Like so many of us, I spent much of the latter part of this week focused on the closing arguments of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial that will determine the constitutionality of Prop 8. I read the questions asked by, then the answers submitted to, Judge Walker. Then, Wednesday, the actual final day of the trial, I followed intently every word from both sides, and had this overwhelming desire to tweet so many of the statements, but it was hard enough to stay on top of the almost real-time transcript provided courtesy of The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER,) who also provided the official transcript which I have gone through several times now, and pulled what I think are some of the best parts of the closing arguments for you to savor. I’ve added my personal thoughts after a few, in italics.
As you know, Ted Olson is the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the pro-marriage equality side. Everyone, including Maggie Gallagher, the founder of the National Organization for Marriage, feels Olson’s work, along with David Boies, his co-counsel, was so expert we have a strong chance of winning. In fact, Maggie, already shilling for your money, said, â€œI expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8.â€
With that, I give you some of Ted Olson’s best statements during Wednesday’s closing arguments. If you want to know what the other side said, read my piece at Change.org: “Gay People Cannot Be Allowed To Marry Because Straight People Cannot Be Trusted?”
And we’re off!
Olson speaking to the judge:
For example, you asked, “How does permitting same-sex couples to marry in any way diminish the procreative aspect or function of marriage, or denigrate the institution of marriage for heterosexuals?”
Lead counsel responded: “Your Honor, because it will change the institution. If the institution is deinstitutionalized,” he said, “Mr. Blankenhorn will testify that will likely lead to very real social harms, such as lower marriage rates and high rates of divorce and nonmarital cohabitation, with more children raised outside the marriage and separated from at least one of their parents.”
Then, this important tidbit, which proves animus –“hostility or ill feeling,” which, if proved was the reason for the voters’ prop 8 decision, would require the judge to overturn Prop 8.
“It is revealing, it seems to me, that the deinstitutionalization message is quite different from the thrust of the proponents’ Yes on 8 election campaign. That, in the words they put into the hands of all California voters, focused heavily on: Protect our children from somehow learning that gay marriage is okay. Protect our children from learning that gay marriage is okay.
Those are the words that the proponents put in the ballot — in the voter information guide that was given to every voter.”
Certainly, many of us saw those ads on TV: Save our children! Horrors!
“The Supreme Court has said that: Marriage is the most important relation in life. Now that’s being withheld from the plaintiffs. It is the foundation of society. It is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. It’s a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights and older than our political parties. One of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause. A right of intimacy to the degree of being sacred. And a liberty right equally available to a person in a homosexual relationship as to heterosexual persons.”
Regardless of the outcome of this case, or even when — because it is when, not if — it goes to the Supreme Court, we must always remember what the Supreme Court has said about marriage. And every time someone from Maggie Gallagher’s NOM says that “gay marriage” is not a civil right, we can retort, “Neither is ‘straight marriage.’ But ‘marriage’ is.”
“[Marriage] is a right belonging to Californians, to persons. It is not a right belonging to the State of California.”
“No one aspires as a child to grow up and enter into a domestic partnership. But they do aspire as children to grow up and be married.”
“Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex in the same way that the Virginia law struck down in Loving discriminated on the basis of race. They could marry whoever they want, unless that person was the wrong race.”
“So how does preventing same-sex couples from getting married advance the interest or protect the interest of procreation? They are not a threat to us.
What one single bit of evidence that they are a threat to the channeling function? If you accept that California has the right to do that in the first place. And I do not.
This is an individual constitutional right. And every Supreme Court decision says that it’s a right of persons. Not the right of California to channel those of us who live in California into certain activities or in a certain way.”
“[W]e had expert witnesses that talked about the history of marriage going far back. Not 30 years, but far back into history what marriage has always been. The Supreme Court said older than the Bill of Rights, older than our political parties. That’s not something new. It’s marriage. It’s not single-sex marriage or interracial marriage or anything like that.
Mr. Cooper says you have to accept the fact that — “First of all, you have to accept my definition. It has to be between a man and a woman. Then, if you have a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, it will change the marriage.”
Well, of course it will, because you started by defining the term that you wanted to define.”
“What we’re talking about here is allowing individuals who have the same impulses, the same drives, the same desires as all of the rest of us, to have a relationship in harmony, stability, and to form a family and a neighborhood, all of those things that the Supreme Court talked about.
And, now, tell me how it helps the rest of the citizens of California to keep them out of the club. It doesn’t.”
Indeed. It does not.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
‘I Will Not Stand by Silently’: Sotomayor Blasts SCOTUS Conservatives Over Their Latest Attack on Abortion Rights
“The Court may look the other way, but I cannot.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed outrage at her conservative Supreme Court colleagues Thursday afternoon, after the six right wing jurists went one step further in attacking the constitutional guarantee of abortion.
Voting 6-3 against a women’s health care provider the Court denied a request by Texas Women’s Health, which provides abortion services, to change jurisdictions, which according to Justice Sotomayor the Court should have done.
