Perry v. Schwarzenegger - Plaintiff's Likely to Rest Case Tomorrow

The ongoing trial in Perry v. Schwarzenegger which is challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 - and by analogy, ALL anti-gay state marriage amendments - has reached the half way mark with the plaintiffs likely to rest their case tomorrow. The record has been loaded with expert testimony on sexual orientation and a number of other issues, as well as testimony from adversely impact gay and lesbian couples who face discrimination based in the final analysis on their non-conformity to Christianist religious beliefs. Once the plaintiffs rest their case, the burden will shift to the supporters of Proposition 8 to try to undermine the detailed evidence offered by the plaintiffs. It will be interesting to see how the proponents of Proposition 8 will attempt to avoid showing that what the REAL motivation behind Proposition 8 is all about: punishing gays for not living their lives according to Mormon, far right Catholic, and other far right Christian dogma. Obviously, I sincerely hope that Olson and Boies tear their witnesses apart and force the religious based bigotry of the Proposition 8 supporters into full view. If that happens, I suspect Olson and Boies have a very good chance of winning at the District Court level. On appeal, Judge Walker's findings of fact will be afforded deference by the appellate court which principally will look at application of law issues. Here are some highlights from the Wall Street Journal:

*
Plaintiffs will likely rest their case Monday in the federal trial over California's Proposition 8, setting the stage for backers of the ban on same-sex marriage to open their line of defense. "We're pleased with the way it has gone," said David Boies, an attorney for the gay couples who want to wed. He said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied that right and that marriage wouldn't be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples. "We've proven all three of those," he said.
*
Defense lawyer Andrew Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society. The defense's portion of the trial could be short. Only two of the defense's original set of expert witnesses remain, after four withdrew from the trial.
*
If gays and lesbians can't be defined as a group, the defense could argue that the court can't consider them to be a "suspect class"—like race or gender—and deserving of special protection from discriminatory laws.
*
Over the past two weeks, the plaintiffs have sought to prove through experts and personal testimony that the gay-marriage ban harms gays and was motivated by hatred toward them. On Thursday, they introduced testimony from a backer of the ban, Hak-Shing William Tam, who said he thought legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing prostitution and sex with children.
*
Judge Walker told lawyers Friday that he wanted to hear closing arguments made to him at a later time—not immediately after the defense rests its case—because he wanted more time to review the evidence.