Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

记住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新闻&特写

« 较新的 | 较旧的 »
13 Jan 2010

Landmark gay-marriage ban court case underway in California

A federal court in San Francisco is hearing a case to determine whether a 2008 voter initiative dubbed Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution by creating a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

On Monday, an unprecedented trial challenging Proposition 8, the law that bans same-sex marriage in California, started in San Francisco.

Expected to last three weeks, the case, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, would be the first federal trial in U.S. history in which testimony will be heard and recorded about the harm to gay and lesbian citizens caused by laws like Prop 8.

The two same-sex couples Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier (left to right) are plaintiffs in a federal court case challenging California's same-sex marriage ban.

The case is filed by two couples, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, who are suing the state of California for the right to marry.

Although California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown and two other state officials are named as the defendants, Governor Schwarzenegger has said that his stance on same-sex marriage is neutral while Brown said he believes Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional and should be struck down. Lead defense counsel Charles Cooper represents the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8.

The state supreme court legalised same-sex marriage in May 2008, but that ruling was overturned by Proposition 8 in a referendum that passed with 52 per cent of the vote the following November.

Proposition 8 added a clause to the state constitution which says: “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California”.

The case will be decided without a jury by Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker. Media reports say however regardless of the outcome of this trial, the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

At present, five US states permit same-sex marriage, while 30 state constitutions ban it.

Legal luminaries former US Solicitor General Theodore Olson and David Boies (right)

The two couples are represented by legal luminaries David Boies and former US Solicitor General Theodore Olson who described himself as a “politically active, lifelong Republican, (and) a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.” His journey as a “conservative” to becoming a same-sex marriage advocate and the reasons why have been documented in a story in The New York Times (A Conservative’s Road to Same-Sex Marriage Advocacy) and in a column he had written for Newsweek (The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value).

To follow the case, visit prop8trialtracker.com, twitter.com/CourageCampaign and twitter.com/AmerEqualRights

 


Media snippets about the case:



And don't tell me that civil unions are exactly the same as marriage. If that's true, then let's let gays and lesbians pick first. If they pick marriage, and heterosexuals are relegated to civil unions, no problem, right, since they are exactly the same?
- CNN legal analyst Lisa Bloom in Prop 8 is simply unconstitutional


With the two gay couples off the stand for now, attorneys for the plaintiffs inPerry v. Schwarzenegger are turning to experts and historians to dissect the meaning and progress of the institution of marriage. Yet instead of gay marriage, historian Nancy E. Cott, a former Yale and now Harvard professor, has been grilled today and yesterday more about slavery than homosexuality. Why? Because the plaintiffs are using myriad laws related to slaves and marriage as an example of how the American legal system has had to adjust and progress over time when it comes to marriage.
- Eve Conant in Gay Marriage on Trial: The Relevance of Slavery (Newsweek)

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
- Theodore Olson in The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value (Newsweek)


Among other things, (Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn) Walker asked how Proposition 8 could be discriminatory since California already allows domestic partnerships that carry the same rights and benefits of marriage.

"If California would simply get out of the marriage business and classify everyone as a domestic partnership, would that solve the problem?" the judge asked. 

Olson answered that he did not think such a move would be politically feasible.

 "I suspect the people of California would not want to abandon the relationship that the proponents of Proposition 8 spent a tremendous amount of resources describing as important to people, and so important it must be reserved for opposite-sex couples," he said. 
Calif. couples tell of gay marriage ban’s toll (MSNBC.com)

Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose: to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their previously recognized constitutional right to marry. The official title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm because they have been given the opportunity to form something called a “domestic partnership.” That is a cruel fiction.
Text of Ted Olson’s Opening Statement in Prop. 8 Trial – As Prepared

United States

读者回应

1. 2010-01-13 19:41  
Hopefully today the Supreme Court will authorise the broadcast of the trial on YouTube, as previously ordered by the Judge.

The following part of the evidence of the expert on the history of marriage will probably be of particular interest to Fridae readers, it's shocking how previous restrictions on marriage in California affected heterosexual asians and their American partners:

