This Week Inside The Capitol (2/1/2010)  >  Research  >  Dateline Sacramento (6/11/09)  >  Dateline Sacramento (7/3/2009)  >  The Federal Trial Against the People of California and Proposition 8 – We’ve Only Just Begun

The Federal Trial Against the People of California and Proposition 8 – We’ve Only Just Begun


The Federal Trial Against the People of California and Proposition 8 – We’ve Only Just Begun
After months of preparation and two and a half weeks of live testimony in a San Francisco federal courthouse in front of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, lawyers on both sides of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic battle over the definition of marriage, are just warming up.
The lead attorneys defending the will of the people and Article 1, Section 7.5 of California’s Constitution, have stood up to intense pressure and defended the people, the constitution, and Prop 8 under extremely difficult circumstances.“Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us,” stated Ron Prentice, Executive Director of ProtectMarriage.com and CEO of California Family Council.
“For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony were broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast.”
Days later, the US Supreme Court overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case. But it was too late.
The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on the defense team. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, defense attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the plaintiffs’ witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy.
At the conclusion of the live testimony, ProtectMarriage.com’s general counsel Andy Pugno wrote, “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.”
“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.”
Judge Walker is now reviewing the evidence and testimony and will render his decision after closing arguments, which are yet to be scheduled. Once his decision is handed down, the losing side will most likely appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most experts agree that the case will inevitably end up at the US Supreme Court, a process which may take up to two more years.
California Family Council will keep you informed as this trial weaves its way through the federal courts. We will be there every step of the way. The trial has only just begun.
  • Printer-friendly version