Federal Marraige Lawsuit Update

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/28/10

Presentation of Evidence Concludes in Perry v Schwarzenegger Federal Trial

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 27 - The following statement can be attributed to Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com :

"Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8's definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.

"What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were 'irrational' when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

"Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It's that simple.

"The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many 'expert' witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self- esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal."

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/26/10
Click Here to Read Revealing Observations from Andy Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com Chief Legal Counsel

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/25/10

Defending Prop 8: The Feeling Thermometer

After two weeks of testimony from witnesses supporting the challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the plaintiffs are on the verge of resting their case today. Their attorneys say they want to introduce snippets of deposition testimony from various people, and then put a variety of other exhibits into the record before they rest their case.
 
From the trial’s start, it has been the responsibility of the plaintiffs to prove their case.  But rather than address the initial complaint – a very weak argument of “equal protection” based on a very creative interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution – the trial has been about feelings. The plaintiffs’ case seems to boil down to one recurring theme: limiting marriage to only a man and a woman hurts the feelings of homosexuals. One of their expert witnesses even explained how he measures things on a “feeling thermometer.”
 
Here is an article from San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders titled, “Federal court has become the new feelings forum.” Saunders notes, “Forget the law…feelings rule.”
 
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have brought witness after witness to the stand, from institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Stanford. Without exception, each witness admitted a very strong bias toward same-sex marriage. And without exception, each “expert” referred to the subjective feelings of homosexuals; forget about legal precedent, social science, religious freedom or the rights of voters.
 
Time after time, the Proposition 8 legal defense team skewered the plaintiff witnesses on cross-examination (although you won’t know this by reading accounts in the mainstream media). Not a single expert witness for the plaintiffs has been able to maintain their primary contention without having to make major concessions as to its validity. For example, one witness professorially lectured the courtroom on the premise that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships and that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would have no impact on society’s understanding of marriage. On cross, the witness had to admit that sexual fidelity and monogamy is the exception rather than the rule among male homosexuals. Less than 10% of those relationships feature sexual exclusivity.
 
Yet we are supposed to believe that there will be no impact on society’s understanding of marriage if we redefine marriage to include relationships that are utterly bereft of a prime social normative of marriage – sexual exclusiveness. In the words of Andy Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com’s general counsel, the audacity of the arguments is “astonishing.” Pugno’s excellent blog has covered a lot of the daily work of our outstanding defense attorneys. You can read his summary of Week 2 of the trial here.
 
Later today our attorneys will begin to present our case defending Proposition 8. Long before the actual trial began, the “playing field” was decidedly tilted against us. Chief Judge Vaughan Walker’s pre-trial rulings and those made during the trial have consistently gone against us. One of those rulings – to televise the trial – cost us a number of our expert witnesses, because although the US Supreme Court overturned Walker’s illegal order, it didn’t come soon enough to stop witnesses from withdrawing who feared their testimony would subject them to harassment.
 
The loss of expert witnesses is one of the reasons our attorneys spent so much time cross-examining the plaintiff witnesses. Without access to experts who can counteract the plaintiff witnesses, the legal team worked diligently to bring out contradictions in the testimonies of opposing witnesses.
 
The Prop 8 legal defense team is doing a magnificent job under extremely adverse circumstances created by this court’s rulings. As they head into what may be the final week of trial, they have been working nonstop for many weeks – literally sleeping less than two hours a night – to defend the people’s vote for Prop 8 and to uphold the proven definition of marriage. Please pray for their strength and wisdom during the balance of this trial.
 
Please also pray that the people of California and the nation will respond with their financial gifts to sustain our defense of the institution of marriage. This is costing us many millions of dollars – money that we don’t have. We are acting in faith that you and other believers will give generously. Please make a contribution today to help sustain this epic legal battle. Even though this judge has made things very difficult for our side and many believe he will ultimately rule against us, we remain supremely confident that we will win this case in the courts of appeal. We’ve already received the attention of the US Supreme Court, and we are looking forward to bringing the merits of the issue before them in due course.
 
This case could ultimately be the Roe v Wade for marriage, and we fervently believe the rule of law will win. Please help us continue the fight.
 
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice
Executive Director and CEO of California Family Council

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/22/10

What First Amendment?
Read ProtectMarriage.com Chief Legal Counsel Andy Pugno's comments on day 8 of the trial.

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/21/10

Read ProtectMarriage.com Chief Legal Counsel Andy Pugno's comments on day 7 of the trial.

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/20/10

Read this update from members of the legal team defending the California marriage amendment in federal court in San Francisco.

