The San Jose Mercury new reports that a federal judge on Wednesday set a Jan. 11 trial date for the legal challenge to Proposition 8, setting the stage for the most exhaustive legal review of a state's ban on gay marriage in any court in the nation.
During a hearing in San Francisco, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered lawyers on both sides of the case to gear up quickly for the trial, which foes of California's same-sex marriage ban hope will be the first step in getting the legal fight over same-sex marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Backed by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and prominent lawyer David Boies, two same-sex couples sued in federal court this past spring to overturn Proposition 8, approved by voters in fall 2008 to restore California's ban on gay marriage. The lawsuit maintains Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples by denying them the same right as straight coouples to marry, and it marks what is likely to be the first crucial legal test in the federal courts concerning the issue.
The California Supreme Court this past spring upheld Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, but the justices left intact an estimated 18,000 gay marriages that took place last year before voters approved the measure by 52 percent to 48 percent. Those weddings took place after the state Supreme Court struck down the state's previous laws banning same-sex marriage.
Wednesday's hearing, Walker refused to allow a coalition of gay rights groups to directly join the lawsuit, concluding that the current plaintiffs can adequately mount a challenge to Proposition 8 on their own.
The plaintiffs had urged Walker to deny the groups' request, still upset that those organizations originally opposed taking the legal fight over gay marriage into the federal courts at this point. The groups include the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which have led the legal fight over gay marriage in state courts around the country but worry about how the conservative U.S. Supreme Court might rule on the issue.
Walker also rejected a bid by the conservative Campaign for California Families to join the case to defend Proposition 8, finding that Proposition 8 supporters can defend the law alone. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has argued the law is unconstitutional, is not defending the law, nor is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has taken no position.
Walker took a swipe at Schwarzenegger's reserve at the conclusion of Wednesday's hearing, saying, "I must say, I'm surprised at the governor's position in this case. "... This is a matter of some importance to the people of the state."
The governor's lawyer declined to comment on the judge's remarks.
The judge did permit the city of San Francisco, which has led the legal fight over California's marriage laws, to join the case, and indicated the other groups can present their legal arguments through friend-of-the court briefs.
The January trial is likely to be the first step in a long process before the Proposition 8 challenge reaches the Supreme Court. Even after Walker decides the case, it is certain to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals next year, and that court could take months or longer to rule before the challenge can reach the high court.
Walker previously said he wanted a full trial to provide the appeals court with a complete record, including testimony related to the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the impact of denying marriage rights to same-sex couples and evidence related to whether Proposition 8 had a discriminatory intent.
Original article by Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News
Thursday, August 20, 2009
January trial set for U.S. court challenge to California's gay-marriage ban
Posted by girl2grl at 2:31 PM
Labels: California Gay Marriage, California Same Sex Marriage, gay marriage ban, Prop 8, Proposition 8, Same-sex Couples, Same-sex Marriage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment