A federal judge in California is preparing to rule whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Testimony began January 11 in San Francisco and could last for weeks in a case expected to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Representatives of the homosexual community as well as experts from both sides of the debate are expected to testify. The Los Angeles Times says the trial is unprecedented and quotes attorney Andy Pugno in explaining why: "Actually putting witnesses on the stand has never been done before in any lawsuit claiming a right to same-sex marriage, so this is a very out-of-the-ordinary approach."

The case is Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, and it challenges the gay-marriage ban known as Proposition 8 approved in November 2008 by 52 percent of California voters. The plantiffs, two same-sex couples from the San Francisco area, are suing the State of California for violating what they say is their constitutional right to marry. Their attorneys, David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, gained fame in the Supreme Court case that resolved the 2000 presidential election and declared George W. Bush the victor in Florida. Olson represented Bush in that case, and Boies was Gore's attorney.

The California Supreme Court upheld the legality of Proposition 8 in a ruling in May 2009, but Perry vs. Scharzenegger was filed three days prior. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, a Republican appointee with a history of supporting same-sex marriage, will rule in the case once testimony is complete. Last week, Walker ruled the trial proceedings could be uploaded on YouTube, but the Supreme Court stepped in to temporarily ban video coverage, as reported by The Washington Post. Same-sex marriage opponents requested the stay, which expires on Wednesday, December 13.

Project Marriage is a coalition of individuals and groups who defend the traditional definition of marriage. Project Marriage actively campaigned for Proposition 8, and their representatives are among the witnesses scheduled to testify in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. The group's website explains the importance of the case: "A ruling to overturn Prop 8 could nullify the marriage laws in 45 states and imperil the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]." Under DOMA, the federal government defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, and the law also guarantees that no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

The website goes on to note that the Perry case "is the first marriage case in the history of the nation where a judge has allowed the thoughts, motivations, and personal beliefs of an initiative's sponsors to be put on trial to search for 'improper' intent." Project Marriage spokesmen will testify that marriage involves interests "broader than the personal, private special interests of the adults involved," especially "interests respecting natural childrearing."

The Los Angeles Times reports that the four plantiffs will take the stand, as will a handful of academics who plan to relate the "history of discrimination against homosexuals and the history of marriage." Their message will convey the belief that Proposition 8 discriminates against homosexuals and that same-sex marriage does not undermine heterosexual marriage.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Flu-Bird said:

The will of the voters The voters spoke but it apparently hasnt registered with the left-wing ACLU and a small but vocal minority forccing their unnatureral and immoral lifestyles on us all

January 11, 2010

Richard Robinson said:

Constitution Show me WHERE in the Constitution does it say that marriage is protected.

January 12, 2010

Chuck Anziulewicz said:

Opposite-sex "Marriage" a Constitutional Right? The word "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution, so technically there is no right for ANYONE, Gay or Straight to get married. However, all levels of government have taken a vested interest in marriage for various legal benefits, protections and responsibilities. At the federal level alone there are over 1,100 such benefits that are automatically confered on couples once they get legally married, most notably when it comes to tax law and Social Security. So the question becomes this: Why should law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits, protections and responsibilities that married couples take for granted, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities? If the government still considers "marriage" to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes "marriage" to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.

January 12, 2010 | url

Bonnie said:

A higher constitution What is a constitution? A constitution is the fundamental laws and principles that govern a people or state. It is generally recorded as a document. The United States Constitution was established as a set of laws and principles for the United States, and it is often said to be the supreme law of the land. It truth, it is not supreme. There is one (and only one) constitution which takes precedent over the U.S. Constitution. This is the constitution which lays out the laws and principles for ALL mankind, although there are many who do not wish to abide by it. These laws and principles are documented in the Bible, and were given by the Supreme Law Giver, God Himself. This constitution DOES mention marriage, and in it, marriage is defined as the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Not recognizing or wanting to abide by the highest constitution does not invalidate said constitution. All that is accomplished is that the individuals who fail to comply become law breakers. There is a penalty.

January 12, 2010

Christina said:

... Marriage is not merely a contract but a covenant. Our rights are not given to us by the government, they (rights) are given to us by God. Remember people what the gov't gives, the gov't takes. Remember who Created you, who you are and who's you are. JMJ

January 12, 2010

Ryan said:

Hmmm I find it odd with all the fuss around gay marriage. A relationship shouldn't be defined by the government or any persons surrounding the relationship. At it's core, a relationship of any kind is defined by only 2 people. So why the need to have some validation on paper? Is the marriage really about the relationship? Or the recognition? Or the financial benefits? If the recognition is as important as the relationship then I say we should also be going to the courthouse for any friends we acquire in life as well. If it's about the financial benefits then there's a fault in motive for defining the relationship. It seems these days friends are free but life long best friends have to be attached to some financial plus. Be it on paper, in public, or in private, a relationship of any kind is truly up to the individuals agreeing to live life together with an equal understanding and commitment.

January 12, 2010

Zelmer Zootinheimer said:

Chuck is confused... The fact that the Constitution does not grant a right does not mean that it does not exist. In reality the Constitution only protects certain rights from infringement by the Federal Government. The Constitution is a framework for the Federal Government, on how it is set up and how it operates. I'm not fan of Gay marriage but I'll give you some advice: If you want to protect your lifestyle and your liberties you must fight to LIMIT government. The Federal Government was never meant to even consider marriage. It's outside of it's scope. Such things were left to the people and the states to decide. So instead of railing against one groups right to marry, try railing against the unconstitutionality of the tax code itself, and just about everything else the Feds do. Lets just get rid of all of these stupid benefits. I would like to see governments not bother with marriage licenses for anyone. Marriage has nothing to do with the police power and thus should have no attachment to any government. That said, I wish the gay community would come up with their own word for their relationship. The word marriage should be left as the traditional union of a man and a woman. If a gay union is such a special thing, then make up a new and special term to describe it.

January 13, 2010