Page 1 of 62 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 920

Thread: Marriage

  1. #1
    see a sea anemone devnull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253

    Icon15 Marriage

    Closing arguments are happening today in California's Prop 8 trial. Here are a few links to liveblogs over on firedoglake.

    http://firedoglake.com/prop8trial/

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

    Olson's closing commentary this morning was pretty much awesome and people there say he's "cautiously optimisitic." Please please please let this go our way, it will be historic.

    ETA: the defendants' (h8ers) lawyers started their closing commentary. Logic FAIL all around. ETA again: Another liveblog with a bit more transcription.
    Last edited by devnull; 06-16-2010 at 10:00 PM.

  2. #2
    I didn't read the closing arguments verbatim yet, but I read here http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/...000_Marriages/ that the Prop 8 supporters are urging the judge to invalidate the 18,000 legal same sex marriages that occurred in the state because it's "the expressed will of the people" or some shit. I don't understand how the Prop 8 supports don't understand how wrong it is to have the rights of an oppressed minority left up to the vote of the oppressive majority, but whatever. The hatred these people have is unbelievable.

  3. #3
    worth a million in prizes .chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,884
    Wow, from what I am reading, Cooper is doing an awful awful job. Great for us!

  4. #4
    see a sea anemone devnull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    ML, Cooper actually argued the opposite in the courtroom, e.g., that the judge should uphold prop 8 but leave the marriages intact. It was quite a surprise. I think he's totally off his talking points, personally. Chris - I agree, he's absolutely humiliating himself. The only real argument he's making in the closing remarks is about natural procreation. asldfksldfkj It's embarrassing for him and I can't see how the judge could possibly uphold Prop 8 at this rate.

    Still, we've been burned so many times that I'm trying to keep my expectations low.

    ETA: links to latest liveblogs:
    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/55176
    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...rings-us-home/

  5. #5
    I can't see how the judge could uphold Prop 8 either based on what I have been reading. And honestly did we expect anything else? Their arguments are totally illogical. Any judge with a brain should be rolling his or her eyes.

  6. #6
    see a sea anemone devnull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    Olson's rebuttal was fucking epic. Here's just the last segment, addressing the last question from the judge (Walker):

    (bear in mind this is a rough transcription from a live blog)

    Walker: There was a tide running, with respect to interracial marriage. SCOTUS took note of that. Is there now a political tide running in favor of same sex marriage?

    Olson: Yes there is, but that doesn’t mean a judge can say, I just need the polls to move a little bit more. This case is going to be in a court, some judge is going to have to decide this elsewhere — such a wildly crazy system California has. SCOTUS made the step with Lawrence, the conduct between these individuals was a matter of privacy. Therefore we can’t wait any longer.

    Olson: People told MLK, back off, there will be a backlash. His letter from Birmingham jail is the most compelling argument on this question ever written in America,

    Olson: Now I need to talk about this new thing Mr Cooper mentioned: the threat of irresponsible procreation. My clients cannot irresponsibly procreate. How will they? We have evidence, we have a trial record, we have the campaign materials — never was this irresponsible procreation mentioned. Cooper cited the two exhibits but they don’t mention procreation. As far as the official ballot pamphlet, it was exhibit 1 in this case. THere’s six paragraphs, I read it all — there’s nothing about procreation, although I did find the words activist judges and protect our children — about six times.

    Olson: the motivation for the adoption of Prop 8 is the argument they put before the voters: discriminatory animus, projecting on a group of people that they are different.

    Olson: Now in the trial, we relied on a definition of marriage from 14 SCOTUS cases. The 122 year history outweighs Mr Cooper’s discussion of a couple of appellate cases. We had powerful personal testimony, world-leading expert testimony, all kinds of evidence — there was NO evidence on the other side, he said it is a matter of choice. But that’s not true — it’s not a choice, it is a sexual identity.

    Olson: And then there was Mr Blankenhorn who really sort of came over to our side. All of the evidence was on OUR side. Mr Cooper cited the "hightech gays" case, which relied on Bowers v Hardwick, which has been overruled by Lawrence, by Hernandez. "Sexual orientation and sexual identity are immutable." That’s the guidance your honor needs to follow.

    Olson: Let’s talk about what is happening here. You asked about distinctions, about discrimination based on gender. You asked about a fundamental right to marry, not marry in June, not marry certain people. SCOtUS has told us what’s required. We have people with identifiable characteristics, immutable chaaracteristics, a discrete group you are causing harm, you are excluding them from a special part of society — it doesn’t cut it when you are taking aaway a basic human right without knowing what the threat is, without defining a danger, without understanding the risk.

