

21. Thats the most complete live blog I've seen - bookmarked n/t

[racaulk]

24. Fantastic!

Thanks for sharing this. I will definitely be following this blog throughout the trial. :)

[Betty Karlson]

19. I heard the proponents of Prop H8 are prepearing for the worst.

Apparently that hideous NOM-woman wrote: "we may not win at trial level, but..."

Well, Madam, how about: you don't even deserve to win at trial level, considering the lies and deceptions you used to hurt people. And what's worse, you hurt them pretending to act on God's behalf - which you did not. May God forgive you, because I never will.

[racaulk]

23. I think NOM is trying to do a couple of things with these early statements...

...both with the same objective.

1. By saying up front that they expect to lose in the district and circuit courts, they are setting the bar low to their supporters. They can then bleat on about how much "work" they still have to do to "save" marriage, and (of course) ask for contributions so that they can continue that "work."

2. They are also setting themselves up nicely for the ultimate showdown in the SCOTUS, which both sides agree this is where the case is headed. If the SCOTUS rules in their favor, they can claim a "righteous victory" and NOM will be showered with accolades (and money) in appreciation from the fundamentalist extremists. If the SCOTUS rules against them, they will claim that they still have more "work" to so (see point 1), they will plead with their supporters to not give up the fight, and will ask for monetary support from their followers.

In terms of money, I can only see this as a win-win for NOM and their ilk. They are using this case to their advantage as much as possible, so that if they ultimately win or lose the case, they will have padded their pockets nicely with lots of $$$ in the process. The only skin they have in this case is the money they can make off of it, while the very lives and livelihoods of millions of people hang in the balance. And their supporters are too damned stupid and dogmatic to see that they are being taken for a financial ride with an issue that, ultimately, has no effect on them.

Cruel and disgusting people, the lot of them. :grr:

[Smashcut]

20. That pro-H8 atty is a real piece of work.

His arguments are such thinly veiled bigoted lies it could make your blood boil except for the fact that he's clearly outclassed (already) by Olsen and Boies.

[racaulk]

22. Ted Olson's opening statement

This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;” a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.

In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is “the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America. It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union. It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community. The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”

<---snip--->

Much more at the link: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared

Please take time to read the whole thing. This really is a fantastic speech and, I think, and excellent opening gambit in this case.

:hi:

[Jamastiene]

25. Kick

[racaulk]

26. Melanie DeMore performs "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" at January 11 rally

Absolutely beautiful and inspiring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycV_f8Ufl5Y

:loveya:

[dana_b]

27. Huffington Post article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-socarides/exactly-why-we-have-court_b_419491.html

"Exactly Why We Have Courts, Why We Have The Constitution and Why We Have The Fourteenth Amendment"

Excerpt:
"Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity."

Mr. Olson continued, noting that according to the California Supreme Court itself, "eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to 'second class' citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition." He then went on to lay out reasons for the importance of marriage, the harm Proposition 8 has done to gay and lesbian couples, and the lack of any valid reasons behind this exclusion.

Olson, a conservative who served as the attorney for the Bush side of Bush v. Gore, has received significant media attention for his involvement in this case. In an essay recently published in Newsweek entitled "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," he explained his reasoning, noting that he sees this as an issue of "recognition of basic American principles commitment to equal rights," not a reason to invoke politics. He went on to say that "Americans who believe in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues."

[racaulk]

28. Ted Olson and David Boies on Rachel Maddow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=degRTjhxEyk

[LeftHander]

29. I asked mods to pin this at the top....of our forum....nt

[racaulk]

30. Oh, I didn't even think about that!

That's a good idea, and thank you for taking the initiative on behalf of all us following this trial.

If it doesn't work out, we'll just have to keep kicking the thread. :)

:hi:

[racaulk]

31. "Brokeback Mountain" + "Will & Grace" = Gays have power and don't face discrimination

That's the case in the world of Prop 8 defense attorney David Thomspon, at least.

Prop 8 trial -day 3 – You all have ‘Brokeback Mountain’ and it even got awards – gay discrimination is over

DAY 3 MORNING

YOU ALL HAVE BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN AND IT EVEN GOT AWARDS— GAY DISCRIMINATION IS OVER

Thompson, the smug attorney for the Proponents of Prop 8, is taking the position that gays are not being discriminated against any more and so that cannot be the reason that Prop 8 passed.

He makes a point and then asks Professor Chauncey if that is correct.

