Update on CMA in Federal Court

Maura Dolan has the Los Angles Times article.

In the first hearing on a federal challenge to Proposition 8, a judge reminded lawyers Thursday that the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage measure would be determined by higher courts and that his job was to give them as many facts and findings as possible.

Here are the facts:

[It's all below the fold; make the jump if you want to read it.]

1. The federal and state constitutions were both written with the assumption that marriage unites a bride and a groom.

2. Precedents in federal courts, including SCOTUS, affirm that there isn’t a right to a neutered state marriage license.

3. Congress and President Bill Clinton affirmed this in 1996 with the passage of DOMA.

4. The people of California affirmed this in 2000 with the passage of Prop 22.

5. Californians were in the process of placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot to reaffirm this notion in 2007/2008.

6. The California Supreme Court decided to neuter state marriage licensing in 2008, knowing full well that the people of California would be voting on the marriage amendment later that year.

7. The court refused to stay their decision, causing a period of neutered marriage licensing in the state.

8. The people of California amended their constitution in November 2008 to restore bride+groom marriage licensing.

9. In 2009, the California Supreme Court rightly concluded that the people of California amended their constitution.

10. None of this violates equal access/protection principles.

Done!

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, appearing before a packed courtroom, also declined to suspend Proposition 8 before trial, noting that such a move would create too much uncertainty for the state and same-sex couples who would marry.

As expected.

Olson said the couples had asked for a preliminary injunction because they preferred "the uncertainty of the ultimate outcome in this case to the certainty of having irreparable harm done to them."

There is no harm being done whatsoever. California treats domestic partners as spouses, so even though two women choose not get married by finding consenting grooms, they can still have a relationship together and be treated as though they are wives.

Depending on Walker's ultimate ruling, a full trial on the measure could help supporters of marriage rights because higher courts would be inclined to respect the judge's evaluation of various witnesses and reports.

What does this mean? A bunch of people are going to get on a stand and whine about their feelings being hurt? What about self-government by the people of California? What about our votes? What about our right not to have someone - especially the government - counterfeit what we consider extremely important? The government did not create marriage. It recognized and licensed it.

Walker, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is viewed as independent. The next hearing in the case is scheduled Aug. 19.

Even some of his "conservative" appointments have shown that they are activists towards the Left, so this will be interesting.