    Olson: You just can’t do this in this case, their behavior and conduct is a protected right but your right to sexual intimacy is the basis of taking away your right to marry. Blankenhorn is absolutely right: the day we end this is the day we become more American.
    The Blankenhorn he refers to here was an "expert witness" the h8ers brought to the stand to support their side last February, but he ended up screwing them by undermining their entire argument during cross-examination and admitting the more American thing to do is to allow gay marriage. FIST PUMPS for Olson calling back to this in his conclusion.

    So proud.
    Last edited by devnull; 06-17-2010 at 12:51 AM.

  7. #7
    Strangerer Rum 509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,127
    I got an email 7 hours ago about them trying to revoke 18,000 marriages - they've backed off on that!!??

    I don't know, I'm cautiously optimistic. Thanks for the updates.

  8. #8
    worth a million in prizes .chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,884
    That vile piece of slop known as Maggie Gallagher pretty much concedes they will lose this court case:

    "Chuck Cooper is a heckuva lawyer. At stake in this case is the future of marriage in all 50 states, and he's right that this attempt to shut down the debate by constitutionalizing gay marriage will backfire. Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn't seem to understand the argument, and judging from today's exchanges neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8. But millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well."
    Speaking of that crazy bitch- did you see in the court transcriptions how she got yelled at for putting her feet up in court?!

  9. #9
    see a sea anemone devnull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by .chris View Post

    Speaking of that crazy bitch- did you see in the court transcriptions how she got yelled at for putting her feet up in court?!
    No I didn't! lulz.

  10. #10
    Administrator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,138
    Ugh, Maggie Gallagher is vile.

    I'm not even cautiously optimistic with this one. I've been following it on Towleroad but I automatically assume that everything's going to fuck us over all the time. It'd be such a welcome surprise to be proven wrong for once.

    When is this decision supposed to happen?

  11. #11
    Strangerer Rum 509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,127
    What's next in the Proposition 8 case:

    Ruling: By Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, probably in July, on whether the ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee of equality.

    Possible stay: If Walker overturns Prop. 8, its sponsors will seek a stay from the judge or from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to keep the ban in effect.

    Appeal: The losing side in Walker's court will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which might issue a ruling by this time next year.

    High court: The loser at the appeals court could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court accepts the case, it could issue a ruling in 2012 on either the constitutionality of the California ballot measure or the overall right of same-sex couples to marry.
    Source: http://tinyurl.com/36m8rjv

  12. #12
    worth a million in prizes .chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,884
    these two exchanges kill me!

    Cooper: Mr. Blankenhorn brought forward these authorities. You donít have to have evidence from these authorities. The cases.

    Walker: I donít have to have evidence?
    and:

    Walker: If so, why in this case did you present but one witness? ANd I think itís safe to say his testimony was equivocal.

    Cooper: We didnít need his testimony.

    Walker: I guess that goes back to the premise that you donít need evidence.

  13. #13
    to the loneliest city in the world other pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    shatter shattered
    Posts
    5,962
    Question from someone not well briefed on the intricacies of the US debate: Are Civil Partnerships (with complete legal equity to marriage), as available in the UK, completely off the agenda?

  14. #14
    see a sea anemone devnull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,253
    I know you all have a much better and consistent solution than we do over here in the US. But no -- and for a few reasons:

    California already has domestic partnerships which, in theory, are legally equitable. They are not equitable; so many of our laws use the word "marriage" to define the relationship domestic partnerships also cover that there are all sorts of gaps and limbos that gay domestic partnerships fall into. And then there's the fact that the federal government doesn't recognize the domestic partnerships at all and they are worthless once you step across a state line. There are also many different versions of civil unions, partnerships and even marriage in some states (and some states give no recognition at all to gay unions), but until the federal DOMA is repealed, marriage is effectively a states' issue. Hopefully this case and others will change that... it's a foregone conclusion that this will be appealed by whichever side loses all the way to the US Supreme Court.

    Besides, in theory as well as practice, only marriage is equitable to marriage. Separate is not equal.

  15. #15
    Yes, and civil partnerships vs. marriage might not be such a big deal if the homophobia in the states were not as bad as it is, but because of the rampant homophobia in politics and public debate, the only realistic option is marriage, because civil partnerships are just another way for politicians and voters to keep gays and lesbians separate from the rest of the population.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •