Day Three from the courtroom in the federal challenge to Proposition 8 brought much success for our Legal Defense team, including well-delivered cross examinations of the plaintiffs' witnesses. If you have not read Andy Pugno’s daily updates from the courthouse, please click here. You’ll read about critical admissions our team has elicited from the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, including that many of the examples of discrimination against gays and lesbians introduced as evidence were long ago, and that there are critical differences in relationships between homosexual and heterosexual couples, undermining the contention that these relationships are the same.
As you have likely read, the United States Supreme Court issued a very favorable ruling to permanently stop the recording and broadcast of proceedings in the Perry trial. Our opponents had convinced the judge that televising this trial is a great opportunity to “educate” the public about same-sex marriage. But as we have repeatedly said, the courts should never become a tool to help advocacy groups sway public opinion. That is what political campaigns are for.
We continue to be pleased with the efforts of our attorneys. However, it is regrettable that Judge Walker has allowed the trial to proceed on the basis he has. Never before has a judge allowed the private views of an initiative’s sponsors and consultants to be used to determine what voters intended when they adopted the measure. Our arguments on this critical element of the litigation are likely to be of much greater interest to a higher court than has been shown by this San Francisco courtroom.
The news media is full of coverage of the trial and various developments. Here are links to some articles that may be of interest, including an insightful piece by Chapman University Law School Dean John C. Eastman.
http://bit.ly/8D7Ofp
As you have likely read, the United States Supreme Court issued a very favorable ruling to permanently stop the recording and broadcast of proceedings in the Perry trial. Our opponents had convinced the judge that televising this trial is a great opportunity to “educate” the public about same-sex marriage. But as we have repeatedly said, the courts should never become a tool to help advocacy groups sway public opinion. That is what political campaigns are for.
We continue to be pleased with the efforts of our attorneys. However, it is regrettable that Judge Walker has allowed the trial to proceed on the basis he has. Never before has a judge allowed the private views of an initiative’s sponsors and consultants to be used to determine what voters intended when they adopted the measure. Our arguments on this critical element of the litigation are likely to be of much greater interest to a higher court than has been shown by this San Francisco courtroom.
The news media is full of coverage of the trial and various developments. Here are links to some articles that may be of interest, including an insightful piece by Chapman University Law School Dean John C. Eastman.
http://bit.ly/8D7Ofp
http://bit.ly/8uQydD
Remember to watch for Andy Pugno’s twice-daily updates from the courthouse. Please keep our attorneys and our witnesses in your prayers, and continue your financial support, which is essential to our success.
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director
Remember to watch for Andy Pugno’s twice-daily updates from the courthouse. Please keep our attorneys and our witnesses in your prayers, and continue your financial support, which is essential to our success.
Sincerely,
Ron Prentice, Executive Director
0 comments:
Post a Comment