Attorneys give remarks and clues about arguments to come

Speaking to reporters after the close of testimony yesterday, plaintiff and defense attorneys summarized their takes on Perry v. Schwarzenegger thus far.  Their remarks might also give clues about how legal arguments will proceed in the coming months.  Here are some of their comments:

Plaintiff attorney David Boies:

“The American public has gotten a sense of what the facts are, and what we have done is lift the veil.  We have exposed the paucity of the arguments on the other side.  We’ve exposed publicly the fact that there simply is no basis for preventing gays and lesbians from getting married.  It doesn’t help anyone.  They’ve had an entire trial to come forward with a single witness who would testify that there was any harm, who would show any harm, and they could not do that.”

“The witnesses that they brought admitted that what was at work here [in passing Proposition 8] was a religious divide based on prejudice and stereotype and that there was no justification – none, zero – for depriving gays and lesbians from the right to marry.”

Plaintiff attorney Theodore Boutrous:

“[Defense expert Kenneth Miller] admitted that anti-gay biases and prejudices tainted and infected the vote on Proposition 8.  He also admitted that the ballot initiative process is prone to allow majorities to strip away the rights of minority groups.  And he also admitted that religious divides within the Democratic Party are what allowed Proposition 8 to be enacted. … You put all that together, and I think the case is extraordinarily compelling and not even a close call.”

Defense attorney Andrew Pugno:

“The key foothold in our case … starts with the notion that best thing for a child is to have both a mother and a father.  It’s a very simple proposition.  And the only social relationship that can offer a mother and a father is a man and a woman.  And so, it’s perfectly reasonable to treat traditional marriage as special, because there is no other relationship that serves that distinctive purpose.  A same-sex couple can never offer a child both a father and a mother.“

“That is a reasonable reason for the people to decide that they want to keep marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  And believe it or not, that’s the case.  That’s the defense.”

“It’s not proper for judges to substitute their own views on these political questions for the judgment of the people.  And that’s what this case boils down to:  Who gets to decide?  And so, although there are arguments for gay marriage, those arguments in this courtroom don’t make the people’s choice to preserve traditional marriage irrational.  … We don’t think those arguments, as solid as they may be, have relevance to this particular case.”


One Response to “Attorneys give remarks and clues about arguments to come”

  1. rottweilertom Says:

    Defense arguments, on its face, are obscene and simply wrong – no evidence whatsoever for it!! Aside from that, the political reason he asserts as a defense to Prop 8 is not something that would negate the constitutional argument.

    This case is a slam dunk.

Leave a Reply