A federal judge will hear arguments in San Francisco this morning on a bid by sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban for dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the measure.
Proposition 8, the ban on gay and lesbian marriages, was passed by California voters last November as an amendment to the state Constitution.

A lawsuit challenging the initiative was filed by in federal court in May by two same-sex couples who say the measure violates their federal constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment.

In the motion to be argued before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, the sponsors of Proposition 8 say a trial on the lawsuit isn’t needed because “there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage” in the U.S. Constitution.

Their lawyers have argued in court papers that marriage between a man and a woman “is one of the central institutions of our society” and that same-sex marriage is “a radical and highly controversial experiment.”

If the lawsuit is not dismissed, it is scheduled for a trial before Walker in January.

Lawyers for the two couples challenging the measure say there should be a full trial to allow them to present evidence on their arguments that Proposition 8 was passed with discriminatory intent and that there is no rational basis for the measure.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • sfboogie

    Prop 8 supporters say they are “protecting traditional marriage” but given the fact that the gay marriages performed prior to Prop 8 passing are still valid- and now any legal out-of-state gay marriage performed during the roughly 6 mos. prior to Prop 8 are valid… doesn’t that make their entire argument invalid?? (assuming the courts agree that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman the precedent to the contrary has already been set, as well as upheld/supported by the courts themselves so they cannot now say otherwise)

    And what about transgendered people who get their gender legally changed and then marry someone of their (now) opposite gender? In the eyes of the law this would be considered “traditional” marriage between a man and a woman. Bottom line… “traditional” is subjective.