The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Dysplastic wrote:

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?

Dysplastic wrote:

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.

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. (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.

Dysplastic wrote:

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.

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.

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.

OG_slinger wrote:
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.

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.

Rubb Ed wrote:
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.

OG_slinger wrote:

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.

Rubb Ed wrote:
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.

Day 3 -

Part 11 – Continued Cross Examination of Dr. George Chauncey
It looks like the printed exhibit objections have been resolved and most will be entered as evidence.

Thompson, for the defendants, asks if Chauncey is struck by how fast the views on SSM are changing. Chauncey says yes. Thompson quotes from a book that the Prop. 8 campaign was careful not to bash gays and asks if Chauncey agrees. Chauncey says perhaps, but reiterated that Prop. 8 proponents did draw on the fears of prior anti-gay campaigns.

Thompson starts asking about sodomy laws and whether or not they were anti-gay since they applied to everyone. (Right. Because so many straight people were being arrested for anal sex.) Asks how many bars have been raided lately. Chauncey mentions the Ft. Worth raid. Thompson hedges and asks him to name all the raids that have occurred in the past 10 years. Thompson asks if at one time the medical community considered gays to be pathological or a disease. Chauncey says yes. Thompson asks if that is true today. Chauncey says no.

Thompson asks if Chauncey was surprised at how fast attitudes had changed at Yale regarding SSM. Chauncey says yes and that he had some opposition to his thesis. (That may have been true at the time, but when I attended Yale Divinity from 1991-1994, the seminary was very much in support of marriage equality at that time and, from what I can remember of its history, years before.) Chauncey says that Yale is not representative of the U.S. and Thompson says, “Thank heavens!” (Yeah, let’s have the U.S. be more like Bob Jones University and less like Yale. Jerk.)

Thompson then peppers Chauncey with questions about acceptance of gays in print media, television, movies, and about local municipalities putting in non-discrimination ordinances. Thompson then moves on to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Lots of back and forth about the effects, etc.

Thompson then asks if there isn’t a move in churches to be more supportive of SSM. Chauncey says that there are a FEW denominations that support it, but it is not even close to being a mainstream belief. Thompson then asks if demonization of gay people is on the wane in groups like the evangelical churches and then proceeds to show a video of Rick Warren saying that everyone should be accepted and Christians should show “common grace to each other” but not redefining marriage. (Can someone explain to me how equating gays with pedophiles like Warren did is showing “common grace”?)

Thompson then asks about all the anti ballot initiatives in the U.S. and notes that very few were actually in California. Chauncey agrees that CA has less ballots initiatives. Thompson then claims that gays are flocking to CA because they are treated better there. (Right. Orange County is just a hub of progressive thought and pro-gay.)

Thompson then quotes from Obama and brings up lots of items about how there are protections in place for gays, etc.

(This is a flat-out attempt to maintain that gays are not a suspect class and, therefore, the state doesn’t need to prove a compelling interest in prohibiting SSM. If you aren’t in a suspected class, then the state can’t discriminate against you.)

Thompson asks if people could have voted for Prop. 8 for reasons other than being anti-gay. Attorney Steward for the plaintiffs objects to this line of questioning noting that Chauncey was brought in as a witness based on his scholarship of discrimination against gays, not what people where thinking when they voted for Prop. 8.

Thompson then asks if there aren’t gays who are opposed to gay marriage and that the gay community is not universal in supporting SSM. Chauncy says, “The right to marry evolved and became a more widespread and deeply held goal of the gay and lesbian community.” Thompson was not expecting that answer, becomes flustered and asks for a recess. (I will interject here that I know several people in the gay community who are opposed to marriage. What they are NOT opposed to is people having the right to enter into an SSM if they choose.)

After the break, Thompson wants to show a news clip of people who supported being targeted for boycotts. Stewart objects and Judge Walker says Thompson can question about the issue, but not show the clip. Thompson asks Chauncey isn’t it true that people voted for Prop. 8 based on their sincere moral values. Chauncey answers that many people opposed desegregation and inter-racial marriage based on their sincere moral values, too. (ZING!)

