New Orleans same-sex couple sues for marriage license

06/29/09 Times-Picayune (source: ADF Alliance Alert):

ADF Alliance Alert identified an earlier article about Bonilla v. Hurst, a pro se lawsuit in Lousiana in which a same-sex couple claims that the state constitutional ban on gay marrige violates due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

"The arguments against gay marriage are pretty silly, " [plaintiff Kristoffer] Bonilla said. "As history progresses, you can't make silly arguments anymore ... There is a deep personal meaning of what it feels like to be a second-class citizen, to be told that my love is unworthy of state recognition."

Judge Walker allows attorney James Brosnahan and law professor Tobias to file Equality California's amicus brief in Perry v. Schwarzenneger

06/27/09 order by Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al. (N.D.Cal. 3:09-cv-02292, filed May 22, 2009):

Judge Vaughn has granted the motion by James Brosnahan and Tobias Wolff to file an amicus brief on behalf of Equality California. The brief has not yet been filed.

Attorneys joining Alliance Defense Fund to represent Prop 8 Official Proponents in Perry v. Schwarzenneger

06/30/09 orders by Judge Vaughn Walker, granting motions of several Cooper & Kirk attorneys to represent Prop 8 Official Proponents, in Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al. (N.D.Cal. 3:09-cv-02292, filed May 22, 2009):

Judge Walker has granted motions of Charles J. Cooper, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., Pete Patterson, and David H. Thompson - all of Cooper & Kirk - to represent ProtectMarriage.com / Yes on 8 and other proposed intervenors in the case.

Several of these attorneys have served in Republican administrations. According to the firm's website,

The firm's chairman, Charles J. Cooper, served in the Department of Justice as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan Administration.

Nielson was Counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Peterson was Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush in the White House Counsel's Office. Among his accomplishments, Thompson's firm profile references his work defending California Prop. 209 and challenging the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance reform.

San Francisco federal judge to hear latest legal challenge to Proposition 8 (Perry v. Schwarzenneger)

06/29/09 San Jose Mercury News (Source: Stop8.org):

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker on Thursday [July 2nd] will consider arguments on whether to block Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution last November and barred gay and lesbian couples from being legally married in the state ...

With tough legal hurdles to persuade federal judges to block state laws at such an early stage, legal experts say the odds are against Walker granting the injunction request. But experts say it is more of a tossup to predict whether Olson and Boies succeed in their ultimate goal, which is prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Both outcomes are available,'' said Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor following the issue closely. "But it's not inconceivable the courts may think it's too soon for the federal courts to weigh in and settle the matter one way or the other.''

No Regrets on Prop 8, Chief Justice Ronald George Tells The Recorder

06/29/09 The Recorder (subscription required):

SAN FRANCISCO — As much as he might have liked to see his landmark ruling favoring same-sex marriage stand, Chief Justice Ronald George knew he was doing the "right thing" when he upheld Proposition 8 late last month.

"It was so clear to me that was the only right thing to do," he said in an interview Friday. "I've been on the bench for 37 years and have had to let the law take me where it had to, regardless of my own personal views."

"In the marriage cases, I felt the court honored its obligation to apply the limitations that the people had placed upon their own legislative authority by enacting our state Constitution," George said. "And in the Prop 8 case, the court was honoring its obligation to uphold the people's will as expressed in their desire to amend the Constitution."

A political reason for including substantive religious-liberty exemptions in the California Marriage Equality Act Initiative?

06/23/09 National Journal (source: Gay Marriage Watch):

This article concerns the scope of religious-liberty exemptions that several New England states have included in their marriage-equality laws. The National Journal also reports on the law professors who advocated for these exemptions. One of the law professors, Douglas Laycock, is a scholar on religious liberty and the law. He believes that such exemptions represent a good-faith effort to accommodate religious opponents of marriage-equality laws who object that the laws force them to violate the tenets of their faith. Substantive religious-liberty protections may, in fact, make a crucial difference in battleground states like California:

Compromising on exemptions won't win over every Christian conservative in the country -- and it doesn't need to, argued Laycock, an expert on religious liberty. Many gay-marriage opponents are worried that they will somehow be made complicit in same-sex unions, he argued. Neutralizing that concern could be the key to tipping the scales in some states.

"In California, you only needed to flip 2 percent of voters," Laycock said, referring to Proposition 8's victory last November by a 52-48 margin. "If you put in the religious exemption, I think you flip that 2 percent."

Laycock's comments have bearing on the California Marriage Equality Act Initiative, even though Laycock did not mention it. The latest version of that Initiative does little more than provide lip-service to the idea of protecting religious liberty. If Laycock is right, Yes on Equality, the Initiative's proponent, would have political reason to consider at least some of the adopted protections. The National Journal reports that Chris Edelson, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, supports (some of?) the exemptions, and so did Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

First Amended Complaint in State Class Action Lawsuit Filed in California Challenging New Constitutional Amendment Limiting Marriage to Heterosexuals

06/26/09 PR Newswire (press release of Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy):

On June 26th, plaintiff attorney Waukeen McCoy filed an amended complaint in the class action lawsuit Burns v. State of California (San Francisco Sup. Ct., Case No. CGC-08-481908, filed 11/14/08). McCoy represented plaintiffs in the In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court decision that invalidated statutes limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

This lawsuit [now] claims that section 7.5 of Article I [of the California constitution, setting out the language of Prop. 8] violates the equal protection clause of the State Constitution. McCoy said, "we chose to bring this lawsuit in State Court rather than in Federal Court because sexual orientation is a protected class under California State Law and it is not recognized in Federal Law."

The amended complaint is not (yet) available at the website of the San Francisco Superior Court, so it is unclear whether McCoy has somehow raised an equal-protection issue that the California Supreme Court has not already decided in Srauss v. Horton. Unless he has, the Superior Court will likely dismiss the case, and the dismissal will likely be sustained if appealed.

The lawsuit began as a challenge to the state constitutionality of Prop. 8.