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/19/10

The Perry Trial: Where It's Headed
 
As we enter into the second week of the epic trial to preserve traditional marriage in the federal court case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, we can see how the challenge is shaping up. Our opponents are attempting to portray Proposition 8 as nothing but a continuation of past perceived discrimination against gays and lesbians. Their witnesses have testified about how they felt when Prop 8 passed, how they felt as couples, receiving raised eyebrows when seeking to check into a hotel with a king-sized bed, and how they felt receiving disapproving looks when walking down the street together. They’ve even put on witnesses claiming that our advertisements and messaging is reminiscent of anti-homosexual comments of Anita Bryant in a mid-1970s Florida campaign. What these witnesses have failed to say, however, is how invalidating Proposition 8 would provide a remedy for these perceived social slights.

Their “experts” have testified that same-sex relationships are the same as traditional heterosexual relationships, and that children with homosexual parents do just as well as children raised by a married mother and father. Legalizing same-sex marriage will have no impact, it is claimed, on traditional marriage.

Our attorneys have achieved some critical concessions from the plaintiff witnesses, particularly their so-called experts. For example, one academic had to admit that there are critical differences between how homosexual men view the importance of monogamy as compared to married heterosexual couples. For gay men, their witness acknowledged, sexual exclusiveness is the exception rather than the rule. Only slightly more than one-third of homosexual men believe that monogamy is an important factor in their relationships, and among that group nearly 75% have sexual encounters with multiple partners while in “committed” relationships.

Despite this incredible admission, the plaintiff witnesses still maintain that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will have no impact on the institution of marriage. Apparently we are just supposed to accept that marriage no longer means a commitment of sexual fidelity to a partner, and that old-fashioned social mores can be jettisoned without any impact on our collective understanding about the meaning of marriage.

Whether the terrific efforts of our distinguished legal counsel to force our opponents into critical admissions will make any difference in this San Francisco courtroom remains to be seen. San Francisco is, after all, the most pro-gay marriage venue in the nation. But no matter what Judge Vaughn Walker may decide, we are extremely confident that the record we are building in this trial court will be extremely persuasive with the United States Supreme Court, where most people believe the Perry case is ultimately headed.

I do have to admit to a great deal of frustration in reading the mainstream media’s coverage of the trial. Their biases against traditional marriage are obvious, and it is as if they have already scripted the testimony.  No concessions from the plaintiff experts will change their perception of the desired outcome. The media has shown bias toward same-sex marriage from the beginning, continuing the idle messages of bigotry, discrimination, and false messaging. Yet neither the media nor the plaintiff attorneys can point me to a single provision in the U.S. Constitution that establishes homosexual marriage as a matter of constitutional right, or a single federal case that has established a federal right to same-sex marriage. There is none.

This week we will hear more from various plaintiff witnesses. They will put one of the official Prop 8 sponsors, Bill Tam, on the stand and attempt to portray some of his own personal comments (written in Chinese) as being representative of the Prop 8 campaign. Of course, our attorneys will make clear that Mr. Tam played no role whatsoever in the decision making of the campaign. Whether the plaintiffs will call to the stand the members of the campaign Executive Committee or our campaign consultants remains to be seen. Our attorneys are looking forward to calling our defense witnesses as soon as the plaintiffs wrap up their case.  Please keep us all in your prayers. And to get an accurate reading of what is happening in court, please be sure to check out Andy Pugno’s daily blog postings at www.protectmarriage.com/blog.

Finally, I have written to you many times about the extraordinary financial burden we bear in funding this extraordinary defense of traditional marriage. Here is a link to an informative post by Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) that describes the daily work of our attorneys. In addition to the Cooper & Kirk firm, ADF and Andy Pugno, we have many other attorneys working remotely, reviewing tens of thousands of documents, drafting motions and researching various matters that will come before the court. The defense of Proposition 8 is costing us millions of dollars. Please help us by making a generous contribution today. We simply cannot continue to be effective without your financial support.

May God bless you and your family. Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/18/10

Read this update from members of the legal team defending the California marriage amendment in federal court in San Francisco.

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/15/10

Read ProtectMarriage.com's Chief Legal Counsel Andy Pugno's summary from day 4.

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/14/10

Good news!  The US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to indefinitely disallow the televising of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial.  Other good news: much of Professor George Chauncey’s testimony yesterday re: discrimination of homosexuals was put into context today during cross-examination, when Chauncey stated that homosexuals have gained significant public support and acceptance in the past decade. Thank you for your continued prayer over this case and the legal team defending Prop 8.  I have been called to testify, starting this Friday. Read More

Ron Prentice, Executive Director and CEO


Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/13/10

Our stellar team of defense lawyers had another strong day undercutting the arguments of the plaintiffs’ experts in the federal court challenge to Proposition 8 (Perry v Schwarzenegger). As our General Counsel Andy Pugno reported earlier in the day the cross examination of Harvard Professor Nancy Cott was “a disaster” for the plaintiffs’ case.

