Prop. 8: Protesters on both sides of gay-marriage issue make their views known outside courthouse

Dozens of demonstrators on both sides of the same-sex marriage question carried signs outside the downtown federal  courthouse in San Francisco on Monday morning, as arguments on Proposition 8 began before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Some anti-gay-marriage protesters shouted and carried signs that referenced "God's Law." On the other side, gay rights supporters held signs calling for marriage equality. A strong police presence watched over it all.

Inside, the courtroom was packed with media and lawyers, as were several overflow rooms.
A randomly chosen three-judge panel will hear an appeal of an August ruling by San Francisco’s Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled after a trial that the 2008 ballot measure defining marriage as only between a man and a woman  violated the U.S. Constitution.

The appeals court is considering two questions: whether opponents of same-sex marriage have legal authority to appeal Walker’s ruling and whether the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated the marriage ban in California violates federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

The randomly chosen panel includes Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a California liberal appointed by President Carter; Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative from Idaho appointed by President George W. Bush; and Judge Michael Hawkins, a moderate Democratic appointee whose vote is expected to be critical.

“It’s a very favorable panel for the challengers to Proposition 8,” said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and expert on the 9th Circuit.

Hawkins, an Arizonan appointed by President Clinton, “is the one to watch most closely,” Hellman said. He has sided with liberals in some key cases and will probably cast the decisive vote in the case if there is a split decision, Hellman and other analysts said.

Besides looking for clues to Hawkins’ leanings, legal analysts said they would pay close attention to any comments from the judges on Walker’s factual findings. Walker ruled that the trial evidence showed that homosexuality was not easily changed and that children of same-sex couples fare just as well as those in opposite-sex households.

Monday’s extraordinary two-hour session began at 10 a.m. and is being broadcast live on CSPAN. Latimes.com also will blog about the hearing live and post expert opinion from three law professors as they watch it.

Some of the nation’s top lawyers will be making the arguments. Representing the challengers to Proposition 8, David Boies will argue that opponents of gay marriage lack authority to appeal, and Theodore Olson will handle the constitutional issues. Charles Cooper, a Washington-based lawyer, will represent ProtectMarriage.com, the sponsors of Proposition 8. All three have strong track records.

FULL COVERAGE:

Proposition 8

Editorial: The Prop. 8 show

Judge refuses to withdraw from same-sex marriage case

Prop. 8 hearing on gay marriage will be televised by C-SPAN

Same-sex marriage and Prop 8 coverage on L.A. Now

--Maura Dolan in San Francisco

 Photo: Testimony in Prop. 8 trial. Credit: CSPAN

Comments

[Phillip]

LOL....awesome picture on the front page! I agree SF Giants fans deserve to marry their manpanions!

[S.G.]

Just allow gay people to get married already! If gay people want to experience how marriage sucks, let them. The wedding industry will be raking in the dough.

[smith]

I oppose prop 8 and hope the Ninth circuit holds it unconstitutional. But no one should argue against standing for the supporters of Prop 8: it will tarnish the result and the court's image.

The people obligated to defend Prop 8--the Governor and the AG--didn't, based on their personal view of Prop 8's legality or desireability.

Millions of people already feel as if they have been disenfranchised in the case by the trial judge who let the supporters speak but treated them as if they had no genuine standing to appear.

To argue that there is no NO ONE able to defend the Proposition voted for by 7 million people reduces the court to the plaything of the powerful and like-minded. Its a mistake. I hope the Ninth circuit will not let that happen.

[reelman]

Honestly does anyone believe that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will not over turn the will of the California voters, the most liberal court in the most liberal city! Once again the will of the people will be violated by liberalism and the social engineering we have today.

[Al]

It is amazing to think that, in 2010, there are actually tax-paying americans that would spend their hard earned time and money trying to keep two guys from getting married.

Imagine all the good they could do if they put there effort into something worthwhile......

[Lenny]

"Consistency is the Last Refuge of the Unimaginative", ie the conservatives....... Peace all ya'll, keep your religious beliefs outta my house.

[Lenny]

"Once again the will of the people will be violated by liberalism "

I love that argument. Truth is the voters vote their emotions & the court rules the constitution. no brainer. xoxo, L

[Anthony Keller]

I have no doubt justice will prevail, and that marriage equality will become the norm, but as I watched the case unfold, I am starting to see a larger question put before the court which is who has standing in the initiative process when those who are elected to office refuse to enforce an initiative voted into law, or in this case, refuse to appeal a court decision. This question has the potential to effect people from both sides of the isle.

The question raised continues to nip at the heels of a failed initiative process which, in most cases, enacts legislation based on premeditated irrational reactionism, which in turn allows out of state interests (carpetbaggers) a chance to exploit residents of our state.