don't think they stand a chance in hell.
Speaking of which, the point of these proceedings is to get Prop 8 voided because it's unconstitional, correct?
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.
While I'd love this to be true, I just don't see it being that easy of a battle. The defence lawyers aren't 2 bit, fresh from school lawyers. These guys are high priced and have experience. I do have hope that we will win the battle, but I don't think the defence has shown all of its cards yet.
Listening to Buzz Out Loud. No Youtube. Basically, cameras for news are not allowed in, neither is a web cam.
While I'd love this to be true, I just don't see it being that easy of a battle. The defence lawyers aren't 2 bit, fresh from school lawyers. These guys are high priced and have experience. I do have hope that we will win the battle, but I don't think the defence has shown all of its cards yet.
Am I correct that we've only heard from witness for the Plaintiffs so far? If so, it only stands to reason that things would be framed from their perspective to this point. As solid a case as is being built so far, the testimony of social scientists and scholars, no matter how pre-eminent, are not going to decide the case. (If only that were so. No wait, I work in academe, I don't want the courts to look like the faculty senate.)
When the defendents (is that the proper way to refer to the Prop 8 defense team?) have a chance to make their case, they will be able to frame the conversation in a different way. I imagine we'll hear a lot about "the will of the people" and "legislating from the courts" and more along those lines. They will be able to trot disenfranchised voters up to the stand to talk about how their voices and down-to-earth folksy values are being trampled by so-called "special interest groups" with highly paid lawyers.
I really want to be optimistic here, but it will be extremely difficult to establish the right to marry a partner of one's choice as a fundamental civil right protected by the constitution. (Damn, it hurts to type that.) Especially when that means overturning the clear will of the California electorate. I think the arguments being made a solid. Especially the Dred Scott example where the lack of freedom to marry as one pleased was used to deny a man citizenship. Chief Justice Taney claimed that since citizens are free to marry as they choose, anyone without that freedom clearly can't be considered a citizen. That is something that citizens who are being denied the right to marry as they choose can hang a fundamental civil rights argument on.
Still, as happy as I am that good arguments are being made, there is a long way to go and this is just the first venue the appeal will be heard in.
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.
I think it's more that attorneys are ethically obligated to produce the best case they can for their clients. I think it speaks volumes about the legal weaknesses of the pro-Prop 8 position, and the commendable strength of the commitment of the attorneys involved to their professional integrity, even if they don't agree with the argument they're presenting.
I think it speaks volumes about the legal weaknesses of the pro-Prop 8 position, and the commendable strength of the commitment of the attorneys involved to their professional integrity, even if they don't agree with the argument they're presenting.
It also speaks volumes about why most people hate attorneys for whoring themselves out for a couple of dollars.
The pro-prop 8 position really boils down to two things: God says homosexuality is a sin and some people think gays are "icky" (while they're okay with imaginary internet lesbians) so they shouldn't be able to marry. You know, because it's an icky sin that makes some people uncomfortable.
It's hard to argue that position in a court of law. Ultimately I feel this is going to hinge on things like Oso mentioned. Should courts overturn "the will of the people" and exactly where refferendums fall in the hierarchy of legal authority.
SocialChameleon wrote:I think it speaks volumes about the legal weaknesses of the pro-Prop 8 position, and the commendable strength of the commitment of the attorneys involved to their professional integrity, even if they don't agree with the argument they're presenting.
It also speaks volumes about why most people hate attorneys for whoring themselves out for a couple of dollars.
Kind of a derail, but what's the alternative? Access to the courts is a fundamental pillar of our society, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of people not having access to attorneys, which is essential to effectively exercising that right, including people with positions I find repugnant.
Is it just me that doesn't even understand the point they are making by saying "Gay guys can marry lesbians" - whaaaat? Why would they? I just don't get this.
Is it just me that doesn't even understand the point they are making by saying "Gay guys can marry lesbians" - whaaaat? Why would they? I just don't get this.
No, you're not alone. As has been mentioned, that line of reasoning's been brought up on these boards before, in that there isn't any sort of discrimination against homosexuals in re: marriage because we can always marry someone of the opposite sex.
As PR has mentioned, how many women truly want to get married to a closeted gay man? How many men truly want to get married to a closeted lesbian? Odds are, very very very few, if any.
My point, on the other hand, was that the anti-marriage equality folks keep talking about the sanctity of marriage and how a same-sex couple's marriage ruins it. How much of a ruin to the sanctity of marriage is it for me, as a gay man, to marry someone I love and have been with for almost a decade, as opposed to me marrying a woman for whom I have no physical attraction, no emotional connection deeper than friendship at best, and no interest in having a family with, solely because she has a vagina? I'd argue the latter is a much greater degredation to the sanctity of marriage as we understand it today.
VDOWhoNeedsDD wrote:Is it just me that doesn't even understand the point they are making by saying "Gay guys can marry lesbians" - whaaaat? Why would they? I just don't get this.
