The Washington Post, January 11, 2010 by Peter Henderson
“Issues about parents and children and the role of child rearing will be central to this case,” said Joan Hollinger, a lecturer in family law at the University of California, Berkeley.
Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2009 by Carol J. Williams
“One role that the 18,000 couples will play, whether they want to play it or not, is exemplars of how the world won’t come to an end,” said UC Berkeley law professor Joan Hollinger. Now that the state’s legal issues have been addressed on Proposition 8, the proponents of equal marriage rights for gays can take up the issue at the federal level, where the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law can be addressed, Hollinger said.
The Daily Californian, March 5, 2009 by Keena Batti and Zack A. Williams
Joan Hollinger … said there is no constitutional basis for reversing existing legal relationships. “It would be extremely unusual, in fact unprecedented, to have people essentially divorced by across-the-board judicial decree,” Hollinger said.
-Reason, Hit & Run blog, Nov. 5, 2008 by Jacob Sullum
According to Berkeley law professor Joan Hollinger, quoted last summer in The Advocate, “Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively,” since that would violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of state laws “impairing the obligation of contracts.”
-The Daily Californian, Nov. 6, 2008 by Leslie Toy
“The decision of most of the people I’ve spoken to is that the marriages- and I’m told there’s over 18,000 of them that have occurred between the time of the Supreme Court decisions and yesterday-are going to remain valid marriages,” Hollinger said. “It would be most unusual for a constitutional amendment to apply retroactively.”
-The Daily Californian, Nov. 7, 2008 by Cynthia Moreno
“If you deny marriage as a fundamental right to same-sex couples, then you are classifying them as a group of people based on their sexual orientation,” she said. “This classification will question what the government interest is in respect to marriage.”
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Nov. 5, 2008 by Ashby Jones
“I would think both under federal and state constitutional principles you can’t have a retroactive application that would result in a removal of what had been recognized and protected as a fundamental right.”
Los Angeles Times, Oct. 30, 2008 by Maura Dolan and Jessica Garrison
“I would think both under federal and state constitutional principles you can’t have a retroactive application that would result in a removal of what had been recognized and protected as a fundamental right,” said Joan Hollinger.
Washington Post, June 19, by Ashley Surdin
Unlike instances in which doctors refuse to perform abortions, this case is unusual in that doctors are seemingly denying services to a select group of patients, said Joan Hollinger…. “The case raises a whole series of questions about the basis for which people can be denied medical treatment, particularly the extent to which gays or lesbians could be denied access to reproductive technology.”
Contra Costa Times, June 4, by Howard Mintz and Mary Anne Ostrom
“I feel fairly confident advising people to go ahead and get married, with the understanding it’s not absolutely certain,” said Joan Hollinger.
WWL AM/FM (New Orleans) May 28, hosted by Garland Robinette
“There are many, many people who would rather go to China—where of course you’re adopting both cross-racially and with another ethnic group—than to deal with public child welfare agencies. And it’s because for all people—whether black, or white, or Hispanic, or Native American—public child welfare has historically not been very user-friendly, has not invited people to come and learn about the kinds of children who need parents. Which is why I feel so strongly that you have to begin by a very broad recruitment effort. Children are not condemned to a bad life because they happened to be in foster care.”
KQED-FM Forum, May 16, hosted by Michael Krasny
“I believe the court acted appropriately. There was no other place to go at this stage in the constitutional puzzles and the legislative complexities that were presented by this case. This is not four justices finding something that has not been found.”