Windy City Media Group Frontpage News

THE VOICE OF CHICAGO'S GAY, LESBIAN, BI, TRANS AND QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1985

home search facebook twitter join
Gay News Sponsor Windy City Times 2022-12-07
DOWNLOAD ISSUE
Donate

Sponsor
Sponsor

  WINDY CITY TIMES

All arguments now in on Prop 8 appeal
Challengers expect decision quickly
by Lisa Keen, Keen News Service
2011-12-08

This article shared 1837 times since Thu Dec 8, 2011
facebook twitter google +1 reddit email


There was some drama in the courtroom as attorneys litigating Proposition 8 in a San Francisco federal appeals court Thursday (December 8) took their last swings.

The normally staid somewhat flustered Charles Cooper, lead attorney for the Yes on 8 team, delivered an unusually passionate plea in his final minutes before the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel.

Cooper was trying to convince the panel to vacate the landmark ruling by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker —a ruling in which Walker declared California's ban on same-sex marriage to be in violation of the federal constitution. According to Cooper, Walker should have revealed to attorneys and the public that he had been in a relationship with a man for ten years and given attorneys a chance to challenge his fitness to preside over the case.

"There would be no problem for Judge Walker to sit on a case about Don't Ask, Don't Tell even though he's gay. He would have no interest in the outcome of the case," said Cooper, his voice gaining in volume and swelling with emotion. "But if Judge Walker was ruling that he has a constitutional right to get married to his ten-year-long partner -- as soon as that ruling is affirmed...this will be a signal and dark day in American jurisprudence."

Attorneys often get more passionate as the clock ticks down their last seconds. And Thursday's argument was two hours --twice as long as most appeals arguments. Cooper had taken a beating, too, from the three-judge panel. The judges —who seemed to warm up to of the Yes on 8 team's arguments for keeping a videotape of the Proposition 8 trial sealed— bombarded Cooper with a relentless stream of doubts about his arguments to vacate Judge Walker's decision.

Cooper said Walker "was obligated to disclose whether he wanted to marry" his same-sex partner before the start of the trial because "a reasonable person" would question his ability to be impartial in that trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown).

At the same time Cooper tried to argue that Judge Walker's personal intentions concerning marriage were critical to his ability to render an impartial decision in the Perry case, he said the ability of same-sex couples to marry does not threaten heterosexual marriages. It was a head-spinning performance of footwork in the judicial ring, but the judges' questions landed hard punches.

What, they asked, should be made of the fact that Judge Walker and his partner did not marry during the six-month period in which same-sex couples could marry in California, in 2008? What if a gay judge was not in a relationship. Should he or she have to disclose his or her intentions to marry? Would a straight judge have to reveal his or her intentions for marriage? Would a married judge have to recuse himself from presiding over a divorce case? What if a straight judge had a desire to maintain the definition of marriage as one man-one woman, would he or she have to disclose that?

When Cooper said gay marriages don't threaten individual heterosexual marriages but do threaten the "institution of marriage," one judge remarked, "I have a hard time understanding: If the institution of marriage is affected, doesn't that affect the people who are married?"

The question of whether to vacate Judge Walker's ruling was one of two issues before the panel December 8. The other —a much less consequential procedural issue—was whether the court should release to the public a videotape of the Perry trial proceeding from January 2010.

In that trial, Walker presided over three weeks of historic and widely publicized testimony. The lawsuit, organized by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, challenged Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, on behalf of two same-sex couples, including plaintiff Kristin Perry.

Judge Walker ruled that the initiative violates the guarantee of the U.S. Constitution to equal protection under the law, but supporters of the initiative immediately filed their appeal of that decision to the 9th Circuit.

A few months after issuing that decision and two months after retiring from the bench, Walker played an excerpt from the videotape in a public lecture and, in a separate setting and time, acknowledged to a group of reporters that he has been in a relationship with a man for the past 10 years.

Yes on 8 attorneys moved to have the videotape sequestered, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered Walker not to "broadcast" the trial. And they filed a motion to vacate Walker's ruling, saying that he presided over a case in which he had the potential to secure a gain for himself —the right to marry.

Concerning the videotape, Yes on 8 attorney David Thompson claimed there were four potential injuries to allowing the videotape to be "broadcast" to the public today. (He contends that even posting the videotape on the court's website constitutes "broadcast.") The only argument the judges seemed interested in was one claiming that release of the videotapes would diminish judicial credibility. Walker, said Thompson, assured Yes on 8 attorneys he was videotaping the trial for his own use in chamber in preparing his decision. Releasing the tapes to the public contradicts that assurance.

