Friday, November 20, 2009
Remember the big brouhaha when the major LGBT legal organizations filed to intervene as plaintiffs in the federal challenge against Prop 8 because they wanted a say in how the Olson/Boies power team ran the case, but then were subsequently denied?
Well, the Prop 8 proponents pointed to that incident and quipped that we couldn't get our act together and surmised it was a sign of ineffective leadership. (That was them talkin', not me.)
But what's this? Do I see the same thing happening on their side? Why yes I do.
The Campaign for California Families (CCF) is the rival to the Yes on 8 folks, but they're even more extreme in their beliefs, not only believing that same-sex marriage should be illegal but also any sort of recognition of gay relationships whatsoever.
CCF attempted to intervene on Strauss vs. Horton, which the Yes on 8 folks opposed, and they were denied. Then on August 19 they tried to intervene on Perry vs. Schwarzenneger (aka Prop 8 case), but Judge Walker denied their motion. They appealed to the 9th Circuit Court and appeared in a hearing earlier this month.
The Recorder reported that the panel's judges appeared unsympathetic to CCF's Attorney Staver's attempt to identify CCF's particular interest as a proposed Perry party. Staver argued "that the official Prop 8 forces weren't adequately litigating the case and had stipulated away far too many facts" about gays and lesbians.
"As an alleged result, if Prop. 8 were upheld on narrow grounds, Staver claimed that it may be easier to show that gays and lesbians are a 'suspect class' - that they are a minority deserving heightened constitutional scrutiny when they seek constitutional protections," reported Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry.
Let's just say the Yes on 8 folks didn't like this very much because they do in fact intend to argue all the points that CCF are concerned will be ignored, including whether or not sexual orientation is immutable.
Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court ruled, and it declared that CCF does not have a right to intervene. So it will simply be the Yes on 8 folks.
Judge Margaret McKeown wrote, "It is apparent to us that the ultimate objective of the campaign and the proponents is identical—defending the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the principle that the traditional definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman."
McKeown added, "Any differences are rooted in style and degree, not the ultimate bottom line."
The full order is below.
9th Circuit Court Ruling Against CCF
So all I have to say is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw shit.