There was big news yesterday in California about "the trial of the century." Judge Vaughn Walker today issued a series of questions (see document below) for the parties to the federal Prop. 8 trial that began in January and was put on by Ted Olson and David Boies and colleagues and defended by the oxymoronic "Protect Marriage" proponents of Prop. 8.
The questions are stunning in their breadth, complexity and essence. Here are just a few:
What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?
What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?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 court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?
Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?
What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37
We launched Testimony: Equality on Trial because this court case has already changed history. As we can see from the Judge's questions -- read them and pick your own favorites -- the entire scope of the debate has been encapsulated in this trial. But the defense has worked at every juncture to stop you from seeing what happened and will happen in the courtroom. We seek to make this your trial. And soon, we'll seek to hear your testimony.
(You can join us for a Courage Campaign Conversation with Ted Olson Wednesday at 6::00PM PDT to learn more.)
For now, as voting for initiatives and candidates across the state and country winds to a close, we can see unfolding the true story of human rights in America.
Watch the court. Whatever the ruling, this trial is history.
Here are all of the questions Judge Walker sent to plaintiffs and the defense.
Follow Rick Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rickjacobs
Wendy Block: Rattling a Fair Elections Foe
Thanks to my work last year on the Huffington Post's citizen journalism unit, I stumped an opponent of Proposition 15, the California Fair Elections Act (CFEA).
Karen Ocamb: Steve Hildebrand Joins Faith in America to Combat Anti-Gay Religious Bigotry
I think Hildebrand will be a good fit. I'm excited about the prospect of having a religious and fact-based organization with the political acumen to respond to the lies about LGBT people that are going to intensify as the political season heats up.
Well, it certainly reduces discriminating against their right to marry. Duh.
Next the most sacred relationship "stereotypically" valued in society is marrige and that of the family. Marriage is self explainitory. Partnerships are not. Marriages are legal contract that not only come with obligations but protections.
Some children feel more comfortable with their peers when their parents are married. When a child asks if you're really their parent because someone at school said you can't be married, it's a bit of shock. Married is married. Even small children understand this concept.
For those who argue that domestic partnerships are the same, they are not. The are an alternative that does not carry the full force and weight of the word marriage. Religious ceremonies are not marriages. They are religious unions. They are not LEGAL contracts. If you have just a religious ceremony and not a legal marriage contract and license you do not have legal standing in death or dissolution.
If you call marriage something else it is something else.
We cannot continue Jim Crow marriage laws for same sex couples and call it seperate but equal.
Marriage itself is discriminatory to the single. I would favor a law that abolishes discrimination on the basis of marital status. In essence, I would de-legalize marriage and make it a matter of church, or personal vows.
Why should married couples pay less taxes?
Get more SS and SSI benefits (survivor, spouse, etc)?
Get more expensive couple insurance coverage from employer, or a rebate for not taking insurance because covered by spouses policy?
Get special hospital visitation rights? Indeed, why do people with big families get more visitors? Why not say, six visitors per patient, patient picks?
The list goes on. Marriage is not a right, but a whole set of extended rights you get by signing a government contract to legitimize a relationship. It is discriminatory and unfair.
A Court only has the authority provided by the Federal and/or State Constitution and its jurisdiction is basically that of "resolving disputes" (of a kind recognized and permitted under statute). Consider for a moment, just getting along with others and there wouldn't be a need to go to court. In other words, "no dispute - no decision/verdict. Then nobody can accuse a court of being run by "a liberal, activist judges".
Do some believe that folks in long, black robes scour the community to make a pest out of them themselves and create rancor among one or both sides of a controversy? Not for a minute is that so. It is the very nature of a particular category of “dispute” which gives a Court the authority to hear the matter and reach a decision.
