-Bay Area Reporter, January 21, 2010 by Matthew S. Bajko
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4492

“Under federal law there is no precedent for finding sexual orientation deserves any special protection,” said University of California at Berkeley Law School Professor Joan Hollinger, who specializes in family law and has been following the Prop 8 trial in court.

-Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2010 by Maura Dolan
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/24/local/la-me-prop8-trial24-2010jan24

“I have never seen this level of quality in direct and redirect…” said Hollinger, a family law expert who has attended much of the trial. “But that doesn’t necessarily translate into a legal and constitutional victory by any means.”

-San Francisco Chronicle, January 29, 2010 by Bob Egelko
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/29/MNO21BP3AO.DTL&type=printable

But Hollinger said Thursday that opposition to interracial marriage had faded outside the South by 1967, after a large-scale federal commitment to civil rights. By contrast, she said, same-sex marriage still faces “opposition all over the place.” “I’m not optimistic about the Supreme Court on this,” she said.

-SF Weekly, January 29, 2010 by Joe Eskenazi
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/01/gay-friendly_legal_scholars_hi.php

“If the issue is framed as whether, under the federal Constitution, there is a fundamental right to marry, [then] any exclusion from enjoying this fundamental right is subject to at least a higher level of scrutiny,” says Hollinger. “The state has to have substantial reason to justify the exclusion. If that’s the way it’s framed, the plaintiffs, it seems to me, are going to prevail. Easily.”

The Washington Post, January 11, 2010 by Peter Henderson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011100217.html

“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
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-island27-2009may27,0,1635113,print.story

“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
http://www.dailycal.org/article/104658/california_supreme_court_to_begin_hearing_prop._8_

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
http://reason.com/blog/show/129926.html

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
http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=103438

“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
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=77BB15BE-18FE-70B2-A84355AC090D4DC7

“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
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/05/californias-prop-8-passes-will-legal-chaos-ensue/

“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
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriagelaw30-2008oct30,0,3560871.story

“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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061802913_pf.html

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
http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_9482620?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com

“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
http://tinyurl.com/5auba2

“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.”