Connect with us

Today’s Prop 8 Trial: Ted Olson’s Opening Remarks

Published

on

Ted Olson, the Conservative attorney who, along with Democrat David Boies, are spearheading the battle to overturn Proposition 8, spoke today in federal court. Here are his opening remarks. It’s long (1646 words.) It’s worth it.

I’ve taken the liberty of marking in bold the parts I thought were especially compelling. Here you go:

This case is about marriage and equality.  Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;” a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.

In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is “the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America.  It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union.  It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community.  The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”

Proposition 8 ended the dream of marriage, the most important relation in life, for the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of Californians.

___________________________________

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that under this State’s Constitution, the right to marry a person of one’s choice extended to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, and was available equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage to gay and lesbian citizens.

The plaintiffs are two loving couples, American citizens, entitled to equality and due process under our Constitution.  They are in deeply committed, intimate, and longstanding relationships.  They want to marry the person they love; to enter into that “most important relation in life”; to share their dreams with their partners; and to confer the many benefits of marriage on their families.

But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.

In the words of the California Supreme Court, eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to “second class” citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition.

During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:

First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.

Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.

Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.

I

MARRIAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATION IN LIFE

Plaintiffs will present evidence from leading experts, representing some of the finest academic institutions in this country and the world, who will reinforce what the highest courts of California and the United States have already repeatedly said about the importance of marriage in society and the significant benefits that marriage confers on couples, their families, and the community.  Proponents cannot dispute these basic facts.

While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of the past.  Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated.  These changes have come from legislatures and the courts.  Far from harming the institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its vitality, and its importance in American society today.

II

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose:  to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their previously recognized constitutional right to marry.  The official title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm because they have been given the opportunity to form something called a “domestic partnership.”  That is a cruel fiction.

Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying.  And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

And the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union.  Indeed, the proponents of Proposition 8 acknowledge that domestic partnerships are not the same as traditional marriage.  Proponents proudly proclaim that, under Proposition 8, the “unique and highly favorable imprimatur” of marriage is reserved to “opposite-sex unions.”

This government-sponsored societal stigmatization causes grave psychological and physical harms to gay men and lesbians and their families.  It increases the likelihood that they will experience discrimination and harassment; it causes immeasurable harm.

Sadly, Proposition 8 is only the most recent chapter in our nation’s long and painful history of discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals.  They have been classified as degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote.  Although progress has occurred, the roots of discrimination run deep and its impacts spread wide.

III

PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS FOR NO GOOD REASON

Proposition 8 singles out gay and lesbian individuals alone for exclusion from the institution of marriage.  In California, even convicted murderers and child abusers enjoy the freedom to marry. As the evidence clearly establishes, this discrimination has been placed in California’s Constitution even though its victims are, and always have been, fully contributing members of our society.   And it excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.

The State of California has offered no justification for its decision to eliminate the fundamental right to marry for a segment of its citizens.  And its chief legal officer, the Attorney General, admits that none exists.  And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.

“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8 permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of producing children.   Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking to marry.

Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California.  The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals.  The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart.

And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples.  Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination.  In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry.  Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.

At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens:  (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008,  who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.

There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination.  Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest.  All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored.  And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples.  It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.

It is unconstitutional.

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

‘If It Is the Last Thing I Do’: Musk Vows to Unseat Lawmakers Voting for Budget Bill

Published

on

Billionaire Elon Musk is threatening to target members of Congress for defeat if they support President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” after campaigning on promises to cut government spending. Although Musk did not specifically name a party, no Democrat is expected to back the budget measure.

“Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!” Musk wrote late Monday afternoon, as the Senate began voting on the legislation. “And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.”

Musk’s threat comes after his numerous attacks on the bill—which is critical to Trump’s agenda—based largely on its massive increases to the federal debt.

READ MORE: ‘Stunning Incoherence’: Fox Host Mocked for Spinning Trump’s Work Visa Flip-Flop

“It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!” Musk declared one hour earlier. “Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people.”

New York magazine’s Intelligencer reported on Monday that Musk is “not done” fighting Trump.

“How can you call yourself the Freedom Caucus if you vote for a DEBT SLAVERY bill with the biggest debt ceiling increase in history?” Musk also wrote, lashing out at the far-right caucus, and mentioning two Members by name: U.S. Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, the group’s chairman, and Chip Roy of Texas.

On Saturday, Musk had warned, “The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”

“Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party,” he also warned.

New York magazine noted that “Trump, presumably, isn’t thrilled about Musk’s last-minute attempt to sink his signature legislative package. But so far he’s refrained from hitting back.”

READ MORE: Despite Bill’s $1T Cut Trump Official Insists ‘We’re Not Taking Away Anybody’s Medicaid’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Stunning Incoherence’: Fox Host Mocked for Spinning Trump’s Work Visa Flip-Flop

Published

on

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo is facing criticism for calling President Donald Trump’s latest reversal on undocumented immigrant workers “big news,” after the President floated creating “temporary passes.”