"Expert: The laws did not totally prohibit those people from marrying, but they did prohibit a white person who fell in love with an Asian from marrying. (Asians could marry Asians, apparently, which is so generous of our state!) Legislatures knew these relationships were occurring; they wanted to make them second-class.
(Judge teases Prof. Cott to humor Boutrous by letting him ask a question now and then.)
Boutrous puts up another quote from Prop. 8’s opening:
“Racial restrictions were never a definitional feature of the institution of marriage.”
Is this true?
Professor Nancy Cott: No. There were many restrictive laws that prohibited Asians from entering the US. At the time the restriction laws were passed, there were already 100,000 or more Asian men in the west of the US, but there were very few Asian women. The restrictions against marrying white women made these men permanent bachelors. In 1907, a US restriction in law said that any American woman who married a foreigner would have to take his citizenship and lose her citizenship “even if she descended from the Mayflower.” A German, for example, could become a citizen through naturalization. But Asians were never eligible for citizenship. California invented this concept of Asians never being eligible for citizenship. If an American woman married an Asian, she could never again become an American citizen."
修改於2010-01-13 19:48:18
2. 2010-01-13 19:43  
I'm following this case with great interest. We demand 100% equal opportunity, no domestic partnership, no partnership registry. When we have gay marriage, then people can choose to get married or not. Good luck to the gay couples.
3. 2010-01-14 04:51  
David Boies and Theodore Olson are officially my new heroes. Good luck to you both. I pray you succeed in this landmark case.
4. 2010-01-14 09:41  
I took some time to read about the judge. He seems fair and radical enough to give a good verdict at the end.
5. 2010-01-14 15:38  
The case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit which will make a ruling, John Roberts and his Supreme Court will run away to hide under their mommies' skirts, and we'll all wait for another day to start this square dance all over again.
6. 2010-01-14 15:53  
I don't care so much on the word "marriage", all we need is equal rights currently available to married couples. Either they allow us to marry or they should remove marriage for everyone else, it is simple as that.....

I am flying down to LA tomorrow to attend the NoH8 photo-shoot campaign. If you don't know what this is, go to noh8campaign.com We all need to do our part to make our voices heard...
修改於2010-01-14 22:50:09
7. 2010-01-14 16:02  
When it comes down to it...state law does not matter....its the Federal law that should be targeted.
8. 2010-01-15 00:28  
something is really wrong with the system when a referendum of predominently straight voting constituents can determine the rights of a minority. Sure thats "democracy"...the majority rules..but its an imperfect system
9. 2010-01-15 15:24  
#8... The Constitutional right of the voting public to actually overturn a Supreme Court ruling is not an American construct, it's strictly Californian. Remember, the US is essentially 50 little countries (states), each governed by their own laws, under one big umbrella. Popular vote cannot overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. I'm not sure why California works that way; most states (including my home state) do not. As you said, it's an imperfect system (in the extreme). Imagine if only white people had been allowed to vote on the rights of black people in the 1950s or 1960s. Civil rights cannot and should not granted or denied by popular vote.

Ultimately, I have faith that the United States will get this right. Even staunch opponents of same-sex marriage usually concede their belief that, one day, it will be legal nationwide.

Social change is slow. It still happens though.
10. 2010-01-15 20:55  
Watch out - the anti-gay fundamentalists are about to hit Singapore again, this time with the "Alpha Course": more about this anti-gay brainwashing here:

"Terry Sanderson, Vice President of the National Secular Society [said] People can do all sorts of things that can damage them, Alpha can be one of these." Mr Sanderson, who has long criticised the Alpha course said that it is "fundamentalism wrapped up in pretty paper, well marketed but at base fundamental. It is completely anti gay. Those who are gay on the course do not get told this until it is too late."

"Any gay person who gets involved in this will find their basic personalty will be challenged. When they have completed the course they are invited to a weekend where they are held in isolation. They call it the Holy Spirit Weekend and they are encouraged to become possessed with the holy spirit and speak in tongues."

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but you should be aware of this.
11. 2010-01-15 23:03  
I am from Florida. The Supreme Court now leans right 5-4 antigay.I believethat they decided to ban video of the proceedings is an indication of their ruling if it wins in Cali. and ultimitely ends up in the Supreme Court. The older judges (Conservative) have to retire to bring new young blood in there and that has to happen during the Obama Administration. My God, who knows, Sarah Palin could be the next U.S. President. The right Wing nutjobs are highjacking America. Scary for gays and all minorities.
12. 2010-01-18 11:08  
what is Steve UK talking about? another stupid foreignor commenting on USA law and federalism, something he knows nothing about

where was he as the Action for Aids dinner, I was there with my hot Polo playing BFF, I even found a lesbian couple to babysit my son while in Singapore, people are so nice there and the Polo Club is great


anyway glad that the republicans are leading the legal this case in SF, seems only Dick Cheney's daughter and Theodore Olsen know how to get his done and argue it in front of the US Supreme Court, conservatives everywhere want people to get married, raise families and have kids

I just don't want to waste my health care dollars on stupid and reckless behavior so voting for Scott Brown in Mass for the USA Senate

by the way, the latest trend in the USA is hasbians are popping up everywhere, I am constantly getting asked out by former lesbians who now want to date hot Jewish studs like me

what's going on?

maybe Fridae's lesbians can do a story on it, but no joke hasbians are growing steady now

http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8301/

13. 2010-01-18 13:43  
Oh look, gay men can 'stop' being gay too. Perhaps lagunabro can explain to this guy how to approach fatherhood the au naturel way and still be gay...

The day I decided to stop being gay
Twenty years after he came out, Patrick Muirhead, 41, explains why he is suddenly feeling the appeal of the opposite sex
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6990013.ece

请先登入再使用此功能。

Social


请选择新闻及专栏版本

精选个人档案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

赞好

合作伙伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement