Prop 8 Trial closes–now the waiting begins

Yesterday the trial known as Perry V. Schwarzenegger closed in the San Francisco Federal Court after closing arguments were heard by Judge Vaughn Walker. The trial, which began in January, was something of a circus in the queer community who were watching it. When the American Foundation For Equal Rights–the ad hoc foundation formed in the wake of Prop 8 to challenge the discriminatory law in court–hired George W. Bush’s former Solicitor General, Theodore Olson and David Boies, Al Gore’s former lawyer during the Bush V. Gore Supreme Court case, the collective eyebrow raised across gay America.

Olson and Boies, adversaries in 2000, put together one of the most rock-solid cases never to be broadcast on YouTube (because the Supreme Court said no!). Not only did Olson and Boies set up a strong case for the recognition of marriage equality in California and a striking down of the misguided voter referendum, Prop 8; Olson and Boies ripped apart witness after witness from the defense, even getting many of the defense witnesses to agree with the plaintiffs in their cross examinations and questioning.

Two weeks ago, the Honorable Judge Vaughn Walker released a series of questions that he guided each side to address during closing arguments. The questions–meant to assist Walker in crafting his decision–seem to allude that the plaintiffs did an excellent job in presenting their case and now he needs to examine the extent to which his ruling can push the boundaries.

However, yesterday again, the plaintiffs showed they clearly have a better grasp of reality than the defense, which the pro-Prop 8 side arguing that not only should the plaintiffs be ruled against, but that the 18,000 “limited edition” California equal marriages that occurred before Prop 8 passed ought to be invalidated. Meanwhile, Olson and Boies instead argued:

“We conclude this trial, your honor, where we began. This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs, and tens of thousands of similarly situated Californians. Their state has rewritten its constitution in order to place them into a special disfavored category where their most intimate personal relationships are not valid, not recognized and second rate… There is not a compelling governmental interest to put the plaintiffs in a class like this and take away what the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right, a right of liberty, privacy, association, intimacy and autonomy.”

And also:

“Our fundamental rights can’t be taken away unless the state has a very, very fundamental, strong, compelling reason to do so and acts with surgical precision so that it takes no more than the compelling reason justifies… Their state has stigmatized them as unworthy of marriage, different, and less respected… This is discrimination, the taking away from a fundamental right as articulated by the Supreme Court… The Supreme Court has said that marriage is the most important relation in life. Now that’s being withheld from the plaintiffs. Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, spirituality and autonomy. [Prop 8.] prevents a complete choice as to marriage and designates gays and lesbians as less worthy and entitled to less honor, less status and fewer benefits. Marriage is special, the experts tell us. Domestic partnerships and civil unions are pale comparisons… This law is discriminatory. The evidence is overwhelming that it imposes great social harm on individuals who are our equals. They are members of our society. They pay their taxes. They want to form a household. They want to raise their children in happiness and in the same way that their neighbors do. We are imposing great damage on them by the institution of the State of California saying they are different and they cannot have the happiness, they cannot have the privacy, they cannot have the liberty, they cannot have the intimate association in the context of a marriage that the rest of our citizens do.”

For more information, visit the AFER trial summary page.

Judge Walker is expected to rule sometime this summer.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 17th, 2010 at 6:29 am and is filed under Politics & Activism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.