But Ted Olson, the high-profile conservative attorney who helped stage the challenge to Proposition 8, argued that Walker also told attorneys he would include the videotapes in the trial record —a public record—and that Yes on 8 attorneys did not object.

Olson's partner in leading the team challenging Proposition 8, high-profile liberal attorney David Boies, argued against the motion to vacate. Boies said a judge's intentions concerning marriage are irrelevant and "if something is irrelevant, you don't have to disclose it." Suggesting that a gay judge would have to reveal his intention or "non-intention" to get married, said Boies, "creates a double-standard for a minority judge."

The panel Thursday included the same three judges who heard arguments last December on Yes on 8's appeal of Judge Walker's decision: Stephen Reinhardt, Randy Smith, and Michael Daly Hawkins.

Enrique Monagas, an openly gay attorney serving on the Olson-Boies legal team, said the panel has moved "very fast" on the case since November, when the California Supreme Court issued its opinion that Yes on 8 has the right to represent voters in an appeal of Walker's decision in the federal appeals court. (State officials had declined to make the appeal.)

"We think it went well. We're optimistic for a favorable ruling," said Monagas. He noted that all arguments and briefs have been submitted now on all issues in the case —the question of constitutionality, standing, and the motion to vacate, as well as the release of the trial videotape. Monagas said the court would likely handle the first three —and major—issues in one ruling, and the videotape ruling separately.

Concerning Thursday's arguments, Lambda Legal attorney Peter Renn said, "The Court raked the lawyer for Prop 8's proponents over the coals for their argument that gay judges alone have special obligations to prove their impartiality that no other judge must bear."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said, "We expect and believe the Ninth Circuit will see these moves by the Prop 8 proponents for what they are: a desperate attempt to divert attention from their utter failure to offer any good reason to uphold this blatantly discriminatory ballot initiative. Judge Walker was scrupulously fair during the trial, giving the proponents every opportunity to present evidence justifying their position, but they had nothing to offer. For them to now claim that the judge could not have been fair because he is in a relationship with a man is not only outrageous and offensive, it is an attack on the integrity of judges everywhere."

Whatever the court's decision on any of these issues, the losing legal team is expected to appeal —either to the full 9th Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

2011 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

FROM A NEWS RELEASE

Plaintiffs Challenging Proposition 8 Call for Transparency and Public Access to Trial Videotape

Anti-Marriage Proponents Still Trying to Keep Video Sealed from Public; Continuing with Desperate Motion to Vacate Judgment

San Francisco, CA — Today, plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown, the landmark federal constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8, presented oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explaining why videotapes of the Proposition 8 trial should be publicly accessible and why Proponents' motion to vacate judgment is meritless.

This will likely be the final hearing before the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the U.S. District Court's August 2010 decision that struck down Proposition 8.

Earlier this year, Plaintiffs moved to unseal the trial video recording in the district court, citing the presumption of access to judicial records under the First Amendment and common law. On September 19, 2011, U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware agreed with Plaintiffs, emphasizing that "Transparency is pivotal to public perception of the judiciary's legitimacy and independence."

A coalition of media companies and organizations that includes the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, CNN, FOX News, NBC News, Dow Jones & Co. and The Associated Press presented oral argument today in support of Plaintiffs' effort to release the trial tapes.

"The video recording of the trial truly and accurately shows the powerful evidence we submitted showing that Proposition 8 flatly violates the Constitution," said plaintiffs' lead co-counsel Theodore B. Olson. "Proponents have offered no legitimate or compelling justification for keeping the trial videotape concealed from the public. We are anxious for the American people to see the evidence and testimony the district court had before it."

The Ninth Circuit also heard oral arguments on Proponents' baseless and offensive attempt to impugn the reputation of the U.S. District Chief Judge who struck down Proposition 8.

Unable to defend Proposition 8 on its merits, Proponents claim that the now-retired Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker was disqualified from ruling on Proposition 8 because he is gay and in a same-sex relationship. Since Chief Judge Walker did not recuse himself, Proponents argue that his historic decision should be vacated. Their desperate attack on Chief Judge Walker was roundly rejected by Chief Judge Ware in June 2011, who observed that "we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right."

