Soon after the D.C. law allowing same-sex marriage went into effect, a challenge to the law continued to press on, despite Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court from taking any action to prevent the new law from taking effect.
The National Organization for Marriage is seeking a challenge to the D.C. marriage law in an effort to put the issue on the ballot for voters in the District to decide on the issue, not the city council, taking advantage of a section in the D.C. Charter that allows citizens to gather signatures to place the issue on the ballot. The D.C. Charter allows for two types of citizen-backed measures: a referendum, which applies only to a bill that has passed the council and has yet to go into effect, and an initiative, which can appear on the ballot at any time. The organization already appealed to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who as chief justice oversees D.C. matters; Roberts noted that since Congress and the Court did not take action to stop the law from taking effect the referendum process would not apply but that “the D.C. Court of Appeals will have the chance to consider the relevant legal questions on their merits, and petitioners will have the right to challenge any adverse decision through a petition for certiorari in this Court at the appropriate time.”
However, petitioners from the Alliance Defense Fund and Stand for Marriage D.C. already filed a lawsuit and were pursuing a ballot initiative but were denied by the D.C. Board of Elections and by various courts, which upheld the board’s stance that such an initiative would “authorize discrimination” against homosexuals, a violation of the D.C. Charter and Human Rights Act. In a ruling earlier this year, D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Judith Macaluso stated, “The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board’s decision: the initiative runs afoul of an implied exclusion barring provisions that violates the state’s law,” she ruled. Following the ruling of Judge Macaluso, Chief Justice John Roberts noted to petitioners of the D.C. marriage law that “It has been the practice of the Court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern.”
The historic Proposition 8 trial in California is nearing the final stages as lawyers on both sides of the same-sex marriage argument set out their views on the evidence presented throughout the course of the trial lasting much of January. Conservative republican and former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson is representing a same-sex couple in California challenging the passage of Proposition 8. Lawyers on both sides have one more shot at arguing their case before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in closing arguments before a decision is rendered.
Based upon the ruling issued by Judge Walker, the wording of his decision could have minimal implications for California residents or more far-reaching implications for civil rights at all levels of government:
Prop. 8, approved by 52 percent of the voters in November 2008, amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians. The state court upheld the initiative last May while also upholding 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before Prop. 8 passed.
Because Prop. 8 eliminated rights that the California court had granted, plaintiffs in the federal suit want Walker to put it in the same category as a 1992 Colorado initiative that overturned local gay-rights laws and prohibited future anti-discrimination measures. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Colorado initiative in 1996 and said its sole purpose was to harm a disfavored minority.
Prop. 8’s “express and stated purpose … was to strip gay and lesbian individuals of constitutional rights” they had won in the state court, plaintiffs’ lawyers said. They said Yes on 8 campaign messages “echoed fears that children must be ‘protected’ from gay and lesbian people.”
Walker, sensing the challenge ultimately may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, held a full-blown trial to give each side the opportunity to provide a factual basis for their arguments for and against same-sex marriage.
The trial briefs in many respects reflect the fact the trial was primarily focused on testimony from the plaintiffs’ side, with experts who testified on everything from the history of discrimination against gay people to the scope of gay and lesbian political clout.
The plaintiffs also presented more emotional testimony, including from the two couples themselves and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican who testified on his political change of heart after learning his daughter is lesbian.
Read more in the San Jose Mercury News
Walker, sensing the challenge ultimately may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, held a full-blown trial to give each side the opportunity to provide a factual basis for their arguments
Advertisement
<script language=”JavaScript” type=”text/javascript”> document.write(’<a href=”http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1656enbmk/M=600583983.600604636.406215988.403865905/D=ncnwsloc/S=2022775853:LREC/Y=PARTNER_US/L=d432a648-27a7-11df-b0c1-172c811535f9/B=Tn4bE0wNjZg-/J=1267718761764418/K=XmWQaZGNGVslK974qLbs.w/EXP=1267725961/A=1744684383972861237/R=0/X=2/SIG=12l5lpb8t/*http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/208248087/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01?time=1267718761764418″ target=”_blank”><img src=”http://view.atdmt.com/MRT/view/208248087/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01?time=1267718761764418″/></a>’); </script><noscript><a href=”http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1656enbmk/M=600583983.600604636.406215988.403865905/D=ncnwsloc/S=2022775853:LREC/Y=PARTNER_US/L=d432a648-27a7-11df-b0c1-172c811535f9/B=Tn4bE0wNjZg-/J=1267718761764418/K=XmWQaZGNGVslK974qLbs.w/EXP=1267725961/A=1744684383972861237/R=1/X=2/SIG=12l5lpb8t/*http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/208248087/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01?time=1267718761764418″ target=”_blank”><img border=”0″ src=”http://view.atdmt.com/MRT/view/208248087/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01?time=1267718761764418″/></a></noscript>
for and against same-sex marriage.The trial briefs in many respects reflect the fact the trial was primarily focused on testimony from the plaintiffs’ side, with experts who testified on everything from the history of discrimination against gay people to the scope of gay and lesbian political clout.
The plaintiffs also presented more emotional testimony, including from the two couples themselves and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican who testified on his political change of heart after learning his daughter is lesbian.
“Prop. 8, in effect, communicates the official view that same-sex couples’ committed relationships are of a lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples,” plaintiffs lawyers wrote in their latest papers. “Prop. 8 thus sends a message to gay and lesbian individuals that they are not welcome in California, and it endorses society’s rejection of gay and lesbian relationships.”
The District of Columbia started issuing marriage licensesto same-sex couples at 12:01 am as part of the city’s new civil marriage equality law. According to the Washington Post, at least fifty couples lined up before District office opened to get licenses, and hundreds are expected throughout the day.
The new law means a lot for couples, many of whom never believed they would have the opportunity:
Republican Craig Max has dreamed for years of having the ultimate D.C. wedding — a National Cathedral ceremony, followed by a rooftop reception for 200 overlooking the National Mall at the Kennedy Center. But the Log Cabin Republicans boardmember didn’t expect he’d ever be able to marry his partner, former Supreme Court librarian Michael Zurat, until today.
The couple is one of many same-sex Washington couples who are expected to line up outside the District Superior Courthouse today, the first day that same-sex couples can apply for a marriage license under the District’s new gay marriage law.
The law has many grappling with new, uncharted territory — in both their love lives and work lives.
“Right now we’re in a gray zone between being engaged and fully married and having that commitment,” said Max, who recently gave Zurat an engagement ring. “Now we will actually reach our goal of having a formal and recognized within the traditional definition that we view our relationship.”
It will also give them definition to a four-year relationship, allow them to further solidify estate planning and guarantee them hospital visitation rights that are currently only secured under the District’s domestic partnership rights.
Read more in the Politico.
