[MsTinkerbelly]

Prop 8 proponents still arguing procreation in 9th Circuit brief
(Here is Karen Ocamb’s take, cross-posted from LGBTPOV, on the written arguments filed by the Prop 8 legal team late last night. Check out Friday night’s breaking news post for more on the brief).

By Karen Ocamb

The defendant-interveners in the federal Prop 8 trial filed a 134-page argument with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three hours before it was due. Prop8TrialTracker has the brief scribed. Interestingly, Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, (pictured in this photo by Mark Hefflinger at the Yes on 8 podium with attorney Andy Pugno) is not a named author in the brief, despite being ubiquitous during the trial. Wonder what happened there.

The Proponents argument that they have standing in the case starts on page 19, after a list of citations – but it reads like they are submitting their case in full, once again arguing the incredible importance of procreation as the distinguishing characteristic of heterosexual relations. And once again, we’re jumping through the Looking Glass:

“Nowhere in its 136-page opinion does the district court even cite any of the evidence overwhelmingly acknowledging responsible procreation and child-rearing as the animating purpose of marriage. All of the evidence – the judicial authority from California and almost every other State, the works of eminent scholars from all relevant academic fields, the extensive historical evidence – is simply ignored. And the district court ignored it quite willfully; in the court’s view, apparently only oral testimony presented at trial constituted “evidence” on the issue (and its treatment of even this evidence was egregiously selective and one-sided….).”

In another interesting twist, the Prop 8 proponents claim the plaintiffs erroneously argued that there was animus on the part of the people of California, when in fact the legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies argued convincingly that it was the proponents and pushers of Prop 8 who were motivated by animus toward gay people:

“This charge is false and unfair on its face, and leveling it against the people of California is especially unfounded, for they have enacted into law some of the Nation’s most sweeping and progressive protections of gays and lesbians, including a domestic partnership law that gives same sex couples all the same substantive benefits and protections as marriage. And it defames as anti-gay bigots not only seven million California voters, but everyone else in this Country, and elsewhere, who believes that the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage continues to meaningfully serve society’s interests – from the current President of the United States, to a large majority of legislators throughout the Nation, both in statehouses and in the United States Congress, and even to most of he scores of state and federal judges who have addressed the issue.”

On the issue of Standing, they write:

“As official proponents of Proposition 8, Appellants are authorized by California law to defend that Proposition on behalf of the people of that State. Accordingly, they have standing to defend this appeal. The Imperial Interveners, who directly administer California’s marriage laws, likewise have standing, and should have been permitted to intervene in this case…..”

Specifically, Proponents have “authority under state law” (Karcher v May 1987) to defend the constitutionality of an initiative they have successfully sponsored, for they are acting “as agents of he people” of California “in lieu of public officials” who refuse to do so,” ie Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown.

They cite Arizonans for Official English v Arizona (1997) as backup – but as Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson wrote earlier, other attorneys believe the Arizona decision went against the initiative proponents.

The defender-interveners also say they have standing because the California Supreme Court “has already permitted these very Proponents to defend this very Proposition when the Attorney General would not do so.”