"What Proponents insist on today is nothing short of a double standard within the federal judiciary; one that applies to gay judges but not to their straight colleagues," said plaintiffs' lead co-counsel David Boies. "Nothing in our law — not one case — supports this regrettable attack on Chief Judge Walker."

Indeed, Proponents' attorney Charles J. Cooper admitted in court today that no individual's existing marriage will be directly affected if gay and lesbian couples are permitted to marry.

In Monday's Wall Street Journal, Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge who served as United States Attorney General under President George W. Bush, addressed the impropriety of using a judge's personal characteristic to challenge his or her impartiality. "Challenges based on such factors, which engage biases far deeper than any purported rooting interest in a case, have been swatted down so often that a law clerk of even middling competence could prepare an opinion in less than half a day for a judge facing such a challenge," Mukasey wrote.

It is anticipated that the Ninth Circuit will issue a decision on the merits of the case soon after it has heard arguments on the trial tapes and motion to vacate appeals.

"Our Constitution's promise, the promise of liberty, is one that every generation must realize. The fight to secure marriage equality is the defining element of our generation's search for greater freedom," said AFER Board President Chad Griffin. "Try as they might, the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8 cannot stop our Nation's courts — and its honorable judges — from protecting truth and justice over prejudice and fear."

Griffin also mourned the death of Ed Watson, who passed away last night after a long battle with Alzheimer's Disease. Because of Proposition 8, Ed was never able to marry his partner of over forty years, Derence Kernek. "Ed and Derence represent the true human cost of discrimination," said Griffin. "It is stories like theirs that show without doubt that laws like Proposition 8 serve only to oppress. My thoughts and prayers go out Derence and their family, friends and loved ones."

READ PLAINTIFFS' TRIAL VIDEOTAPES PRINCIPAL BRIEF HERE: www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011-11-14-Plaintiffs-Principal-Brief-Motion-to-Unseal.pdf

READ PLAINTIFFS' TRIAL VIDEOTAPES REPLY BRIEF HERE: www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011-11-28-Plaintiffs-Reply-Brief.pdf

READ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ANSWERING BRIEF HERE: www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011-11-01-Plaintiffs-Answering-Brief.pdf

READ THE DISTRICT COURT'S TRIAL VIDEOTAPES DECISION HERE: www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Doc-812-Order-re-Tapes.pdf

READ THE DISTRICT COURT'S MOTION TO VACATE DECISION HERE: www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Doc-797-Order-Denying-Motion-to-Vacate.pdf

READ MICHAEL B. MUKASEY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED HERE: www.online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577070162911944188.html?

###

About the American Foundation for Equal Rights

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sole sponsor of the Perry case. After bringing together Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead its legal team, AFER successfully advanced the Perry case through federal district court and is now leading it through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before the case is brought to the United States Supreme Court. The Foundation is committed to achieving full federal marriage equality.

www.afer.org


This article shared 1837 times since Thu Dec 8, 2011
facebook twitter google +1 reddit email

  ARTICLES YOU MIGHT LIKE

Gay News

WORLD Indian marches, delegation in Cuba, anti-LGBTQ+ investigation 2023-01-15
- Hundreds of people took part in the first Delhi Queer Pride march in three years as pressure grows for legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India, The Manila Times noted. In March, the South Asian's top ...


Gay News

NATIONAL Testifying in D.C., Brittney Griner, marriage law, school policies 2022-12-18
- WARNING: This week's news contains graphic content. Survivors of the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs that killed five people and injured approximately 20 others joined GLAAD and other advocates in providing testimony before the House ...


Gay News

Cook County's Kevin Morrison attends signing of Respect for Marriage Act at the White House 2022-12-13
-- From a press release - Washington D.C. — December 13thth 2022 — Cook County Commissioner Kevin Morrison attended the signing of the historic Respect for Marriage Act recently passed by both chambers of congress. The bill guarantees the federal rights ...


Gay News

With President Biden's signature, Respect for Marriage Act is law 2022-12-13
-- From a press release - WASHINGTON — The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) civil rights organization — celebrated today as President Biden signed the Respect ...


Gay News

President Biden signs Respect for Marriage Act into law; groups and leaders respond 2022-12-13
-- From press releases - In response to President Biden signing the Respect for Marriage Act into law, groups and leaders release statements. ...


