There's lots of other threads regarding various posters' stances on homosexuality. I would consider it as a great personal favor if we could have this specific thread devoted to updates on the case against prop 8.
Mostly so I don't have to wade through Nomad's and Robear's multi quoted Biblically footnoted posts.
Man...just reading through the blogged testimony makes it seem like the defense is in for a loooooong week.
B: Did you see the ad this morning where Biblical Marriage is mentioned?OBJECTION: OVDERRULED, she was in the courtroom and saw the ads.
C: Yes, I was here, and I saw it.
B: Asks that Cooper’s opening statement be displayed.
B: When you hear the term Biblical Marriage, what does that mean to you?
C: When I heard it, I was amused. The Bible has characters who practiced polygamy, so that was very amusing.
edit: nvm
It bothers me that "Biblical marriage" is a term given any legal consideration in a federal court.
In two hours, that will become an example of how the terrible liberal prosecution is "laughing at the bible".
edit: I'll even predict the form:
The prosecution's star witness, when asked about the use of Biblical morals, said she found it "very amusing."
Cott will be cross examined today and I am really anxious to see how she handles the "but gays already have the right to marry, it just has to be of someone of the opposite sex."
if this was already covered in the thread, I missed it:
B: Yesterday, we talked about marriage and slavery. Have marriage laws always given members of socity equally AND FAIRLY?
C: No they have not. Other restrictions come to mind: used as a mode of governance, in dynamic tension with the zone of liberty and privacy, which modern marriage has moved towards. Mosst plentiful restrictions in the past, 41 states and territories restricted marriage between white persons and persons of color. Not only so-called Negros and mulattos; also between whites and Indians. These multiplied after the civil war, since emancipated slaves could now marry by the state. In CA and other states in the west, due to in-migration from Asia, there were restrictions on Malays, Mongolians, CHinese, Japanese prohibited to marry whites. These did not prohibit whites OR Asians OR Indians from marrying, but it limited their PARTNERING, their CHOICE of partner.
She's thrashing this defense. Right on the head. The more similarities between miscegenation laws and anti gay marriage laws she can provide, the better.
I really, desperately hope that the defense takes the above statement as a cue to start the whole "but if we stop restricting who can marry who, we're allowing people to marry horses!" nonsense. It will be such an amazing spectacle.
I found a more detailed live blog of the trial: Prop 8 Trial Tracker.
I really, desperately hope that the defense takes the above statement as a cue to start the whole "but if we stop restricting who can marry who, we're allowing people to marry horses!" nonsense. It will be such an amazing spectacle.
Well, they already tried the tack of "gay folks aren't prohibited from getting married, they can always marry someone of the opposite sex", but either the liveblogger didn't catch the details of it, or Dr. Cott said something that told them to get away from that thread post-haste, since it didn't show back up again.
Thanks for the new thread Rev! Can't wait for you and Rubb to get your marriage back
Say, does this mean you two get a second honeymoon?
I'm not totally sure on which side I fall on the legalization issue though. I can see some valid arguments on both sides(not to be interpreted as all arguments on all sides are correct).
I was not trying to persecute you here or set you up. I knew your feelings on the sin aspect, but not on the legalization aspect, so I asked. No offense intended.
I wonder how populist rhetoric does in a judge trial? I guess we'll find out. Looks like the defense is already embarrassing itself pretty handily, let's hope that continues.
I wonder how populist rhetoric does in a judge trial? I guess we'll find out. Looks like the defense is already embarrassing itself pretty handily, let's hope that continues.
Ironically, the whole populist rhetoric bit would probably play much better if there was a TV audience...
Subtext to this was the judge wanted the hearings broadcast on Youtube. As a background. The US Federal courts take public trial far beyond most states. I a curious as to how, on Review, the Supreme Court will rule on that. The idea that the District or Circuit courts would be on Cspan would be huge.
Trach, our marriage was and is secure. The CA Supreme Court, while upholding Prop. 8, said that the 18,000 couples married between their May 2008 ruling and the passing of Prop. 8 were and are completely valid and must be honored by the State of California.
Good to know.
I still say a second honeymoon is in order regardless
Thanks for the summary, it's fascinating stuff.
we need children to keep the republic growing
So... if gays aren't allowed to marry each other they'll go and have a nice heterosexual marriage instead and start popping out babies? What?
“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”
Ow. My brain.
The attorney for the defendants seems to be basing his approach on a mixture of attacking the witnesses and "think of the children!". Unless they come up with something different it seems like they're going to stomped.
Yeah, that really snapped my rage trigger. You've got this attorney representing a campaign that spent so much money and time crying about the sanctity of marriage so blithely and seriously suggesting such a blatant manipulation of the institution? What an amazing example of how few actual ideals this camp has.
I'd just put it down to gross stupidity/doublethink, but that's probably a mistake given this guy presumably managed to get a law degree etc. I suspect you're right.
EDIT: You know, for all I've been mocking his argument, I can't actually think of a better one that he could be using under the circumstances. I can understand religious groups not performing their marriage ceremony for gay people due to reasons of scripture, but that doesn't really have any bearing on marriage as a legal position.
I'm not familiar with US law, but my impression is that they'll only really have a shot at blocking gay marriage if they can show that allowing it would cause harm to someone. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything they could use here that they could actually support with numbers. They've already tried "it'll cause straight couples to divorce" and "think of the children", but obviously can't back those claims up.
.
Supreme Court rules today on whether the trial can make it's way to Youtube, correct? Anyone hear anything?
I want to see this.
I'm falling for this Nancy Cott. Might take a few shots of Bourbon but I'd totally hit it based on her brain.
Thanks again for the summary Rev. Muy interesante.
“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”
Funny, I've heard this exact same argument given on these very boards before. It was crap then and it's crap now.
“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”Funny, I've heard this exact same argument given on these very boards before. It was crap then and it's crap now.
I've never understood that argument either. They want to "protect the institution of marriage" and one of their arguments is that us gay folk have always been allowed to enter into a loveless marriage? W.T.F?
SocialChameleon wrote:“Can’t gay men marry lesbians?”Funny, I've heard this exact same argument given on these very boards before. It was crap then and it's crap now.
I've never understood that argument either. They want to "protect the institution of marriage" and one of their arguments is that us gay folk have always been allowed to enter into a loveless marriage? W.T.F?
It's mostly been used to attempt to explain why anti same-sex-marriage laws are different from anti-miscegenation laws (they aren't)/why same-sex-marriage isn't a civil rights issue (it is).
Yes, it's quite ridiculous.
Its really painfully hilarous to see the defence grasping at straws. I think they're painfully aware they have no real logical case, and are just trying to discredit the witness and play on the judges patriotism, or something. I don't think they stand a chance in hell.
Pages