Recent Updates
May 11, 2010
Polanski Getting Desperate
April 26, 2010
Polanski One Step Closer to L.A.?
April 19, 2010
L.A.'s "dopest" lawyer - Allison Margolin
March 31, 2010
Tough Times for Sex Harassment Lawyer Philip Kay
March 31, 2010
Polanski Files Another Emergency Appeal
March 10, 2010
Rodney Alcala Gets Death Sentence
March 10, 2010
Big Time Lawyer Enters Dodgers Divorce Battle
March 02, 2010
Closing Arguments Approach in Prop 8 Trial
March 02, 2010
Remember Enron?
February 19, 2010
Nancy Kissel Murder Conviction Overturned
Archives
Closing Arguments Approach in Prop 8 Trial
Posted by: David Ring
March 02, 2010
Topic: Prop 8 Landmark Trial
Both sides in the battle over gay marriage recently filed their closing legal briefs with the federal court. The next step: closing arguments.
The federal judge presiding over the case will review the lengthy briefs and then schedule closing arguments. It will be a shame if those arguments are not televised or at least put up on YouTube after the fact.
To put the entire matter in context, this is how it all came about: The City of San Francisco made gay marriage legal. Many gays took advantage of the law and got married. Opponents sued, saying the SF law was illegal and unconstitutional. The case went to the California Supreme Court, who ruled the law was legal and upheld the rights of gays to marry. Opponents of gay marriage then put Prop 8 on the ballot and voters approved it. Prop 8 basically eliminated the Supreme Court's ruling and instead allowed "marriage" to exist only between a man and a woman, which became part of the California constitution. Those in favor of gay marriage filed this federal lawsuit, arguing that Prop 8 is discriminatory and was the result of animus against gays. At trial, the proponents of gay marriage showed that churches and the conservative right were major backers of Prop 8 because they morally disapproved of gays marrying. The proponents argued that Prop 8 is simply unconstitutional and the Supreme Court ruling allowing gays to marry should stand.
The opponents of gay marriage argued during the federal trial that the voters' will should be upheld and that there are legitimate reasons for banning gay marriage.
Those viewing the trial seemed to agree the lawyers in favor of gay marriage steam-rolled the lawyers against gay marriage at the trial. The federal judge deciding the case seems receptive to rule that gays can and should be allowed to marry.
Closing arguments could take place in April or May.