We are the most effective way to get your press release into the hands of reporters and news producers. Check out our client list.



US District Court Hears Arguments for Additional Plaintiffs, Sets Trial for Proposition 8 Challenge

Contact: Sarah Pollo, 916-448-4234

SACRAMENTO, Aug. 19 /Christian Newswire/ -- Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, released the following statement today on behalf of the official proponents of Prop. 8, in response to today's hearing of Perry v Schwarzenegger et al in United States District Court, Northern District of California:

"As the only party to Perry v Schwarzenegger that has consistently fought to preserve Prop.8, we are pleased with Judge Walker's decision to deny intervenor status to Campaign for California Families, the Our Family Coalition, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The motions for intervenor status clearly demonstrate the discord and disagreement that exists among gay activists as they continue to run roughshod in their efforts to overturn the will of the people in regards to upholding traditional marriage in California.

"While the City and County of San Francisco was granted its request to intervene over the objections of the plaintiffs in the case, their participation will be limited to demonstrating any governmental impact of Prop. 8.

"However we are concerned that this case could result in the plaintiffs attempting to put the voters who supported Prop 8 on trial.

"We will vigorously resist the plaintiffs being allowed to conduct a fishing expedition into the motives of those who support traditional marriage. We were pleased that opposing counsel promised the court that they would attempt no discovery that violates the First Amendment rights of the proponents and the voters. It is preposterous to think that the 7 million California voters who supported Proposition 8 were motivated out of bigotry and discrimination. That is essentially the claim by the plaintiffs in this case. Prop 8 was always about restoring and reclaiming the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a women and upholding the will of the people who had already overwhelmingly voted in favor of traditional marriage.

"As this case proceeds to an expected trial in January we will work diligently and faithfully to defend the rights of the people to put the traditional definition of marriage into our state constitution."