“The lawsuit is now stalled with the Texas Supreme Court,” Rewire News reports.
Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, a Supreme Court expert calls Sotomayor’s dissent “stunning.”
“This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies,” Sotomayor writes. “I will not stand by silently as a State continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee. I dissent.”
She begins her dissent by explaining the case:
“It has been over four months since Texas Senate Bill 8 (S. B. 8) took effect. The law immediately devastated access to abortion care in Texas through a complicated private-bounty-hunter scheme that violates nearly 50 years of this Court’s precedents.”
“Today, for the fourth time, this Court declines to protect pregnant Texans from egregious violations of their constitutional rights. One month after directing that the petitioners’ suit could proceed in part, the Court countenances yet another violation of its own commands. Instead of stopping a Fifth Circuit panel from indulging Texas’ newest delay tactics, the Court allows the State yet again to extend the deprivation of the federal constitutional rights of its citizens through procedural manipulation. The Court may look the other way, but I cannot.”
In response the Guttmacher Institute, an organization focused on sexual and reproductive health and rights, accused the Supreme Court of “once again putting ideology over the rule of law.”
Image via Shutterstock
Ivanka Trump Responds to Committee’s Invite by Saying She Called for End to Violence – Leaves Out ‘Patriots’ Part
Ivanka Trump is responding to her invitation from the January 6 Committee by issuing a statement that is being seen suggesting she has no intention of accepting. Earlier Thursday the Committee sent the former First Daughter and White House senior advisor a lengthy 11-page letter asking for her voluntary cooperation.
A statement from her spokesperson given to CNN White House Correspondent Kate Bennett references a tweet posted by Ivanka Trump the day of the attack on the Capitol – a tweet she was forced to delete after massive outrage.
“As the Committee already knows, Ivanka did not speak at the January 6 rally,” the statement reads. “As she publicly stated at 3:15pm, ‘any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately.”
NEW: @IvankaTrump's spokesperson tells me Ivanka "just learned" of the 1/6 Committee's invitation to appear before them, but from the response below, it sounds as though she isn't planning to do so: pic.twitter.com/VXpUXDnEuP
— Kate Bennett (@KateBennett_DC) January 20, 2022
But in the actual Ivanka Trump called the insurrectionists “American Patriots,” as CNN reported that day:
— CNN (@CNN) January 6, 2021
Georgia Prosecutor Asks to Convene Special Grand Jury to Investigate Donald Trump’s Alleged Election Interference
A Georgia county district attorney has requested to convene a special grand jury to assist in her investigation of Donald Trump‘s alleged election interference.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in a letter to the county’s Superior Court chief judge writes that her office “has received information indicating a reasonable probability that the State of Georgia’s administration of elections in 2020, including the State’s election of the President of the United States, was subject to possible criminal disruptions,” according to the Associated Press.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (photo) was forced to release audio of then-President Trump appearing to intimidate him into fixing the election in his favor.
Trump, in the audio, can be heard berating and threatening the Republican Secretary of State, demanding he “recalculate” the losing election results and “find 11,780 votes” for him, which would have enabled Trump to falsely be declared the winner. Raffensberger refused.
“So look. All I want to do is this,” Trump told Raffensberger. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”
“There’s no way I lost Georgia,” he added, falsely. “There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.”
Willis told the AP the scope of her investigation “includes — but is not limited to — a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a November 2020 phone call between U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Raffensperger, the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta on Jan. 4, 2021, and comments made during December 2020 Georgia legislative committee hearings on the election.”
- 'FULL PANIC MODE'2 days ago
‘Incredibly Dumb’: Former Federal Prosecutor Mocks Eric Trump for Telling NY AG ‘We Are Prosecuting You’
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM3 days ago
Former Top FBI Official: ‘Concerning’ Ginni Thomas Signed Letter Saying Jan. 6 Participants ‘Have Done Nothing Wrong’
- COMMENTARY3 days ago
Legal Experts Blast ‘Jerk Gorsuch’ for Refusing to Wear a Mask – Forcing Sotomayor to Stay in Chambers
- 'STANDING ALONE'3 days ago
Top Democratic Donor Groups Pulling Endorsements – and Funding – From Sinema and Manchin Over Filibuster
- CRIME3 days ago
‘Very Ominous Development’: Legal Experts Explain Matt Gaetz Ex-Girlfriend’s Deal Could Mean a Lot of Trouble
- News2 days ago
‘You Always Ask Me the Nicest Questions’: Biden Takes Down Doocy as Press Conference Nears End
- COMMENTARY22 hours ago
Backlash Grows Against McConnell as Viral Video Shows His Racist Remarks Deeming Black Voters Not Real Americans
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM3 days ago
‘Put Up, Shut Up, or Flee’: Internet Cheers 1/6 Committee Subpoenas of Trump ‘Big Lie’ Lawyers Giuliani, Ellis, Powell