gay_flag_lede.jpgUpdate: You can follow an unofficial, live transcription of the arguments from American Foundation for Equal Rights here.

As you know, the closing arguments in the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative measure that eliminated marriage rights for same-sex partners in California, are going on today. Here’s the schedule:

* 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM — Plaintiffs
* 11:30 AM – 11:45 AM — City and County of San Francisco
* 11:45 AM – 12:00 PM — Governor, AG, county defendants
* 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM — Lunch
* 1:00 PM – 3:15 PM — Proponents
* 3:15 PM – 3:45 PM — Plaintiffs’ rebuttal

Of course we’ll be updating throughout the day (if Twitter stays up we’ll do a little widget on our homepage with updates from the scene), but until then, here’s a cross-section of what the local media’s saying (oddly, the Examiner was silent on the story!) about today’s ending stages of the trial:

Chron: Prop. 8 backers target 18,000 same-sex marriages Prop 8 fans want Judge Walker to “revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before voters passed Proposition 8” but “aren’t asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.”

Chron: Prop. 8 spending found to have swayed no voters This is another take on the study released yesterday damning both sides on the issue for spending “a combined $83 million for nothing.”

KCBS: Prop. 8 Closing Arguments Today Not anything new, but sometimes it’s fun to listen to it on the “radio”!

Mission Local: Mission District Couples Prepare for the Prop. 8 Verdict No date’s been set for the announcement of the verdict in that case, but that didn’t stop MLAL from interviewing some lesbians who have been married twice, but never legally. Will they go for a third? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Bay Citizen: Prop. 8 Judge Weighs Rights, Morality Characterizes Judge Vaughn Walker as “a conservative appointee with a well-known independent streak.” Is “independent streak” code for “he is gay”? Not that it matters, of course — one certainly does not specify the orientation of every single judge hearing cases on straight-folks’ rights.

the author

Eve Batey is the editor and publisher of the San Francisco Appeal. She used to be the San Francisco Chronicle's Deputy Managing Editor for Online, and started at the Chronicle as their blogging and interactive editor. Before that, she was a co-founding writer and the lead editor of SFist. She's been in the city since 1997, presently living in the Outer Sunset with her husband, cat, and dog. You can reach Eve at eve@sfappeal.com.

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!
  • bloomsm

    As a reader, I’d like someone to explain the legal arguments on both sides instead of tweets about what the lawyers are saying. The three ring circus of twitterers is nice but, as Shakespeare wrote, it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. What does the law say, rather than the mouthpieces? You can’t win a court case with protests or tweets; you win them with evidence and legal precedent. I think that’s gotten completely lost in the coverage of this issue, generally.

  • bloomsm

    As a reader, I’d like someone to explain the legal arguments on both sides instead of tweets about what the lawyers are saying. The three ring circus of twitterers is nice but, as Shakespeare wrote, it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. What does the law say, rather than the mouthpieces? You can’t win a court case with protests or tweets; you win them with evidence and legal precedent. I think that’s gotten completely lost in the coverage of this issue, generally.