No, you're not alone. As has been mentioned, that line of reasoning's been brought up on these boards before, in that there isn't any sort of discrimination against homosexuals in re: marriage because we can always marry someone of the opposite sex.
As PR has mentioned, how many women truly want to get married to a closeted gay man? How many men truly want to get married to a closeted lesbian? Odds are, very very very few, if any.
My point, on the other hand, was that the anti-marriage equality folks keep talking about the sanctity of marriage and how a same-sex couple's marriage ruins it. How much of a ruin to the sanctity of marriage is it for me, as a gay man, to marry someone I love and have been with for almost a decade, as opposed to me marrying a woman for whom I have no physical attraction, no emotional connection deeper than friendship at best, and no interest in having a family with, solely because she has a vagina? I'd argue the latter is a much greater degredation to the sanctity of marriage as we understand it today.
Ahh, I think I get it. Thanks Rubb Ed. So they're saying that they aren't being discriminated against because they can stilll marry someone of the opposite sex? So gay marriage would actually be an exception not equality. I get it, but I don't agree with it.
I totally agree with what you just said about how that degrades marriage; to be honest, whenever I see people bring up really odd lines of attack like this I feel like they probably realise how stupid it is - it's just they've gone so far with it now that they can't give it up. I know I've had arguments like that =D Everything the historian lady said about the history of racial/inter-racial marriage just seems like it zeros every argument they could put forward.
It also speaks volumes about why most people hate attorneys for whoring themselves out for a couple of dollars.
You know, in my opinion, the plaintiff lawyers are earning whatever they're charging. They're doing yeoman work in a great cause. I don't expect them to prevail, but they're in there doing their best.
Lawyers are important. There are plenty of terrible ones, and we're a ridiculously litigious society because of the ridiculous snarl of laws and weird liability theories we've tangled ourselves in, but they really matter.
Rights, the Supreme Court once said, are only accorded to the belligerent claimant in person, and lawyers help with that.
VDOWhoNeedsDD wrote:Is it just me that doesn't even understand the point they are making by saying "Gay guys can marry lesbians" - whaaaat? Why would they? I just don't get this.
No, you're not alone. As has been mentioned, that line of reasoning's been brought up on these boards before, in that there isn't any sort of discrimination against homosexuals in re: marriage because we can always marry someone of the opposite sex.
As PR has mentioned, how many women truly want to get married to a closeted gay man? How many men truly want to get married to a closeted lesbian? Odds are, very very very few, if any.
No shortage of Republicans who found wives for closeted gay men.
But in truth, it is a weak pedantic argument. They refuse to give a basis of why a gay man cannot marry another gay man, and prefer to take the discussion on an unrelated tangent using the same terms. Same with once you let men marry men, then you have to allow plural marriage, bestiality, marriage to machines.
The cross-examination of Peplak is another indication that the defense has nothing but hot air even when they get the chance to frame an argument how they like. Using a 25 year old, narrow study and simply proceeding with the line of questioning as if Dr. Peplak didn't refute the lawyer's assertions? I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
I'm not even seeing the logic that the defense is using here. Even if gay men did cheat more when they're married, so what? You'd draw a line saying that 20% infidelity (or whatever it is for straight couples) is ok, but 30% isn't?
Similarly, so what if the marriage rate winds up being low? The fact that (say) only 5% of gay couples choose to get married is hardly a reason to stop that 5% from doing so.
Trachalio wrote:While I'd love this to be true, I just don't see it being that easy of a battle. The defence lawyers aren't 2 bit, fresh from school lawyers. These guys are high priced and have experience. I do have hope that we will win the battle, but I don't think the defence has shown all of its cards yet.
Am I correct that we've only heard from witness for the Plaintiffs so far? If so, it only stands to reason that things would be framed from their perspective to this point. As solid a case as is being built so far, the testimony of social scientists and scholars, no matter how pre-eminent, are not going to decide the case.
Both good points. I'll be interested to see what approach they do wind up taking.
My point, on the other hand, was that the anti-marriage equality folks keep talking about the sanctity of marriage and how a same-sex couple's marriage ruins it. How much of a ruin to the sanctity of marriage is it for me, as a gay man, to marry someone I love and have been with for almost a decade, as opposed to me marrying a woman for whom I have no physical attraction, no emotional connection deeper than friendship at best, and no interest in having a family with, solely because she has a vagina? I'd argue the latter is a much greater degredation to the sanctity of marriage as we understand it today.
Actually for a large chunk of history that is exactly how many marriages worked.
Rubb Ed wrote:My point, on the other hand, was that the anti-marriage equality folks keep talking about the sanctity of marriage and how a same-sex couple's marriage ruins it. How much of a ruin to the sanctity of marriage is it for me, as a gay man, to marry someone I love and have been with for almost a decade, as opposed to me marrying a woman for whom I have no physical attraction, no emotional connection deeper than friendship at best, and no interest in having a family with, solely because she has a vagina? I'd argue the latter is a much greater degredation to the sanctity of marriage as we understand it today.