Let's give some credit to the vast majority of judges actually taking their oath of public office seriously, which does have the potential outcome of making one (or both) of the litigants happy or unhappy as the case may be. They work hard to apply certain defined balancing the competing interests to determine if a governmental entity is properly advancing a legitimate state interest – and is constitutional or not. Yes, reasonable people may differ, but isn’t that human?
But I didn't know the history of the judge asking these wonderful, to the heart of the matter questions. Thank you. At the bottom line, I'd simply like judges to be fair and impartial, that is not coming-in with an axe to grind and in the pocket of the government like they are in most non-democratic regimes. Stalin probably had no difficulty in finding a judge to rule his way, for example.
Fair and impartial can be an issue for those unable to sort-out the fact all of us come to our adult careers with a bias; be it the one taught in our formative education or trade or professional schools. That isn't evil. I'd like the Jeffersonian democratic impulse to hold sway over the Hamiltonian-Federalist approach; the latter favoring the actions of a strong central government. Too many decisions under a conservative agenda favor the few (powerful) over the many.
That seems like a faulty conclusion, inaccurate at best. It is the traditional notion of marriage and whether this should be maintained and enforced in the law that is on trial. Judge Walker's questions are entirely appropriate toward reaching a just decision in the case.
This is not a parody:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030621_179.asp
Religious belief of what is "truth" is has been proven to be faaaaarrr from it, as exemplified by "intelligent design," man riding dinosaurs, etc.
(and when it dies it goes to the great big fish heaven that is the ocean, once it goes through the hell of being flushed down the toi let)
Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination.").
Isn't it obvious that beliefs become discrimination when they are codified into law?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/10/obama-lessons-bhopal-bp
how could gay marriage be more of a threat to straight marriage than infidelity is?
how can gay marriage be illegal when straight people are allowed to marry and divorce as many times as they want?
why is divorce not illegal? is it not a far bigger threat to straight marriage and the social order than gay marriage could possibly ever be?
and since churches perform marriages, why is the state involved?
two baptists cannot marry in the catholic church, can they? should the state therefore mandate that baptists cannot marry at all? or is it only the rules of the fundamentalist christian sects that the government should be upholding?
(maybe it's that men, who seem to be making all the rules here, are afraid. which leads one to wonder just what has them so frightened?)
Last time I checked two people of the same gender can not produce offspring. That is why the sexual idenity is important.
And just because someone can procreate - doesn't mean they will be good parents or the relationship is stable because they are married.
People don't get married to procreate.
It said how marriage can NOT be legally limited...etc.
If you have to lie by omission, maybe that means you're wrong, eh?
If, on the other hand, you are not a capitalist (i.e. socialist or neither) individual liberty is the start and end of libertarianism.
In that case an individual with a lot of money has the same rights as one with none and the potential to use that money to restrict the individual rights of others has to be handled by the government. (Libertarians aren't anarchists - the libertarian government protects liberty, I guess you might be an anarcho-libertarian but I've yet to hear from one.)
Courts operate in a complex hierarchy of laws and precedents. A plaintiff comes before them and says "Based on the Constitution, these laws and these prior rulings we believe the Court should grant us relief and remedy." Opponents point to the Constitution, other laws, and precedents, and disagree.
I think Proposition 8 was wrong. I believe that same-sex couples should be able to enter into, as the state defines it, marriage. I also believe that a challenge before a federal court requires deliberate review, because overthrowing votes of the people should not be casually undertaken. Even as I know from experience that 10 million Californians can be wrong.
It may be that under our current constellation of equal protection laws and court rulings Proposition 8 survives this challenge. As long as both sides have the opportunity to argue their best case, I'm satisfied.
If Proposition 8 remains standing, it is hardly a nail in the coffin of a community and those who agree with it on this matter. We'll meet again at the ballot box.
Basically if it doesn't benefit them - the dominant culture - directly, then they're against it.
When will they ever have the courage to stand up for the rights of people they disagree with and are culturally different to them?
They seem to have no understanding of what America's founding fathers stood for and wrote about.