There’s two Prop 8 trials going on right now: one to determine whether Prop 8 supporters have legal standing to defend the anti-gay law (since both the California governor and Attorney General have declined to do so), and another to decide whether the Prop 8 trial videotapes should get released to the public. Our favorite marriage watchdog Matt Baume says that whether we win or lose, we still win.
If the court decides the Prop 8 defenders have legal standing, then we could possibly argue Prop 8 all the way up to the Supreme Court. And if the court decides against the Prop 8 defenders, then Prop 8 will be overturned and California can go back to re-instating marriage equality for everyone.
As for the videotapes, the court transcripts are already a matter of public record. During the Prop 8 trial, the anti-gay side managed only to scare up two witnesses, and now they don’t want Americans to see how their two witnesses did on the under oath (probably because their testimony will make the National Organization for Marriage and other anti-gay groups look foolish).
Good news after Labor Day weekend? What a refreshing change!
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Little Kiwi
WERK!
Sam
Let’s hope the court decides AGAINST the Prop 8 proponents. A bird in the hand and all…
We’ve already got a bunch of “test cases” going up to the Supreme Court that would allow us to see how SCOTUS might rule on striking down PART of DOMA. If we win those cases, and if Boies/Olson are really our straight saviors, they can re-file in a state like Oregon and take it up at that point to kill the REST of DOMA, without risking what is already a win for 36 million people.
Elloreigh
Things did not seem to go well today at the hearing to determine whether the intervenors have legal standing to pursue their appeal in federal court. Talk about ‘activist judges’! Olson made exceedingly clear what the California Constitution defines as the scope of public referenda in that state – to propose, and enact. Not to defend as a stand-in for publicly elected officials who have exercised their discretion in refusing to defend the amendment. The power is a legislative one, not an executive (nor a judicial) one. If elected representatives don’t have standing to replace the Governor and Attorney General as defendants on behalf of the State, then unelected proposition proponents most certainly should not.
This all seemed lost on the judges, who didn’t appear to think that the constitutional definition of referendum scope matters, or the fact that proponents are not elected, and are representing their own interest, not the State’s.
Especially frustrating since that same court had already turned down proponents’ request to compel the state’s Attorney General to defend the amendment.
The division of powers matters. The state constitution matters. If these justices provide a ruling that gives the intervenors standing, they will set a terrible precedent. They seem to be governed by emotion, rather than the law.
Hyhybt
@Elloreigh: It’s hard to tell how the judges are leaning.