Connect with us

The 39 Questions Both Sides On The Prop 8 Trial Must Answer Today

Published

on

Proposition 8, California’s November, 2008 offense against America that bans same-sex couples from marrying, has been on trial — federal trial, that is — since January. The federal case, technically Perry v. Schwarzenegger, concludes this week, with closing arguments starting tomorrow, after months of hiatus. Judge Vaughn Walker has presented both sides with a total of thirty-nine questions they were compelled to answer in writing by noon today or be prepared to answer during closing arguments tomorrow.

There are several references to “Blankenhorn,” as in David Blankenhorn. Here’s a link, and another, but perhaps most importantly, the admission of his lie, to give you some background.

I’ve taken the liberty of copying them in part, stripping the legal references, adding hyperlinks when helpful, and then adding my thoughts (italicized) to a few of them. You’ll find the full, actual document at the end.

I have to say many of these questions would be great debate questions for any group to discuss!

Here’s the list:

To the (pro-gay marriage) plaintiffs:

1. Assume the evidence shows Proposition 8 is not in fact rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Assume further the evidence shows voters genuinely but without evidence believed Proposition 8 was rationally related to a legitimate interest. Do the voters’ honest beliefs in the absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8? (This gets to the very heart of majority rule, the need for a representative democracy, “the will of the people,” and why civil rights should never be voted upon.)

2. What evidence supports a finding that maintaining marriage as an opposite-sex relationship does not afford a rational basis for Proposition 8?

3. Until very recently, same-sex relationships did not enjoy legal protection anywhere in the United States. How does this fact square with plaintiffs’ claim that marriage between persons of the same sex enjoys the status of a fundamental right entitled to constitutional protection?

4. What is the import of evidence showing that marriage has historically been limited to a man and a woman? What evidence shows that that limitation no longer enjoys constitutional recognition?

5. What does the evidence show regarding the intent of the voters? If the evidence shows that Proposition 8 on its face and through its consequences distinguishes on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, of what import is voter intent?

6. What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians? (There is data. And studies of school-aged children to support this.)

7. What evidence supports a finding that recognition of same-sex marriage would afford a permanent – as opposed to a transitory – benefit to the City and County of San Francisco? To California cities and counties generally? (The framing here is a concern to me because it is a federal trial.)

8. What is the relevance, if any, of data showing that state and local governments would benefit economically if same-sex couples were permitted to marry? Does that relevance depend on the magnitude of the economic benefit? (Tons of evidence here.)

9. What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?

10. Even if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined, plaintiffs’ marriages would not be recognized under federal law. Can the court find Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional without also considering the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act? (In my non-legal opinion, yes it can.)

11. What evidence supports a finding that the choice of a person of the same sex as a marriage partner partakes of traditionally revered liberties of intimate association and individual autonomy? (To any gay person, I would think this one is a rather easy one to answer…)

12. If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding? (Is Walker covering his bases? Or looking for an eventual Supreme Court ruling to include an examination of First Amendment rights? Also, see: “Prop 8 proponents lose pre-closing skirmish“)

To the (anti-gay marriage) proponents:

1. Assuming a higher level of scrutiny applies to either plaintiffs’ due process or equal protection claim, what evidence in the record shows that Proposition 8 is substantially related to an important government interest? Narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest? (In other words, especially for you Libertarians out there, what business does the government have in maintaining only “traditional” marriage?)

2. Aside from the testimony of Mr Blankenhorn, what evidence in the record supports a finding that same-sex marriage has or could have negative social consequences? What does the evidence show the magnitude of these consequences to be? (See above re: Blankenhorn. And, there are no negative social consequences. Well, unless you’re a hateful bigot.)

3. The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn’s testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest? (Prop 8 does not advance any governmental interest. The role of government in marriage is that government has acknowledged that marriage is of benefit to society. The government can no more make a judgment that only opposite sex marriage is a benefit to society than it can that marriage within one’s race is beneficial to society. And it has already struck that down.)

4. Why should the court assume that the deinstitutionalization of marriage is a negative consequence?

5. What evidence in the record shows that same-sex marriage is a drastic or far-reaching change to the institution of marriage?

6. What evidence in the record shows that same-sex couples are differently situated from opposite-sex couples where at least one partner is infertile?

7. Assume the evidence shows that children do best when raised by their married, biological mother and father. Assume further the court concludes it is in the state’s interest to encourage children to be raised by their married biological mother and father where possible. What evidence if any shows that Proposition 8 furthers this state interest? (This assumption is false. Two long-term studies released last week prove it is false.)

8. Do California’s laws permitting same-sex couples to raise and adopt children undermine any conclusion that encouraging children to be raised by a married mother and father is a legitimate state interest?

