Can a Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage that Was Valid at its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California’s Existin

03/02/09 ADF Alliance Alert: This alert announces the availability of:

Lois A. Weithorn, Can a Subsequent Change in Law Void a Marriage that Was Valid at its Inception? Considering the Legal Effect of Proposition 8 on California’s Existing Same-Sex Marriages (February 27, 2009). Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 60, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1350579

OPM denies health-care benefits to same-sex partmers of two federal judiciary employees

03/02/09 Daily Journal (subscription required): The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which manages civil service employees, has declined to follow rulings by 9th Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinsky that same-sex spouses of two federal judiciary attorneys are entitled to health care benefits. Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's national marriage project, suspects that "when more senior people [at OPM] look at [OPM's action] and think it through, they'll realize they were making a basic mistake."

Does a State Violate the First Amendment by Requiring Disclosure of the Identity of Donors in Ballot Initiative Campaigns?

03/01/09 Leonard Link: New York Law School Professor Arthur Leonard comments on ProtectMarriage.com v. Bown, 2009 Westlaw 440211 (E.D.Cal.), and Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena, Inc. v. Unsworth, 2009 Westlaw 455522. These rulings concern the reach of campaign disclosure laws with respect to supporters of Prop. 8 and Montana's constitutional initiative to deprive same-sex couples the right to marry.

Starr frames Prop 8 as about "progressive populism"

02/28/09 hunter of justice blog: Gorgetown University Law Professor Nan Hunter posts excerpts of statements by Kenneth Starr at a "at a Harvard Law School Federalist Society event on the topic of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in business-related cases." Some students asked him questions about his role in the Prop. 8 litigation. He said that he took the case because it conerns "the intent of the people. ... The intent of the people was a complete restoration of the original definition [of marriage]."

LA Times provides a primer on Prop. 8 legal arguments

03/01/09 Los Angeles Times: Nicholas Goldberg is deputy editor of The Times' editorial pages. She provides "a cheater's guide to the issues at hand."

03/01/09 Contra Costa Times: Reporter Josh Richman also summarizes the legal arguments, with a focus on amicus briefs submitted by religious organizations for and against Prop. 8. Yes On 8 was unable to help Richman identify Prop. 8 supporters in the East Bay for interviews. The article has a timeline on "Same-sex marriage in California."

Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter: DUELING LAWYERS IN PROP 8 CASE ARE A STUDY IN OPPOSITES

03/01/09 Sacramento Bee: “This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians,” Shannon Minter said. “If the court were to say it’s OK … then no one’s rights would mean very much.” Although Kenneth Starr declined interview requests, his co-counsel, Andrew Pugno, of Protect Marriage - Yes on 8, advanced his own counter-historical idea of a constitution's foundation: “Minority rights exist only because the majority decided to protect them by adopting a constitution. If the court misinterprets those rights, it’s the people’s job to correct that by clarifying the constitution.”

Desert Sun Editorial: Editorial: State Supreme Court should invalidate Prop. 8

03/01/09 Desert Sun: "Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriages, only serves to allow the fundamental constitutional rights of one group of people to be stripped away by a majority vote."