Actually for a large chunk of history that is exactly how many marriages worked.
Yeah, and as soon as that comes back around again, we can revisit this topic. In the meanwhile, since that's not really the case here in the United States, and since I'm in no way, shape, or form obligated to marry someone simply because they have certain body parts as a result of my background, please explain to me why this is at all relevant now.
Yeah, and as soon as that comes back around again, we can revisit this topic. In the meanwhile, since that's not really the case here in the United States, and since I'm in no way, shape, or form obligated to marry someone simply because they have certain body parts as a result of my background, please explain to me why this is at all relevant now.
I just had to marry a woman so our families could consolidate our tanneries. It's ok, though, I got 3 mules out of the deal.
It seems to be that the defense has been very careful about avoiding any Biblical references while they cross examine. I understand that, but I think it's got to be inevitable for that connection to be made by the defense. Currently the plaintiffs are using it in spades.
Does anyone have a witness list for the defense? I assume there's got to be ONE minister/pastor from a Catholic/Mormon/Baptist/megachurch background.
Rubb Ed wrote:Yeah, and as soon as that comes back around again, we can revisit this topic. In the meanwhile, since that's not really the case here in the United States, and since I'm in no way, shape, or form obligated to marry someone simply because they have certain body parts as a result of my background, please explain to me why this is at all relevant now.
I just had to marry a woman so our families could consolidate our tanneries. It's ok, though, I got 3 mules out of the deal.
You got 3 whole mules?! I only got a betamax VCR. My father-in-law claims it's some kind of heirloom. I think he's lying.
Does anyone have a witness list for the defense? I assume there's got to be ONE minister/pastor from a Catholic/Mormon/Baptist/megachurch background.
I'd lay money that it won't be Mormon to avoid opening up the poly question again.
Seth wrote:Does anyone have a witness list for the defense? I assume there's got to be ONE minister/pastor from a Catholic/Mormon/Baptist/megachurch background.
I'd lay money that it won't be Mormon to avoid opening up the poly question again.
I automatically thought that, but with the amount of money the CoJSoLDS funneled into this, I wasn't so sure.
Plus, with the exception of a few radical communes, the Mormon Church "turning away" from polygamy might be seen as a strength to the defense.
Plus, with the exception of a few radical communes, the Mormon Church "turning away" from polygamy might be seen as a strength to the defense.
That was my thought. Put someone up there who had (and I think, continues) their form of marriage made illegal and had to live with it.
Seth wrote:Plus, with the exception of a few radical communes, the Mormon Church "turning away" from polygamy might be seen as a strength to the defense.
That was my thought. Put someone up there who had (and I think, continues) their form of marriage made illegal and had to live with it.
Church doctrine is that God said to stop polygamy. Most the faithful LDS view the rogue polygamists more harshly than the mainstream, in my experience.
The whole Mormon/polygamy thing is about as accurate as the whole gay/promiscuity thing, I think. I know it's not my nature to heap praise on the CoJCoLDS, but I think they slayed the polygamy demon a century ago and that really shouldn't be used in modern discourse. So -- in other words, I agree with you, SpacePPoliceman.
That said -- I wonder if that part of their history will be used as some sort of corellary to gay marriage, and if so, whether it'll be used to strengthen or weaken the case against Prop 8.
Anything that is not a discussion about marriage between two consensual legal adults that are not too closely related is muddying the topic - usually on purpose. The law can discriminate on age, competency, and family, but that's all. The fact we've had to repeat this argument ad nauseum, one at a time, for everything from education to marriage is wearying at this point.
Similarly, so what if the marriage rate winds up being low? The fact that (say) only 5% of gay couples choose to get married is hardly a reason to stop that 5% from doing so.
Well, and don't forget since we are so used to celebrities coming out left and right (the whole whopping handful of them) we still live in a day and age where coming out of the closet is a big deal and a very traumatic event. So as a gay couple, you would already have to be out to then decide to get married or know that getting married is going to be drama amplified if it is your coming out party.
There is also the possibility that living two lives has become second nature to gays even if they are out. Nobody wants to have to watch over their shoulder when they cross city/county lines to show even moderate affection to your partner. I mean just holding hands can make you a target for harassment.
*disclaimer* I don't want to support the stereotype of coming out to you parents that it is the parents who freak out when I said, "traumatic event". I have been told of a few of the many different scenarios. One of my wife's and mine's best friends tell the story that she was so tormented and overwrought when leading up to telling her parents that her mom reasoned, "She was so upset, how could I do anything but want to comfort her?"
The law can discriminate on age, competency, and family, but that's all.
Derail: why prohibit consensual marriages between family members? Given today's modern medicine, it seems like the problems of incest could be easily handled. If nothing else, same-sex inter-family marriage poses no threat to others.
Pages