On June 14, 2011, Emma Ruby-Sachs posted an article entitled "Prop 8 Lawyers Seek to Destroy America's Judiciary."
Her article argued that the lawyers seeking to uphold the constitutionality of Prop 8 (banning same sex marriage in California) sought to destroy America's judiciary when they moved to vacate the trial court's opinion striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional on the basis that the judge issuing the opinion was gay. The movants argued that Judge Walker stood in the same position as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit he decided because he was gay and in a long-term relationship. The movants argued that Judge Walker might wish to marry his partner, and could not do so in California unless Prop 8 was overturned. Ruby-Sachs argued that recusal would be mandatory for any gay judge under the movants' logic and that the removal of minority judges from any case involving the rights of that minority would have terrible consequences. Judge Ware denied the movants' motion on June 14 and movants have announced that they will appeal his denial.
Ruby-Sachs is correct to be concerned, but she understates the nature of the problems with the movants' logic, for no judge could decide the challenge to the Prop 8 case under the movants' logic. Recusal would be required for any gay judge because any gay judge could benefit from the overturn of Prop 8. Even if they were not currently in a long-term relationship, or were already married, circumstances could easily change and if they desired to marry (or remarry) Prop 8 would prevent them from marrying in California.
What Ruby-Sachs missed is that under the logic presented by the legal teams supporting Prop 8 any heterosexual judge must recuse because s(he) stands in the same position as the Defendant State of California. Any heterosexual judge is either married or may wish to marry -- and the legal argument of the team defending Prop 8 is that if it were overturned existing heterosexual marriages would suffer and the opportunity to enter into a heterosexual marriage would fall. If the proponents of Prop 8 are correct, then every straight judge would be personally exposed to the grave injuries that California would suffer (under the proponents' logic) should Prop 8 be overturned.
The counsel defending Prop 8 promised in their trial brief (pp. 9-11) to prove that overturning it would "very likely harm" twenty-three important interests of the State of California. Those harms would, under their logic, cause personal injury to any heterosexual judge that might decide the case. Married, straight judges, for example, would "very likely" find that in the apocalypse sure to follow the loss of Prop 8 "same-sex marriage would or could":
Unmarried straight judges would face these problems if they ever got married, but they would also find it harder to get married because "same-sex marriage would or could":
Any heterosexual judge from a faith group that held that wearing fiber blends, eating bacon or shrimp, or being a homosexual (respectively, Leviticus 19, 11, and 18) should lead to execution or banishment and eternal damnation would face special demands for recusal under the logic of the proponents of Prop 8 for they claim that overturning it would deny the traditional faith community its freedom of religious belief. Their trial brief asserts that overturning Prop 8 would:
I'll conclude by quoting what the Prop 8 proponents promised to demonstrate through evidence at the trial would occur absent Prop 8 -- the end of the nation. Same-sex marriage would:
"Seriously threaten the functions and symbolism of marriage, thereby posing a risk to children and the demographic continuity of society."
When televangelists claim that gays caused Hurricane Katrina to devastate New Orleans, we are faced with the theological question of why they characterize their deity as a mass murderer of the innocent, but we don't have high expectations for televangelists. I'm quoting lawyers, and not some extemporaneous remarks they made under pressure. I'm quoting from their trial brief, which they submitted after months of work honing their arguments. They promised the court that they would present evidence proving that permitting same-sex marriages risked causing the extinction of humans. This represents a bizarrely irrational effort to provide a rational basis for Prop 8. The lawyers defending Prop 8 are zanier than the most homophobic televangelists.
Prop. 8 Judges Vaughn Walker, James Ware and the video
Insight: Prop. 8 Hearing / Regional Arena Commission / SacPress / Consumption ...
Why Prop 8 must fall: Civil rights
2012 Repeal Of Prop 8 "Unlikely"
Same-Sex Marriage Gains on Both Coasts
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
(Gays have been getting married in Massachusetts since 2004)
==========================================================
I'm so very glad that many of our political "leaders" and Presidential hopefuls are so keen on defending Israel to the death. That just goes to show how very much they believe in the principles they demand their fellow citizens to live by!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20064466-503544.html
(Israel recognizes gay marriage, allows gays to adopt and allows gays to serve in the military)
============================================================
We, as a nation, should be ever grateful that an organization like the Family Research Council exist to protect the nation from the evils of homosexuality. They have taken a very active role in defending the "institution of marriage" and the American family tradition. Glory, glory!!
(George Rekers, co-founder and prolific anti-gay antagonizer busted returning from European vacation with rent-boy, aka male prostitute, last year.)
============================================
The arguments against granting EVERYONE the same spousal rights are just absolutely ridiculous. America is becoming more and more a nation "led" by fearful, regressive, delusional, panicky fools content in the trappings of their position.
I believe if the same vote was held today, it would be close, but Proposition 8 would fail, approximately by the same amount it passed last time. The Supreme Court needs to step up, but there is also little prospect of that now.
David Mixner is correct that acts of civil disobedience are in order now. Gay people and their friends need to take to the streets in righteous indignation. And they need to boycott companies who foster homophobia. It is clear to me that the anti gay rhetoric is no longer resonating with most voters. And as the oldies pass on, the trend will only improve, forcing luke warm allies like President Obama to get off the proverbial dime.
Polygamy is practiced in many parts of the world, we should encourage men to marry multiple women, heck, why not have women marry multiple men too. If it's OK in some parts of Planet Earth, why not everywhere?
Why restrict marriage between brothers and sisters? Or fathers and daughters? Or mothers and sons? We know incest is practiced in some parts of the world, we may as well lift those restrictions too.
People used to marry at age 13 around the turn of the 20th century. There wasn't the anti-biotics we have today, people died younger, married and had children earlier, and lived life normally. Why restrict marriage to age 18, 16 in some states with parental permission. We should lift those restrictions too. Marry at any age.
Gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, have multiple spouses, marry at any age, and give the family law attorneys who practice civil litigation in divorce cases a bigger slice of humanity to represent. The divorce attorneys full employment strategy. Works for me.
Polygamy, as practiced is oppressive to women and children. It is rightfully verboten.
Incest is bad enough as it usually involves coercion, but incestuous marriage is unnecessary. The persons involved are already in a familial relationship.
Marriage at legal age is because children cannot enter into legal contracts...they are not considered to have sound judgement.
Prey tell! How can the judgment of a child who announces his/her homosexuality be sound?
What you've done here is create a classic straw man argument. Nobody in any significant numbers is asking for the right to marry multiple spouses. Nobody in any significant number is asking for the right to marry a member of their immediate family. Nobody in any significant number is asking for the right to marry underage individuals. But you put that forth as your argument anyhow, only proving how weak your position is.
The "logic" of the anti-gay marriage crowd is amazing , to be polite. Insane, to be blunt.
They have nothing, which explains why they didn't bother to put up a case on court beyond "we find it icky".