WGLB Presents: Making a Federal Case out of Us – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

[keepCAblue]

From Daily Kos, a translation of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal suit file by Olson and Boies for the lay person:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/5/738705/-WGLB-Presents:-Making-a-Federal-Case-out-of-UsPerry-v.-Schwarzenegger

WGLB Presents: Making a Federal Case out of Us – Perry v. Schwarzenegger
by GLBT and Friends at Daily Kos

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:30:17 AM PDT

TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 2, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Plaintiffs will move the Court for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs respectfully request a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution ("Prop. 8") insofar as it limits civil marriage in California to the union of a man and a woman, and prohibits two individuals of the same sex from getting married.

No, Texas is not suing California. Kristen Perry, her partner, and two gay men are plaintiffs, and California officials are defendants. The motion for injunction has not been widely circulated.

On July 2, 2009, there will be a hearing in federal court in San Francisco requesting that Prop 8 be stayed, and that the right to marry be restored to all Californians stripped of it by Prop 8 pending the conclusion of the case.

http://glbt-and-friends-at-daily-kos.dailykos.com/">GLBT and Friends at Daily Kos's diary :: ::

In order to prevail on the motion for injunction the plaintiffs have to establish four things: a likelihood of success on the merits of the case at trial; irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if the injunction is not granted; the balance of hardships weighs in their favor; and public-interest considerations are in their favor. All are well argued. The ruling is appealable immediately to the 9th Circuit, and an appeal of a ruling from that court can be had by writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Should Plaintiffs prevail in the Ninth Circuit, the likelihood of SCOTUS review is established by the contrary opinion issued by the Eighth Circuit in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). See my analysis of the District Court case in http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/113971/-Nebraka-Gay-Marriage-Case,-an-Analysis">this diary.

Not written for lawyers

This diary is not written for attorneys, but for those who truly own the law and equity our courts administer. Technical terms and lengthy citations are anathema to this end - all citations except those to Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas have been omitted. Complex jurisdictional arguments and the intricacies of Equal Protection analysis can wait. The States of Arkansas and Texas gave me a license to deal with such things, and I have plenty of colleagues - but you who authorized and entrusted us with those licenses do deserve an explanation of what is happening. Please do explore the full motion linked above if you have need of other citations, or just need to experience an uplifting read. Remember though, this is the Plaintiffs' motion. This being America, the Defendants actually will be permitted to file a response.

I have also deliberately tried (and unavoidably failed) to avoid the tension between Gay Organizations and the lawyers who, zealously representing their own clients, have filed Perry v. Schwarzenegger. We know the tension exists, but in the interest of unity let's give it a break and let Olson and Boies represent their clients, as every lawyer really does. We have an adversary system of justice, and actually it works quite well. Personally, I applaud the filing and prosecution of the federal case, as I think avoiding Federal Court telegraphs fear and weakness, and tee-teeing in our collective pants at the very mention of federal court does sort of make me wonder why we are so afraid of the Big Bad Wolf, though it is not my call as I do not represent these clients. I also continue to be a cooperating attorney within the Lambda Legal network, without whom Iowa would not have happened. Every front is important.

I will say however that we cannot fund continuing state referenda in this economy. Our people need to eat, play with their children, and enjoy interpersonal commerce, as well as fight political battles.

MORE-->http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/5/738705/-WGLB-Presents:-Making-a-Federal-Case-out-of-UsPerry-v.-Schwarzenegger