Thompson then is allowed to show a news clip from Massachusetts about a husband and wife who were horrified that their second-grade daughter was shown the book “King and King.” The clip has the parents saying that they want the right to protect their children from topics like this. Thompson asks Chauncey if parents who object to gay marriage don’t have the right to prevent their kids from learning about it in class. Chauncey says no more than they have the right to prevent kids from learning about blacks and whites being married. (WOW!) Chauncey says that gay marriage is a fact of life in MA and if the parents don’t like it, they should send their children to a private school.

Thompson is completely flustered and ends his cross examination.

Part 12 – Re-Direct of Prof. George Chauncey
Stewart quizzes Chauncey about Prop. 8 and sex ed. She then asks about fairy tales of men and women falling in love and Chauncey says of course there are fairy tails about the prince marrying the princess, etc. Stewart then asks why gay marriage is “adult,” but straight marriage is the stuff of children’s fairy tales? Chauncey says he doesn’t know why the distinction. (Neither do I. I was a ring bearer in my cousin’s wedding when I was six. So, that is okay, but being a six-year-old ring bearer at the wedding of Bob and Tom is unacceptable because I am not old enough? Garbage.)

Stewart asks Chauncey about comparisons of discrimination between gays and African Americans. He is also asked about whether he thinks gay marriage is going to move faster ahead and he says that with all the ballot measures that passed, he isn’t quite so sure.

Stewart then has him read documents issued by the Vatican. They are filled with claims that gay marriage is an abomination and that allowing children to be adopted by gay men would do violence to the child and never let them grow to their full human development. (The irony of the Catholic Church issuing statements about protecting children is so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it.) She does the same with statements put out by the Southern Baptist Convention.

Stewart then asks about people being against gay marriage because of their “moral convictions” and Chauncey reiterates that people were against inter-racial marriage based on their moral convictions.

Now, a very pivotal moment happens. Stewart wants to introduce a video of Dr. Bill Tam, a Prop. 8 supporter, being deposed. Thompson objects, but Stewart says that Thompson opened the door for Dr. Tam’s testimony when he said that people were voting for Prop. 8 for reasons other than bigotry. Thompson says Tam has nothing to do with the Prop. 8 campaign, but Stewart says he did. Judge Walker said that Thompson did open the door and lets the video be shown. (From the liveblogging, it looks like this was VERY explosive as objections were flying all over the place.)

The video starts and it is a bombshell. Tam says he was invited to join the ProtectMarriage.com campaign and organized rallies that included speeches by various pastors. He also produced literature that he distributed to churches in California. He is then asked to read the literature and it is God-awful. He says that he wrote that the SF city has been taken over by gays and that if gays are allowed to marry it will lead to prostitution and the legalization of having sex with children. The attorney in the tape asks if Tam believes that and he says he does. The literature by Tam also says that the education curriculum in Alameda County is a map to “brainwashing” children into accepting gay marriage.

Tam is asked if exposing children to the reality of gay people is harmful and Tam says it is because it would cause problems for the parents.

Stewart stops the tape and asks Chauncey about Tam’s comments. Chauncey says Tam’s views are consistent with the major ads in Prop. 8: protecting the children from being exposed to gay marriage will make them gay. Chauncey says the Prop. 8 message is that one should be afraid of just gay marriage, but of the children learning about gay people.

The lawyer quotes Tam as saying that gay marriage will lead to children experimenting with gay sex and that will lead to disease. (Right. Because straight people never get STDs.) Tam confirms he said this and also confirms that he said that allowing gay marriage will give children the impression that they have a choice in who they want to marry.

Stewart stops the video and asks Chauncey about Tam’s statements and Chauncey says it plays right into the stereotypes that homosexuality is chosen, that children who are exposed to homosexuality will become homosexual, and that homosexuals are morally weak.

Video starts and Tam reads from an article he had editorial control over. It is about “Brokeback Mountain” and claims that the movie was about how wanton homosexual affairs are more noble than wanton heterosexual affairs. (Gee, that isn’t the movie I saw called “Brokeback Mountain.”)

Stewart wants to show more of the video and Thompson objects. Judge Walker says that Stewart has made the point.

Stewart then talks to Chauncey about his career choices before Judge Walker recesses for lunch.

