Marriage Trial Update

[jimkeller]

Yesterday saw the closing arguments in the Federal trial against Proposition 8 (which suppressed the right of gays and lesbians to marry in the state of California). You cannot be faulted if you didn't hear since, once again, cameras were not allowed in the courtroom resulting in a de facto media blackout. I just finished reading the transcript

Comments

[jimkeller]

Unfortunately, if the court decides that "rational basis review" is correct -- and precedent is on that side of the argument -- then the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove that there is no rational basis for the law. And, of course, you know how hard it is to prove the negative. So, yeah, despite the slam-dunk case by the plaintiffs and the ludicrous non-case by the defendant-intervenors, the ruling could still come down anti-equality.

The good news is, no one is arguing that Prop 8 is a good idea any more. Merely that the state does, in fact, have the power to enact it, stupid idea or not. That's good news for anyone who was afraid that bringing the case might undo the marriage equality gains we've already made. There's just no arguments being presented that we should undo marriage equality, even from the haters, so there's no way a court constraining itself to the case at hand could rule that way.

[freudinshade]

On the other unfortunately, the Roberts court has shown it's willingness to ignore precedent and take very sketchy views of the law. I wouldn't put it past the current supremes to rule beyond the bounds of the case or to ignore the findings of fact (there's no such problem with the Ninth Circuit, but the Supremes historically haven't liked the Ninth much, so the fact that the case is likely to be seen favorably by that court doesn't necessarily do us much good.)

[jimkeller]

Ignoring precedent, in and of itself, I don't object to at the Supreme Court level. Precedents can be shown wrong when seen in the light of different times, facts, and circumstances (which is why I agreed so strongly with the dissent in Kelo v. New London, which wanted to throw out the earlier precedents and restrict the use of eminent domain to public use). But, yeah, there are at least four sitting members who have been known to pull law out of the part of their body that is in contact with their bench, so I'm not taking anything for granted at that level -- especially given the habit of at least two of them to cite "common knowledge" and outside works of philosophy in their opinions...

[mlerules]

Thank you for posting this.

[jimkeller]

My pleasure!