Posted on 08/19/2009 1:01:25 PM PDT by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO — Trial of a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8 and let California's same-sex marriages resume will begin Jan. 11, a federal judge said Wednesday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker also during Wednesday's 90-minute hearing denied the motions of a coalition of three gay-rights groups, as well as of the conservative Campaign for California Families, to intervene as parties to the case. Neither proved an interest not already adequately represented by the case's plaintiffs — same-sex couples wishing to marry — or the proponents of Proposition 8, he ruled.
But Walker did grant a motion to intervene from the City and County of San Francisco, which he said is asserting governmental interests — lost tourism dollars, and the cost of providing social services to those against whom Proposition 8 discriminates — that the plaintiffs don't represent.
Walker ordered the parties to start taking depositions and sharing information in the discovery process immediately, with expert witnesses to be designated by Oct. 2 and discovery to conclude Nov. 30. A pretrial conference will be held Dec. 16, rebuttal expert witnesses must be designated by Dec. 31 and trial is set for Jan. 11; meanwhile, he'll hold an Oct. 14 hearing on Proposition 8 proponents' motion to dispose of certain issues by summary judgment before the rest of the case is tried.
Walker indicated this timeline would balance the need for speed, so Californians aren't left hanging with the issue unresolved, with the need for developing a solid record for the assured appeals, perhaps all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Walker last month declined to grant a preliminary injunction halting Prop. 8's enforcement until a final decision was made. Doing so, he said at the time, would create too much uncertainty and confusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at contracostatimes.com ...
What’s he going to do? Declare the state constitution unconstitutional?
This will go nowhere. “But we’d make money if it was legal” is not a valid argument.
What’s their complaint? They have the same rights as other people. Everyone has the right to marry one unmarried person of the opposite sex provided he/she is over a certain age.
There is no discrimination. The law applies to everyone.
Walker, Vaughn R.
|
The judge allows advocates for the homos to join the case but disallows advocates for the voters.
Uh-huh...
....represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and famed lawyer David Boies — filed this new, federal lawsuit on the two couples' behalf a few days before the state Supreme Court ruled. This suit seeks to invalidate Prop. 8 as a violation of equal-protection rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution.
The California Court left two classes, those gays who are married and those who cannot get married. Big mistake, as Ted Olson will take this to the SCOTUS and win based on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
I’m sick of this crap from the homos. We kept giving them what they wanted and now stop at marriage; as we do they call us intolerant.
Well, it is time for them to understand what real intolerance is.
Federal courts have no jurisdiction over state Constitutions. That a federal court will even hear the case is a single finger salute to our federal Constitution and to state sovereignty.
Not exactly true.
That was the same argument the Southern states made in Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS case which struck down the bans on interracial marrigae: everyone has the right to marry one unmarried person of the same race as themselves provided he/she is over a certain age. SCOTUS was not persuaded that this was not discrimination.
Before you flame me, I am not saying SCOTUS is going to overturn Proposition 8, nor do I think it should. But your argument is not a very persuasive one.
“Big mistake, as Ted Olson will take this to the SCOTUS and win based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Everyone already has equal protection under the law.
Any adult who is unmarried can marry any other unmarried adult of the opposite sex.
Just because someone doesn’t like what’s on the menu doesn’t mean they are not equally served.
Nonsense. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says that the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution... of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
No, that argument is not going to work.
And do you really believe the California AG Jerry Brown is really going to fight hard to defend Prop. 8?
Easy there big fella...
The California Court CREATED the two classes— out of whole cloth.
There would be no 18,000 same-sex marriages but for the California Court’s May 2008 rejection of the will of the people, ie prop 22.
The Cal Court intentionally created a class of “victims” that previously didn’t exist, so that they can now bootstrap equal protection.
Disingenuous at best.
The fear at the time of the Constitutional Convention (Federalist 33) was that states would “sap the foundations of the Union.” As odd as it seems today, the clause is there to prevent states from walking over the federal government.
There is no enumerated power for fed courts to strike down federal law, nor amendments to the federal constitution, nor state law, nor state constitutions. In fact, the Constitutional Convention considered the notion of judicial veto of congressional bills, decided against it, and gave that power to the executive.
Well, of course.
And Jerry Brown will work very hard to lose the Prop. 8 case for the state.
That’s why, if memory serves, Jerry Moonbeam is NOT the lead attorney on this, because the Judge recognized that fact. I believe the lead lawyer is the one who wrote it or something similar; he at least has a serious interest in keeping Prop 8 intact!
But Federalist #78 clearly said that the federal courts would have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
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.