9. How does the Supreme Court’s holding in Michael H v Gerald D, 491 US 110 (1989) square with an emphasis on the importance of a biological connection between parents and their children?

10. Assume the evidence shows that sexual orientation is socially constructed. Assume further the evidence shows Proposition 8 assumes the existence of sexual orientation as a stable category. What bearing if any do these facts have on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?

11. Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 (“But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination.”). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection? (Remember this one!)

12. What harm do proponents face if an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 8 is issued? (None. Groups like NOM will make a fortune taking this to the Supreme Court.)

To (pro and anti-gay marriage) Plaintiffs and Proponents:

1. What party bears the burden of proof on plaintiffs’ claims? Under what standard of review is the evidence considered?

2. Does the existence of a debate inform whether the existence of a rational basis supporting Proposition 8 is “debatable” or “arguable” under the Equal Protection Clause?

3. What does the evidence show the difference to be between gays and lesbians, on the one hand, and heterosexuals on the other? Is that difference one which the government “may legitimately take into account” when making legislative classifications?

4. What does the evidence show the definition (or definitions) of marriage to be? How does Professor Cott’s proposed definition of marriage fit within Mr Blankenhorn’s testimony that competing definitions of marriage are either focused on children or focused on spousal affection?

5. What does it mean to have a “choice” in one’s sexual orientation? (Critical question.)

6. In order to be rooted in “our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices,” is it sufficient that a practice has existed historically, or need there be an articulable purpose underlying the practice? (I would suggest looking at slavery, women’s suffrage, etc.)

7. If spouses are obligated to one another for mutual support and support of dependents, and if legal spousal obligations have no basis in the gender of the spouse, what purpose does a law requiring that a marital partnership consist of one man and one woman serve? (EXACTLY!)

8. The California Family Code requires that registered domestic partners be treated as spouses. Businesses that extend benefits to married spouses in California must extend equal benefits to registered domestic partners. If, under California law, registered domestic partners are to be treated just like married spouses, what purpose is served by differentiating – in name only – between same-sex and opposite-sex unions? (Perception and bigotry need little to be maintained…)

9. What evidence, if any, shows whether infertility has ever been a legal basis for annulment or divorce?

10. How should the failure of the Briggs Initiative (Proposition 6 in 1978) or the LaRouche Initiative (Proposition 64 in 1986) be viewed in determining whether gays and lesbians are politically powerless?

11. What are the constitutional consequences if the evidence shows that sexual orientation is immutable for men but not for women? Must gay men and lesbians be treated identically under the Equal Protection Clause?

12. How many opposite-sex couples have registered as domestic partners under California law? Are domestic partnerships between opposite-sex partners or same-sex partners recognized in other jurisdictions? If appropriate, the parties may rely on documents subject to judicial notice to answer this question.

13. Do domestic partnerships create legal extended family relationships or in-laws?

14. What does the evidence show regarding the difficulty or ease with which the State of California regulates the current system of opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partnerships?

15. If the court finds Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, what remedy would “yield to the constitutional expression of the people of California’s will”?

Doc 677

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=32724803&access_key=key-jssxoh15lutku7zmgyn&page=1&viewMode=list

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

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.

News

‘War Is Peace’: White House’s Navarro Mocked Over Claim Tariffs Are ‘Tax Cuts’

Published

on

Peter Navarro, Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing, says the White House likes “where we’re at” with tariffs—which he insists are “tax cuts,” despite broad disagreement from economists. Navarro also says President Trump’s tariffs have brought in $100 billion in six months, but he also insists that that money is paid by foreign countries. Ultimately, tariffs are generally paid—at least in part—by consumers, as higher prices for imported goods or for domestic products that rely on imported components.

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday (videos below), Navarro said, “when we put tariffs on the foreign countries, particularly the ones that depend on us the most, they have to eat the tariffs.”

“So tariffs, they’re not tax hikes, they’re tax cuts,” Navarro insisted.

“We’ve had $100 billion so far we raised in six months. We’re gonna have trillions over the ten years, and that’s going to pay for the big, beautiful bill. Tax cuts and debt reduction by the tune of about $2 trillion.”

READ MORE: ‘Trust in Trump’: White House Touts ‘Incredible’ Economy as Inflation Jumps

“We like where we’re at,” he claimed.

Navarro also insisted that “the reason why tariffs don’t cause negative impacts like inflation is because these countries, they depend so heavily on us. Europe, China, go around the world. They just live, they feast off us with unfair trade practices.”

“When we say, ‘No, you can’t come in unless you pay this tariff,’ they got to eat the tariff,” he again insisted, neglecting to state that the importer, and, ultimately, the consumer, pays most or all of the cost of the tariffs.

FactCheck.org, analyzing some of Navarro’s claims on tariffs back in April, reported that “tariffs, also known as customs duties, are a tax increase on the U.S. importers who pay the tariffs – not foreign countries. And because those importers often pass at least some of those costs on to U.S. consumers through price hikes, tariffs are considered to be regressive taxes that affect lower-income households more than others as a percentage of income.”

READ MORE: ‘Total Nonsense’: Stephen Miller Blasted Over ‘Wonders’ of Life ‘When Illegals Are Gone’

Responding to Navarro’s claim that tariffs are tax cuts, journalist Aaron Rupar, founder of Public Notice, wrote: “War is peace.”

Professor of Law Joseph Mastrosimone wrote: “Good lord this man is insanely stupid. And he is a senior White House Counselor. Right on brand.”

Joe Walsh, the former GOP congressman turned political commentator and a Democrat, called Navarro’s claim: “Utter b——-.”

Watch the videos below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Go Home’: Noem Tells Farmers to Help Their Undocumented Workers ‘Self Deport’

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Trust in Trump’: White House Touts ‘Incredible’ Economy as Inflation Jumps

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is crediting President Donald Trump with what she described as an “incredible economic turnaround in just six months.” However, inflation continues to rise under his administration, and the data she cited highlighted only a selective set of favorable economic indicators.

Americans “saw prices for new and used vehicles and airfares dropped last month,” Leavitt enthusiastically declared on Thursday during a press briefing.

“In addition, prices for gas, fuel oil, energy commodities, hotels, airfare, public transportation, and fresh vegetables are all down over last year,” she claimed.

“As we said all along, trust in President Trump. The American dream is back and everyday families are already reaping the benefits of this incredible economic turnaround in just six months.”

READ MORE: ‘Total Nonsense’: Stephen Miller Blasted Over ‘Wonders’ of Life ‘When Illegals Are Gone’

Her statements highlighted positive data while leaving out ongoing inflation concerns.

Prices for new and used vehicles did drop last month, but both are up over the past 12 months: 0.2% for new vehicles and a hefty 2.8% for used cars and trucks, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks all these items and publishes the monthly inflation rate.

Overall, inflation last month rose to an annual rate of 2.7%, the highest level in months.

The cost of food is up 3% over last year. Electricity is up 5.8% over last year, and utility (piped) gas service is up a massive 14.2% over last year.

READ MORE: ‘Go Home’: Noem Tells Farmers to Help Their Undocumented Workers ‘Self Deport’

Shelter is up 3.8%, and medical and transportation services are both up 3.4% over last year.

Economists cite the President’s tariffs, now beginning to take effect, along with rising costs for food, energy, and rent as the reasons for the increase in inflation.

The White House appears to be attempting to head off public concern.

“Worsening inflation poses a political challenge for President Donald Trump, who promised during last year’s presidential campaign to immediately lower costs,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Republican Says Trump on Immigration Could Be Like Lincoln Was for Slavery

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Fear Is the Tool of the Tyrant’: Maurene Comey, Fired by Trump DOJ, Sounds Alarm

Published

on

Maurene Comey, the veteran federal prosecutor who led the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was fired Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Justice amid a sweeping Trump administration scandal over its refusal to release the so-called Epstein files. Now, she has a few words of advice for her former colleagues at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.

“If a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain,” wrote Comey, in a letter obtained by Politico. “Do not let that happen.”

Maurene Comey served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and is the daughter of the also-fired former FBI Director James Comey, who reportedly is under investigation by the Trump DOJ.

READ MORE: ‘Total Nonsense’: Stephen Miller Blasted Over ‘Wonders’ of Life ‘When Illegals Are Gone’

“Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else.”

Also in her letter, which Politico’s Kyle Cheney posted (below), Comey wrote: “Yesterday was unexpectedly my last day in the Office. I was summarily fired via memo from Main Justice that did not give a reason for my termination. Every person lucky enough to work in this office constantly hears four words to describe our ethos: Without Fear or Favor. Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons without fear of retribution and without favor to the powerful.”

“For the majority of my nearly ten years in SDNY, the hard part seemed to be acting ‘without favor.’ That is, making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law,” she explained. “Fear was never really conceivable. We don’t fear bad press; we have the luxury of exceptional security keeping us physically safe; and, so long as we did our work with integrity, we would get to keep serving the public in this office.”

She lamented, “we have entered a new phase where ‘without fear’ may be the challenge.”

Read Comey’s letter below or at this link.

READ MORE: Republican Says Trump on Immigration Could Be Like Lincoln Was for Slavery

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.