Plaintiffs in 'Perry v. Schwarzenegger' File Brief with Ninth Circuit Demanding Prop 8 Decision Stand
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger filed a brief late yesterday to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals demanding that the ruling striking down Proposition 8 must stand.
"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution,” attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their filing.
"Our Constitution requires the government to treat every American equally under the law,” said Chad Griffin, the Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Only full federal marriage equality would fulfill the requirements of our Constitution. That is why we are pressing this case through the Supreme Court."
Wrote attorneys for the plaintiffs, in their introduction to the brief, in part:
"Proponents and their amici now attempt to fill the evidentiary void they left in the district court with an avalanche of non-record citations, distortions and misstatements regarding the proceedings below, and baseless attacks on the good faith of the district court. The tactic is unfortunate, unbecoming and unavailing. The governmental interests Proponents assert have been affirmatively disavowed by California, or have no basis in reality, or both. The fact is, as the testimony of 19 witnesses and 900 trial exhibits introduced into evidence amply demonstrates, there is no good reason—indeed, not even a rational basis—for California to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of civil marriage, the most important relation in life."
Lawyers for the City of San Francisco also filed a brief:
"In a brief filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday, the city attorney's office said Proposition 8's sponsors failed to make a sound case for preventing homosexuals from marrying while leaving intact their rights to raise children. The lawyers argued that the 2008 ban's only purpose was to deny same-sex couples of 'the honored stature' of marriage and to avoid having anyone 'view gay relationships as 'OK.''"
Read both briefs, AFTER THE JUMP...