Opening statement: Ted Olson
This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied the right to marry, described by SCOTUS as one of the most vital personal rights pursuant to the right to the pursuit of happiness, intimate choice, expression of emotional support, the exercise of spiritual unity, the highest expression of self. It is the most important right in our society.
Walker: Does this apply to the state’s licensing of marriage?
Olson: Not sure I understand the import of the question. If there is a right to marry in the Constitution….
Walker: Does that right presume that the state has a DUTY to issue marriage licenses?
Olson: Certainly appropriate there might be aspects of the marriage that the state wants to regulate: age, residency — which don’t concern us here. SCOTUS has talked about the licensing being the state’s way of implementing the right to marry.
Olson: Marriage promotes economic, mental, physical strength. It is the building block of our society.
Olson: Prop 8 ended this dream for thousands of California citizens, even though the SCOCA had defined marriage as a fundamental right, then voters slammed the door.
Olson: The plaintiffs are two LOVING COUPLES in deeply committed, longstanding, intimate relationships.
Walker: Are the plaintiffs not registered domestic partners?
Olson: We will present them and they will tell you.
Walker: What disability do they operate under b/c they can’t marry? Are these differences of a legal nature? Is this a product of state action or of society?
Olson: What the state has done is sanctioned and labeled a formal relationship called domestic partnership which has nothing to do with love. The other relationship, marriage, is now reserved for opposite sex couples. CA has put people into categories.
Walker: Does Prop 8 classify people?
Olson: Yes, it does. There are now FOUR categories of Californians, and that matters a great deal.
Olson: Domestic partnerships are lesser and not the same as marriage.
Created: Jan 14, 2010Document Media