LAist is part of Southern California Public Radio (SCPR), a member-supported public media network. Hear our news on-air at our partner site:
This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (AP Photo/San Francisco Daily Journal, S.Todd Rogers)
Tomorrow is the big day. Lawyers from both sides of the issue will present their closing arguments in the federal court case challenging Prop 8, which banned gay marriage in 2008. Additionally, Judge Vauhn Walker asked a series of questions to both sides (some to each side and some for both to answer). One of the questions given to the plaintiffs -- the gay couples challenging the law -- was particularly interesting, considering last week's fine imposed on the Mormom Church:If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?
"The evidence at trial established that the LDS and Roman Catholic churches played an
instrumental role in the passage of Prop. 8," lawyers responded in their filing. "They produced and funded campaign messages in support of Prop. 8, which stated and implied that same-sex relationships are immoral. Moral disapproval of gay and lesbian individuals, however, is not a legitimate government interest."
The answer dives into case law finding that the Supreme Court defined liberty for all, not their own moral code. " Prop. 8 was an attempt to enforce private moral beliefs about a disfavored minority—and does not further any legitimate state interest—it is unconstitutional," lawyers wrote.
The full Q & A from plaintiffs can be found here.