Gay News

Respect for Marriage Act passage important step but not equity says LGBTQIA+/ally Catholic group 2022-12-09
-- From a press release - Dec. 8, 2022. DignityUSA, the nation's foremost organization of Catholics working for justice, equality, and full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in our church and society, is pleased that both houses of Congress have now passed the ...


Gay News

Groups and leaders celebrate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act 2022-12-08
-- From press releases - U.S. Representative Mike Quigley: Washington, D.C.— Today, U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05), Vice-Chair of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, released the following statement celebrating the passage of ...


Gay News

Congress passes Respect for Marriage Act, sends to President Biden for signature 2022-12-08
-- From a press release. Video below - (New York, NY - December 8, 2022) — GLAAD, the world's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, is responding to the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. ...


Gay News

WORLD Japan ruling, Kenya groups, World Cup, Almodovar 2022-12-04
Video below - A district court in the Tokyo Prefecture ruled that Japan's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is legal, according to The Washington Blade. In a statement to Reuters, plaintiffs' attorney Nobuhito Sawasaki said, "This is actually a ...


Gay News

NATIONAL Trans officials, marriage equality, Karl Schmid, Pelosi, Buttigieg 2022-12-04
Video below - Once all of the newly elected officials are seated, there will be nine transgender state legislators (up from eight this year) and nine non-binary state legislators across the country, NBC News noted, citing The Victory Institute. ...


Gay News

Landmark step toward equality: Senate passes bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act 2022-11-29
-- From press releases - WASHINGTON — The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) civil rights organization — today celebrated the bipartisan passage of the Respect ...


Gay News

NATIONAL Respect for Marriage Act, lesbian judge, gay official resigns 2022-11-20
- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said that debate on the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) is suspended and will continue on Nov. 28, when the Senate reconvenes after Thanksgiving, LGBTQ Nation reported. The RFMA ...


Gay News

Senate marriage equality bill advances with 62-37 bipartisan vote 2022-11-16
- A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators voted 62-37 for cloture—the end of debate—for the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), signaling passage in the near future for the measure that enshrines marriage equality into federal law. The ...


Gay News

Rights advocates: Nov. 16 Senate vote a 'backstop' against SCOTUS overreach 2022-11-16
- Representatives from HRC and GLAD met with media virtually the morning of Nov. 16 to discuss the implications of the Respect of Marriage Act. That legislation, scheduled for a Senate vote the same day, codifies marriage ...


Gay News

Reports: Senate to vote on marriage equality law Nov. 16 2022-11-15
- The U.S. Senate will vote on a measure enshrining marriage equality into law Wednesday, according to reports. Supporters of the measure, known as the Respect for Marriage Act, which aims to protect against an eventual repeal ...


 




Copyright © 2023 Windy City Media Group. All rights reserved.
Reprint by permission only. PDFs for back issues are downloadable from
our online archives. Single copies of back issues in print form are
available for $4 per issue, older than one month for $6 if available,
by check to the mailing address listed below.

Return postage must accompany all manuscripts, drawings, and
photographs submitted if they are to be returned, and no
responsibility may be assumed for unsolicited materials.
All rights to letters, art and photos sent to Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago
Gay and Lesbian News and Feature Publication) will be treated
as unconditionally assigned for publication purposes and as such,
subject to editing and comment. The opinions expressed by the
columnists, cartoonists, letter writers, and commentators are
their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual and Transegender News and Feature Publication).

The appearance of a name, image or photo of a person or group in
Nightspots (Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times
(a Chicago Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender News and Feature
Publication) does not indicate the sexual orientation of such
individuals or groups. While we encourage readers to support the
advertisers who make this newspaper possible, Nightspots (Chicago
GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay, Lesbian
News and Feature Publication) cannot accept responsibility for
any advertising claims or promotions.

 
 

TRENDINGBREAKINGPHOTOS







Sponsor


 



Donate


About WCMG      Contact Us      Online Front  Page      Windy City  Times      Nightspots
Identity      BLACKlines      En La Vida      Archives      Advanced Search     
Windy City Queercast      Queercast Archives     
Press  Releases      Join WCMG  Email List      Email Blast      Blogs     
Upcoming Events      Todays Events      Ongoing Events      Bar Guide      Community Groups      In Memoriam     
Privacy Policy     

Windy City Media Group publishes Windy City Times,
The Bi-Weekly Voice of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans Community.
5315 N. Clark St. #192, Chicago, IL 60640-2113 • PH (773) 871-7610 • FAX (773) 871-7609.