Judge refuses to dismiss gay marriage ban lawsuit
(San Francisco) A federal judge in San Francisco has refused to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker also signaled Wednesday that the measure’s sponsors will need to show that allowing gay couples to wed threatens traditional male-female unions.
Walker said significant questions …
Tags: Chief Judge, District Chief, Federal Judge, Gay Couples, Gay Marriage Ban, marriage, same sex marriage, San Francisco, UnionsProp 8 campaign seeks to shield internal memos
(San Francisco) A federal judge is considering whether to order the sponsors of California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban to produce their internal campaign records to lawyers now suing to overturn the law.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco heard arguments Friday from lawyers seeking the information, including strategy …
Tags: Campaign Records, Chief Judge, District Chief, Federal Judge, Gay Marriage Ban, Internal Campaign, Internal Memos, Lawyers, marriage, San FranciscoGay Rights Groups Seek to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Gay rights groups’ attempt to intervene in a federal challenge of California’s Proposition 8 has created a rift with the high-powered attorneys heading the case, turning erstwhile allies into head-butting competitors.
Both sides have diverging visions of legal strategy. The gay groups are pushing a cautious, narrow approach based on the circumstances of Prop 8, while Theodore Olson, David Boies and their backers are seeking a decisive victory for all gay couples under the U.S. Constitution.
The civil rights groups — the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union — are also worried that the Olson/Boies team is underestimating the importance of U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s insistence on a fully developed factual record. They moved this month to intervene (pdf) so they can present evidence of historic discrimination against gays and lesbians and answer Walker’s questions, such as whether sexual orientation can be changed and whether same-sex marriages destabilize opposite-sex marriages.
See Gay Rights Groups Seek to Intervene in Federal Challenge to Calif …
Above the Law
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-rights-gr…
Voter ‘animus’ to be issue in Calif marriage case
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people, same-sex couples could not enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships anywhere in the nation, much less get married. But as they seek to persuade a federal judge to strike down California’s ban on gay marriages, lawyers for two unmarried gay couples are using that 13-year-old decision as their road map — one they expect will eventually lead the high court to take up the marriage issue. In the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court majority held that voters’ dislike of gays and the laws that several cities had approved to shield them from bias motivated the state amendment. Such “animus,” it said, was incompatible with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires the government to treat its citizens equally absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. The attorneys behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 plan to argue during a pretrial hearing Thursday that by stripping gays of the right to wed, the voter-approved ban runs afoul of America’s founding framework in the same way — and for the same reason. “Romer is a strikingly similar situation to what we have here. You had a ballot initiative, a majority vote of the people, taking away a right,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies. “And there was no justification or rationale other than disapproval by that majority of that group.” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Tuesday issued a tentative order to fast-track the case in his San Francisco court. Among the questions he said he wants covered at trial are whether sexual orientation is unchangeable, if permitting same-sex marriage “destabilizes” traditional unions and whether Proposition 8’s ballot history demonstrates the measure had “discriminatory intent.” California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a defendant in the case, has sided with gay rights advocates and declined to defend the ban, which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages. The state Supreme Court five weeks ago upheld the measure, saying it represented a valid exercise of voters’ authority to amend the California Constitution. Proposition 8’s sponsors, a coalition of religious conservative groups called Protect Marriage, has been given permission to intervene in the federal case. In court papers, the group’s lawyers rejected the assertions that anti-gay attitudes fueled the November measure and that the 1996 Colorado case was applicable. “Nothing in California law, either Proposition 8 or otherwise, indicates that Californians harbor animus towards gay and lesbian individuals,” they wrote. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, attorneys for gay rights and Christian conservative groups have debated whether the Romer decision could be used to expand gay rights. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution’s equal rights guarantees extended to gays and lesbians. “The basic point of Romer is that government cannot ever act out of hostility toward a group of people, and whether that is in the context of marriage or anti-discrimination law, the point carries over,” said Suzanne Goldberg, who worked on the case and now directs Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Program. The ruling has been cited, though so far unsuccessfully, in past challenges to gay marriage bans in Nebraska and Florida. At the same time, gay rights groups mostly have shied away from pursuing federal marriage cases in favor of pursuing marriage rights in state courts. Legal observers on both sides of the debate agree, however, that California’s Proposition 8 presents novel questions that could make the issue ripe for federal action.
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/voter-animus-…
Judge likely won’t grant Prop. 8 injunctionA…
Judge likely won’t grant Prop. 8 injunction
A federal judge in San Francisco said Tuesday that he is disinclined to suspend California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage while a lawsuit challenging it as a violation of the U.S. Constitution proceeds in his court.
In a tentative order, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said he’d rather move directly to a speedy trial on the case’s merits than grant a preliminary injunction that would temporarily allow gay nuptials. see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/30/state/n150147D61.DTL
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/judge-likely-…
Judge favors trial soon on Calif. gay marriage ban
A federal judge wants a trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban to proceed quickly but says he likely won’t suspend the voter-approved ban in the meantime.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said holding a speedy trial on the merits of a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 would avoid novel issues that might be raised if he issued a temporary injunction.
See Judge favors trial soon on Calif. gay marriage ban
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/judge-favors-…
Rulings on gay couples’ benefits question Defense of Marriage Act
Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that Sears — who married Levenson, a deputy federal public defender, last July — is entitled to the same spousal benefits that heterosexual couples employed by the department receive.
“I’m not convinced this is over,” Levenson said of their long-running battle to be treated like a married couple. “But it pushes the conversation forward.”
Reinhardt’s ruling branded the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit’s chief judge, Alex Kozinski, also weighed in on the subject last month, granting benefits to the same-sex spouse of a staff attorney for the court. But he stopped short of basing that decision on constitutional grounds.
The 9th Circuit judges ruled in their capacity as dispute-resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court.
Levenson and Sears see Reinhardt’s order as a step along the road to equality.
But Levenson pointed out Thursday that his attempt to file a new benefits form was rejected by an office computer still programmed to exclude same-sex spouses from even applying.
See Two judges decisions don’t extend beyond the two couples in …
Los Angeles Times - CA,USA
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/rulings-on-ga…