He’s mentioning Will and Grace, the movie Philadelphia, and Brokeback mountain as evidence that LGBT people are not being discriminated again.

NANCY PELOSI IS A GAY RIGHTS CHAMPION, RIGHT?

Did I miss something? Nancy Pelosi is our fierce advocate?

Thompson says she is.

Thompson-“Homosexuals couldn’t get hearings in the 1950s, but today you have Barney Frank and he’s a powerful ally of gays and lesbians, correct?”

<---snip--->

Read more of his crazy and horribly misinformed ramblings here, if you can stomach it. :crazy:

[ShadowLiberal]

32. Anyone else nervous about the way the voting went at the Supreme Court for telecasts of the trial?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9555715

From what I read a 'conservative' 5-4 majority voted to block the telecasts of the trial indefinitely.

I know I've seen some people say to not take a ruling on this as signs of how the judges will vote on gay marriage, but does this make anyone else nervous?

[struggle4progress]

33. ... The .. majority .. consists of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony

Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The four justices in dissent with the ruling were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens ... <from your link>

This is essentially the split one would expect on ideological grounds

[robtish]

34. Prop 8, discrimination, and gay political power: understanding the trial's strategy and testimony

In order to understand the trial, I had to research "suspect class" and "strict scrutiny."

Once I got that together, the questions in the direct and cross examination became a lot clearer.

I summarized it here for legal non-experts.

"Suspect Classes, and Why You Want to Be in One"
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/suspect-class

[Kerrytravelers]

35. Wow. What a great blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20

I just linked the above YouTube video on my FB page. Awesome.

A heartfelt welcome to DU! :hi:

[HillWilliam]

37. Pam's House Blend hosted a live-blog last night

with Mr Minter from the NCLR team. The wrapup thread is here.

I've resisted getting a Twitter account until the trial, but I've been following Chris Stoll's and the NCLR team's blow-by-blow accounts with avid interest. It's fascinating to have an account of the proceedings as the progress from the attorneys' point of view.

I must say, as the witnesses are examined, the more the opposition questions, the lines of questioning they take seem crazier and crazier. They've yet to introduce a single shred of evidence based on sound science or to impugn any witness based on anything except bigotry and hysteria. Even if I didn't have a stake in the outcome as a gay man and I were a totally uninterested juror, I'd have to say the proponents of Prop 8 are looking a bit, well, batshit.

So far, the judge has allowed more of our evidence introduce to stand over their objections. IIRC, none of their objections has yet to be sustained. Our side OTOH has produced some excellent and poised witnesses who've stood up very well. No matter what batshit has been thrown at them, none of their testimony has seemed to be yet impugned. Conversely, several of the oppositions witnesses have dropped out, citing various excuses. Tapes of depositions have been played, though to what effect (if any) seems unclear.

I get the feeling that (so far) it's going as well as it can for us. NCLR expects that our side's witnesses should be done by this coming Wednesday. It could be another 60-90 days before an opinion is reached. Much depends in what's in the opinion, though, as to how far the decision could reach.

[dickthegrouch]

38. How do we present the legal team with more evidence?

I really hope there is some way we can use what has been going on at Notre Dame University this week in the trial as evidence. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7473004

But I'm no-where near close enough to anyone that matters.

Is anyone here?

Unfortunately The Observer itself has removed all the comments and prevented further comment on both the authors pseudo-apology and the Paper's pseudo-apology. But not before a person with the monicker of "No on 8" had suggested using it as an example of the depravity of the church and its educational institutions, for about an hour.

[Veruca Salt]

39. Thank you for posting that, I hadn't seen it

The thread itself was locked, but I swear it's stuff like that which brings to mind their next (pointy) hat trick. It's getting dangerous and the bigots are trying to legitimize themselves and make it okay to foment this kind of hate at will. It almost feels at times like we're going backwards.

The enemies of civil rights are definitely trying: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3934497

[Duncan Grant]

40. Gay man says 'reversal' therapy did not change him

A Colorado gay man is testifying in a federal same-sex marriage trial about his experience undergoing so-called "reversal therapy" that attempted to change his sexual orientation.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples suing to overturn California's gay marriage ban called 26-year-old Ryan Kendall to the witness stand to demonstrate that a person's sexual orientation cannot usually be changed.

The point is central to their effort to show that gays deserve special protections from discrimination under the U.S. Constitution.

Kendall said the therapy he underwent at the insistence of his parents while a teenager drove him to the brink of suicide and did nothing to turn him into a heterosexual.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/19/national/a093752S58.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0dBDKcFZP

[Duncan Grant]

41. "They focused on the African American community, where the initiative won a strong majority."

Dueling portraits of Prop. 8 backers at trial January 18, 2010
<snip>
Invoking Obama

Last week's courtroom exchange was one of several instances in which Prop. 8 supporters have invoked Obama, who has tried to straddle the marriage question and other issues involving gays and lesbians.

While saying he opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds, he also spoke out against Prop. 8, calling it "divisive and discriminatory" in a letter to a gay rights group during the ballot measure campaign.

But backers of Prop. 8 quoted Obama's reference to the "sacred union" of a man and a woman in campaign flyers and used his voice in taped phone messages. They focused on the African American community, where the initiative won a strong majority.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/18/MNLG1BIRCF.DTL#ixzz0dBGbjcSC

Obviously, Prop 8 supporters are not saying H8 passed because of the black vote but they are using the black community to make a point. Why would they do that?

[Duncan Grant]

42. List of stories and links (SF Chronicle):

Full coverage of the November 2008 California ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage and the state Supreme Court challenge to Prop. 8.

The Latest From The Chronicle
Latest AP Prop 8 Headlines

* Prop. 8 aid puts Paramount board member on hold 01.20.2010

A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California...
* How San Diego mayor shifted on gay marriage 01.19.2010

San Diego's Republican mayor testified emotionally Tuesday about his transformation from...
* Prop. 8 trial looks at personal, social changes 01.19.2010

Lawyers challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage have asked witnesses in a San...
* Marriage providing more men economic security 01.19.2010

Historically, marriage was the surest route to financial security for women. But nowadays...
* Same-sex dance instructors and champions 01.18.2010

When they dance together, Zoe Balfour wears the gowns and feathers, while Citabria...
* Dueling portraits of Prop. 8 backers at trial 01.18.2010

A witness at the trial of the California initiative banning same-sex marriage was...
* Haitian quake cuts off contact 01.17.2010

"We are all alone. ... We cannot make contact with anyone - even people in other parts of...
* China's first gay pageant shut down by police 01.16.2010

Police shut down what would have been China's first gay pageant Friday an hour before it...
* High court steps into another gay-issues case 01.16.2010

The Supreme Court on Friday got involved for the second time this week in a case in which...
* Gays make fine parents, psychologist testifies 01.15.2010

A psychologist took aim at one of the central justifications for California's ban on...

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/prop8/

[Duncan Grant]

43. An Explosive Afternoon: LDS Church

<snip>
For example, one letter indicated that the LDS church had identified a volunteer for the campaign in every single zip code. This was a church document that was in the hands of a Prop 8 campaign official, and thus was discoverable. Andy Pugno, the general council for ProtectMarriage.com tried his darnedest to get Judge Walker to exclude it, but failed. From Rick’s liveblog:

Pugno: Objects because document will be revealing.

Judge: Not to make light of this, but the reason people want to produce documents is that they are revealing.

Boutrous: It’s from an outsider to the core group. We are attempting to show the level of coordination with groups that Protect Marriage says were not even affiliated with the campaign.

This is perhaps the most explosive bit of all, from a document between the LDS Church and the campaign:

With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.

Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8.
<snip>

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/20/an-explosive-afternoon/

[Veruca Salt]

44. Kick back to the top! Some great stuff today!

[Duncan Grant]

45. Testimony wraps up in federal Prop. 8 trial

(01-27) 17:51 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Testimony in the federal court trial over California's Proposition 8 ended Wednesday in San Francisco with an advocate of male-female marriage maintaining that the rights of gays and lesbians must give way to society's interest in promoting traditional families.

Sponsors of the 2008 constitutional amendment called David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values, to make the case that allowing gay and lesbian weddings would weaken marriage - a potentially decisive issue in the clash over the ballot measure's constitutionality.

In two days of testimony, Blankenhorn predicted fewer heterosexual marriages and more divorces and one-parent households if marital rights are extended to homosexuals.

But a lawyer for gay and lesbian couples challenging Prop. 8 confronted Blankenhorn with his declaration in a 2007 book, "The Future of Marriage," that "we would be more American" if same-sex marriage were legalized. Blankenhorn sought to reconcile his statements Wednesday, saying gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit but marriage as a whole would suffer.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/28/BAL51BOH1D.DTL&type=newsprop8_chron#ixzz0dvnVqoXr