Ruth Institute Blog

Cooper’s rebuttal:

If the judge has an interest in the outcome, he has an obligation to reveal it.

It was the plaintiffs who continually put forth evidence that 64% of gays in CA, in committed long-term relationships, would want to get married.  Hence, it is the fact that Walker was in a relationship, not the fact that he is gay, that merits disclosure at least, and possible recusal. Read more…

Therese Stewart:

A seal order doesn’t preclude the parties from revisiting the question of whether the seal should be opened.  She seems to think that the Proponents shouldn’t have relied on this promise so seriously.

Rhinehart: the potential for broadcast has been eliminated.

Stewart seems to say that rule only pertains to media coverage immediately of the court proceedings, basing this only on the letter by Judge Kozinski. Read more…

3:05 PM, PST,

Judge Hawkins:

Were your clients under the impression that the tapes would be sealed forever?

David Thompson:

No, only for 10 years, at which time, an extension could be asked for, and possibly given.

Plaintiffs want to know, what are the harms?

DT says, four harms: Read more…

3: 30 PM PST, Thomas Burke, from Media Coalition

First brings up the claim that since Walker’s objectivity is in question, we should have access to the tapes.

Rhinehart stops him and urges him to stick to the point: which is the issue of the video tapes.

The guy is in over his head. Read more…

Sitting here in the federal court building at the corner of Mission and 7^th in Down town SF.  Things are much calmer, both inside and outside the court, compared with other times I’ve been to these hearings.  Only a handful of people were outside at the Pre-Game warm-up Equality rally. They have the same signs they had a year ago, from the looks of it, and fewer people holding them. Read more…

I just came from Mass in honor of the feast of the Immaculate Conception. I will soon head off to the airport to go to SF, for the Prop 8 trial.  It is fitting that this trial take place on this feast day.  I realize that many of my readers are not Catholic, and think such a feast is a lot of mumbo jumbo.  But let me explain the vision behind the Immaculate Conception, and suggest why it offers a hopeful alternative to our current cultural morass.

The first point is the meaning of the feast itself.  We celebrate Mary’s conception without the stain of original sin.  We hold that original sin causes weakness of the will, darkness of the intellect and forgetfulness in the memory. Have you ever experienced any of those things, dear reader of any religion or no religion? Then you know what I’m talking about. The effects of original sin are part of the universal human condition.  Read more…

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011

Tomorrow afternoon beginning at 2:30 pm PT / 5:30 pm ET, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will be hearing oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8.

The three-judge panel, while continuing to deliberate on the constitutionality of Prop 8, will additionally be hearing oral arguments on whether Judge Walker broke the law when he allowed the public release of videotapes of the original Prop 8 trial and whether Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 should be reversed because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time. Read more…

Ruling Clears Way for Prop 8 to Eventually Head to the US Supreme Court

Washington – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the decision of the California Supreme Court recognizing that California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend their own initiative, and predicted the ruling would speed the case to the US Supreme Court where NOM expects a victory.  NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8 to the ballot and has invested substantial funds in the defense of the initiative in court. Read more…

by johnpauliiismyhero

… In the first one from the Washington Post, he lays out the basic argument.  The public discourse on gay marriage has reached the point where there is no rational discourse.  In the eyes of our culture, to oppose gay marriage is tantamount to ignorance, bigotry, or hate.  Ironically, the replies he received in the Post simply served to prove his point.  The summary of the brief article is that the public square has embraced the following game-plan: 1) first, contend that there is no such thing as a rational argument for traditional marriage, 2) then reaffirm the mistaken position that faith—as a purely personal exercise—has nothing to do with reason, and 3) finally, espouse both positions in court rulings. Read more…

by Becky Yeh

One pro-family leader is calling for Christians to be courageous in their stance for biblical values in light of a ruling that exposes supporters of a California marriage law. Read more…

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published at Mercatornet.com September 16, 2011.

Last week’s hearing in the California Supreme Court on whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to defend the measure in court seemed to go well for the defenders of natural marriage. But another issue lies beneath the surface of the court arguments. The issue is what kind of people are the marriage redefiners: Ted Olsen, Rob Reiner, and the American Foundation for Equal Rights? Read more…

When I went to San Francisco last week to cover the Prop 8 trial, I indicated that I would be watching for something specific from the Marriage Redefiners.  Will they try to distinguish their case:

That is, will they try to come up with some argument that distinguishes the Proponents of Prop 8 from Proponents of other potential ballot initiatives.  If they make no attempt to do that, we might conclude that they don’t care whether they destroy the initiative process. They just want what they want, and they don’t care about collateral damage.

            I knew that I cared about this, as a fundamental issue of fairness and good government. Will the Marriage Redefinition Crusaders gut the initiative process, just to get the outcome they want? I wasn’t prepared for the extent to which the justices of the CA Supreme Court cared. Read more…

My earlier post, called “Rob Reiner, the Founder of the Feast,” prompted a call for citations.  How do I know that Rob Reiner is bankrolling the Prop 8 legal challenges?  Basically, because he has said so, and because Ted Olsen thanked him for it.

Look at the website for the American Foundation for Equal Rights.  The president of that organization claims to be the “sole sponsor of the Perry case,” in the video on the lower right hand corner. Also, you can see Rob Reiner in the video at 6:30. Ted Olsen thanks him and his wife for their support around 7:30 on the video.

Rob Reiner is proud of his involvement and has never hidden it.  See articles here:  and here.

You can also look at the 990 form for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Read more…

Dr J was in San Francisco yesterday for the Prop 8 hearing (to determine standing) in California’s Supreme Court.  While she was there, she was able to interview John Eastman (professor of constitutional law at Chapman University’s school of law and founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence) and Austin Nimocks (senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund and part of its marriage team).  Check ‘em out.

From One News Now:

In the wake of yesterday’s hearing before the California Supreme Court, a pro-family leader is optimistic that supporters of Proposition 8 will have the right to defend the traditional marriage measure in court. A majority of California voters passed the referendum in 2008, but homosexual activists are fighting to get that vote nullified. Read more…

The justices seemed to be concerned about over-reaching on both sides. On one side, they asked, suppose we adopt your theory, Mr. Olsen, and rule that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing  to defend the measure?  What will be left of the initiative process?

On the other side, they asked Chuck Cooper, suppose we adopt your theory that the Proponents do have standing? Do the Proponents act as agents of the state, in place of the Attorney General?  How far does that ability to represent the state’s interest extend? Cooper made it clear that he thought it was possible and proper, for the Proponents’ right to speak for the state should be limited to the specific ballot issue, and nothing  more.

Ted Olsen, on the other hand, seemed to be completely uninterested in the question of the long-range consequences of his legal theory on the future of the initiative process.

They did indeed take our electronic equipment when we entered the courtroom.  Our friends over at the NOM blog were watching the broadcast on TV. They were able to comment in real time, and I wasn’t, even though they were in DC and I was right in the courtroom! Oh well!

I really appreciate everyone coming back over here to the Ruth Blog and checking in with us throughout the day. I will try to make it up to you!

I did try to capture some images and interviews that wouldn’t be available on TV. I will be adding those throughout the evening, while I’m waiting for my plane back to So Cal.  I was able to e-mail a few pix to Betsy, which she uploaded in earlier posts. I’ll go back and provide a bit of commentary on those photos later on.

Bottom line: the judges of the CA Supreme Court were not nice and gentle to Ted Olsen.  I think there is little doubt that they will rule in favor of the proponents having standing to defend Prop 8. The only question is what the vote count will be, what the reasoning will be, and how many individual concurring opinions there will be.

with Dennis Hollingsworth and John Eastman.

Read more…