Under cross examination by David Thompson, one of our defense litigators, Professor Cott first had to concede that she is not a neutral, independent expert as she had been presented for people to believe. In fact, Thompson got her to admit that she is an advocate for gay marriage and has testified in favor of same-sex marriage before legislatures, contributed to groups advocating for gay marriage and signed onto legal briefs in court cases seeking to legalize gay marriage. One of the groups that she has financially supported has openly encouraged polyamory as an alternative to traditional marriage. Polyamorous relationships are those involving three or more people who have a sexual relationship within a ‘group marriage.’

From a legal perspective, Cott made a particularly damaging concession that the public interest in promoting the raising of children by both a mother and father is a purpose that is promoted by traditional marriage.  She also undermined the plaintiff’s characterization of marriage as a purely private decision when she conceded marriage is a highly public relationship in which society has great interest.

Professor George Chauncey of Yale University was the next plaintiff expert. He delivered interesting testimony about the history of discrimination that homosexuals  have felt in America. His testimony included examples of gays and lesbians being jailed for engaging in homosexual sex, losing their jobs and being denied access to public accommodations because of their homosexuality. What Professor Chauncey didn’t explain, however, was what relevance past discrimination has to do with the constitutionality of Proposition 8. As the day was coming to a close, David Thompson began his cross examination and elicited an admission that, like Professor Cott, Chauncey is a gay marriage supporter who has contributed to several groups advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage. Tomorrow, Thompson is expected to question Professor Chauncey over his views that the messaging of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign is simply a continuation of past discrimination against homosexuals.

We have many days to go in the trial over traditional marriage. Today was a very good day. Several of our supporters in the courtroom asked our attorneys to dinner, in order to thank them for their efforts! Unfortunately, each of them declined because they needed to return to their temporary offices in San Francisco to immerse themselves in preparation for tomorrow’s hearing.

I hope that our communications over the past two days have given you a sense of the monumental effort  being put forth to defend your vote and preserve traditional marriage. Please continue to support us with your prayers and financial sacrifice.

Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director and CEO

––

Federal Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8 Update - 1/12/10

ProtectMarriage.com’s lead counsel, Charles Cooper, confidently strode to the podium in the San Francisco federal courtroom of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and began his opening statement in defense of Proposition 8 and traditional marriage. He did a superb job in setting forth the main elements of our case:

• Traditional marriage has served society well for centuries;
• It is a pro-child institution;
• It exists in main purpose “to promote naturally procreative sexual activity in a stable and enduring relationship" that will nurture children;
• That gays and lesbians were not the target of ill will or discriminatory intent in the Yes on 8 campaign;
• That “there are millions of Americans who believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but draw the line at marriage;” and
• That California voters were perfectly within their rights to decline to take a risk of suffering the consequences of destabilizing the institution of marriage.

As proud as I was of Mr. Cooper and his eloquent articulation of the importance of traditional marriage, I have to confess to a feeling of being in a surreal environment. The courtroom was packed shoulder to shoulder, and many more filled the overflow room. Television cameras crowded the hallways. Reporters swarmed the courthouse looking for an angle to cover. And some of the most skilled attorneys in the nation argued before a federal judge about whether the institution of marriage is somehow illegal.

Never did I think I would see the day where God’s institution of marriage – the most stabilizing, pro-family, child-benefiting institution in human history – would be on trial before a federal judge in the nation whose forefathers founded the country on the premise of “in God we trust.”

Our General Counsel, Andy Pugno, is a key member of the defense team and is handling the crush of media demands of the trial. To keep our supporters informed of developments, Andy will be posting comments twice daily to the Protect Marriage blog. His comments about today’s proceedings are available at www.protectmarriage.com/blog. Please check our revamped website frequently for his commentary.

Our Communications Director, Carla Hass, will be tweeting live updates from inside the courtroom. You can follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/protectmarriage. Commentary will also be posted on our Facebook and MySpace pages.

We’re in for a real fight to save traditional marriage. The trial court proceedings are expected to last for weeks. The case will then be appealed and, ultimately, will end up before the United States Supreme Court. Please help us ensure that marriage is preserved for future generations by making a contribution today. One example of our costs comes from a recent ruling of the Court that requires immediate assistance from two dozen attorneys, at a rate of $50,000 per day! The costs are great, and so much is at stake.

Thank you for your support.