Part 13 – Testimony of Dr. Letishia Peplak

Dr. Peplak is a social psychologist from UCLA and an expert on SSM. Attorney for plaintiffs asks her lots of questions about the differences between gay and straight marriage vis-à-vis longevity, etc. She says over and over that the differences are minute and that gays and lesbians value marriage no less than straight couples. Mentions that gay marriage is a stabilizing force for both the couple and society. She also notes studies indicate there is not difference in quality between gay and straight relationships, but there is a stereotype that gay relationships are less stable and inferior.

Peplak says there is no evidence that gay relationships don’t last as long as straight relationships but one has to view that in terms of gays not having access to marriage. Judge Walker asks if there is a difference in longevity of relationships between straight couples that are married and those that simply cohabitate. She says married people stay together long and says the same would probably be true of gay couples as well.

She notes that gay marriage in MA has produces some limited studies that say that gay people married there are more committed to their relationships and have less worries and are generally happier. She is asked if gay marriage will have any impact on the marriage of straight people. Peplak says, “I have a hard time believing that a straight couple is going to say, ‘Gertrude, we’ve been together for 30 years. But now we have to throw in the towel because Adam and Stewart down the street are getting married.’” (Nice!)

Part 14 – Cross Examination of Dr. Letishia Peplak
Moss, the attorney for the defendants begins to cross examine Dr. Peplak and grills her about civil unions and their effects versus gay couple cohabitating. Peplak says it isn’t the same. Marriage is the ultimate institution for couples in America and civil unions don’t cut it. (Exactly. Separate but equal is always an unmitigated failure.)

Moss badgers Peplak about how she doesn’t have any long term data on gay marriage. (Well, duh. Gay marriage has only been a reality for less than seven years in the U.S. How could there be any long term studies?)

Moss then begins a line of questioning about gay males and their lack of commitment to monogamy. (*cough* Jimmy Swaggart, Sen. Larry Craig, Sen. John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford, etc.) Moss pulls up a study Peplak co-authored some 25 years ago and quotes her as writing that monogamy in gay male relationships are more the exception than the rule. Peplak says you can’t apply that study today because the dynamics had changed and gay marriage is available. Moss then returns to the study and quotes Peplak as saying that of all the groups in monogamous relationships (straight men, straight women, gay women, gay men), gay men are the least monogamous. Peplak says her sample was from 25 years go from Los Angeles, which, she says, is not representative across the board.

Moss then brings in stats from Belgium and the Netherlands to show that only a small percent of gay people choose to marry in those countries. Peplak says you are comparing statistics from Europe to the U.S. and we don’t have enough data. (Seriously, this is bogus. Did everyone expect that gay people would all just head to the courthouse to get married? Rubb Ed and I waited six months before getting married and some people aren’t ready for marriage yet.)

Moss then brings up the possibility that people marry to avoid having bastard children. (This is the same argument made in the NY courts, that the state has a vested interest in allow straight people to marry in order to avoid children borne out of wedlock.)

Moss then asks about social norms and the divorce rate in Massachusetts. Peplak says that she can only cite the numbers that show that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Part 15 - Re-Direct of Dr. Peplak
Peplak says that marriage is more stable than a domestic partnership and states that when she wrote her 25-year-old study there was no gay marriage and few, if any, domestic partnerships. Attorney for plaintiffs asks if there is any obligation on straight couples being monogamous. Peplak says no. There are no laws requiring monogamy of anyone in order to get married or stay married.

The proceedings end for the day.

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 am absolutely floored by Dr. Tam's taped deposition. He actually said he fully believed that gay marriage would lead to legalized prostitution and legalized sex with children.

It is going to be real fireworks when Tam is on the stand being grilled by the plaintiff's attorney. I want him to prove his statements or substantiate his "views" with his sources.

What I find amazing is that the only place in the U.S. where prostitution is legal is Nevada and they have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I hope Tam can explain how that happened.

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.

Oso wrote:
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.

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.

Nosferatu wrote:
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.

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.

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.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
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.

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.

RedJen wrote:
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.

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.

Staats wrote:
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?"

Bloo Driver wrote:

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.