Earlier this month, Trump announced ICE would back off from detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants working on farms and in hotels, only to announce just days later an apparent reversal to that policy, by declaring he would enact “the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History.”

Bartiromo, in a White House interview on Sunday (video below), told Trump that he had “said, let’s ease up on, you know, taking in people that are working hardworking, like, in farms and hotels,” while ignoring his statement from days later.

“I don’t back away,” Trump insisted. “What I do, I cherish our farmers, and when we go into a farm and we take away people that have been working there for 15 and 20 years who who are good, who possibly came in incorrectly, and what we’re gonna do is we’re gonna do something for farmers where we can let the farmers sort of be in charge.”

READ MORE: Despite Bill’s $1T Cut Trump Official Insists ‘We’re Not Taking Away Anybody’s Medicaid’

“The farmer knows, he’s not gonna hire a murderer, but, you know, when you go into a farmer and he’s had somebody working with him for nine years doing this kind of work, which is hard work to do, and a lot of people aren’t gonna do it, and you end up destroying a farmer because you took all the people away,” Trump explained. “It’s a problem.”

Trump announced the White House is “gonna work it so that,” there is “some kind of a temporary pass, where people pay taxes, with a farmer can have a little control as opposed to you walk in and take everybody away.”

On social media, Bartiromo trumpeted: “Big news on the border from my interview @realDonaldTrump is working on a ‘temporary pass’ for workers on farms and in hotels where they pay taxes but it’s up to the farmer for a temporary pass even if they came into the country ‘incorrectly.'”

What Trump described sounds similar to the existing H-2A temporary visa program for agricultural workers.

“The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs,” according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

READ MORE: American Pride Plunges to New Low, Again, Again Under Trump

Critics mocked the Fox News host.

“So a work permit?” snarked U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).

“They just invented the work visa,” mocked retired intelligence officer Travis Akers.

“But wait,” urged former Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky, “we were told Americans would be doing these jobs and that everyone who came into this country illegally would be deported. What could have possibly changed?”

“Donald Trump has no idea what his immigration policy is,” noted Democratic strategist Max Burns.

“Stunning incoherence on his signature policy issue,” observed Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Democratic Reps Say FEMA Cuts Are Leading to Hurricane Katrina-Level Disaster

Continue Reading

News

Despite Bill’s $1T Cut Trump Official Insists ‘We’re Not Taking Away Anybody’s Medicaid’

Published

on

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that the Senate Republicans’ budget bill will slash $1 trillion from Medicaid, but according to Kevin Hassett, the White House Director of the National Economic Council, no one’s Medicaid is being taken away.

The CBO projects the current Republican Senate budget bill will cut $930 billion from Medicaid, but an amendment from Florida GOP Senator Rick Scott would make additional cuts of $313 billion, for a total of $1.24 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, according to The Hill.

But according to the White House’s Kevin Hassett, “we’re not taking away anybody’s Medicaid.”

After Fox News host Bill Hemmer told Hassett on Monday that the White House is “getting hammered on these Medicaid cuts,” Hassett, chuckling, said: “The bottom line is that we’re just, we’re not taking away anybody’s Medicaid. We’re definitely not taking away anybody’s Medicare.”

READ MORE: American Pride Plunges to New Low, Again, Again Under Trump

Hassett insisted that Republicans are merely “going after waste, fraud, and abuse,” and claimed “there’s a heck of a lot of it out there.”

Some experts put the waste, fraud, and abuse numbers—which can include improper payments and errors—at about five percent of Medicaid spending.

Hassett appears to disagree.

“A lot of budget savings have been found by people really in the House, in the Senate—not just conservatives—moderates agree that there’s a lot of money that can be saved. And the bottom line is that we’re, in the end going to balance this budget, and we’ve got to balance this budget by getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, and we’re going to do it.”

The Congressional Budget Office, according to KFF, has also estimated that by 2034 there will be an additional 16 million more uninsured people if the bill is signed into law.

READ MORE: Democratic Reps Say FEMA Cuts Are Leading to Hurricane Katrina-Level Disaster

“The scale of the proposed reductions in Medicaid is unprecedented in the history of the program, which has tended to expand coverage over time since its creation in 1965,” The New York Times reports.

Calling the cuts “savings,” the Times reports the bill in part “would establish a new, strict national work requirement for some people on the program, who would need to demonstrate they had worked at least 80 hours the month before they sign up, or qualified for an exemption.”

More cuts to Medicaid in the bill could be coming. The Times also reports that U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) on Sunday “told reporters that he would propose an amendment that would cut Medicaid even further.”

Watch the video below or at this link.


READ MORE: Ketanji Brown Jackson Compares SCOTUS Planned Parenthood Ruling to Jim Crow in Dissent

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.