Local

[Print]  [Email]        

Berkeley couple challenges Prop 8 in federal lawsuit


Wire reports
May 27, 2009

The group One Struggle One Fight leads a march to the Supreme Court building before hearing the Supreme Court decision on Tuesday. The Supreme Court voted to uphold the constitutional amendment on Prop. 8, banning same-sex marriage in California. (Cindy Chew/The Examiner)

SAN FRANCISCO — In the wake of the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold Proposition 8, the state's ban on same-sex marriage, two couples are pursuing a new tactic with a federal court lawsuit.

A lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank filed the lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco on Friday. 

The lawsuit claims that Proposition 8, enacted by state voters on Nov. 4, violates the couple's federal constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment by denying them the right to marry.

The couples are represented by prominent attorneys Theodore Olson of Washington, D.C., and David Boies of Armonk, N.Y., who argued on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 presidential election.

Today, the attorneys filed a motion asking for a hearing on July 2 before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco on their bid for a preliminary injunction blocking Proposition 8.

The two couples said in a statement today, "We and our relationships should be treated equally under the law. Our goal is to advance the cause of equality for all Americans."

Until now, battles over same-sex marriage in California have centered on the state constitution. A year ago, the California Supreme Court said by a 4-3 vote that the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment provides a right to gay marriage.

But state voters overturned that ruling when they enacted Proposition 8 by a 52 percent majority last fall as a state constitutional amendment. On Tuesday, the state high court ruled by a 6-1 vote that Proposition 8 was within voters' power to amend the state constitution. 

The new lawsuit is based on separate federal constitutional rights.

Among other cases, the lawsuit cites a 1967 ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Virginia ban on interracial marriage and said the freedom to marry is a "vital personal right."

The plaintiffs are Kris Perry and Sandy Stier of Berkeley, who have been together for nine years and have four sons, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo of Burbank.

Both couples say they tried to get married last week, but were denied marriage licenses by their county clerk's offices because of Proposition 8.

- Bay City News

 



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

sfcuir

May 27, 2009

It will be interesting to see what the Supremes do with this case. If we can vote on a citizen's right to marry, or not, what else can we vote down? Can we vote to take away your driving privileges when you turn 60 just because we know that 'old' drivers are all dangerous? Can we vote on what kinds of churches we want in our towns? If this ruling stands, it may have some interesting consequences, especially for those who like to make their own choices!

 

Commonsense

May 27, 2009

It should be an easy decision. Webster's defines marring as "to join as husband and wife." What's so tough to understand. As much as gays would prefer something else, they don't fit the definition.

 

nottodifficult

May 29, 2009

This should be an easy one. Marriage is defined in the dictionary as between a man and a woman. The voters voted against it. The judges voted against it 6-1. Any questions?

 

nottodifficult

May 29, 2009

and furthermore, these attorneys citig a 1967 case regarding interracial marriage are forgetting that the interracial marriage was between a MAN and WOMAN not a same-sex couple so it is completely irrelevant.

 

Dec 19, 2009

lowongan kerja 2010 lowongan kerja bank lowongan kerja terbaru lowongan pekerjaan lowongan cpns lowongan pekerjaan terbaru internet marketing ferri yanto angelica faustina high paying keyword

 

mytiffany

Jan 22, 2010

However mean your life is, Tiffany meet it and live it; do not shun it and call it hard names. It is not so bad as you are tiffany & co. It looks poorest when you are richest. The fault-finder tiffany and co will find faults in paradise.Love your life, poor as it is tiffany bracelet. You may perhaps have some pleasant, thrilling, glorious hours,even in a poor-house.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




World

Fortune tellers: Year of Tiger isn't Tiger's year, but Obama to shine

It's the Year of the Tiger, but Chinese fortune tellers say it'll be a rough patch for the world's most famous one: disgraced golfer Tiger Woods. Full story

Local

Notorious penguin Harry survives infection

Fans of The City’s most famous penguins can... Full story

Local

Jackson doctor back in court in April to find out date for next major step in case

Michael Jackson's doctor returns to court in April to find out the date for the next major step in the case — a proceeding that will reveal for the first time the evidence the prosecution believes will show his "gross negligence" was the direct cause of the pop star's death. Full story