My Day in Federal Court: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

[mcguffin]

 On Friday, I went to downtown San Francisco and attended the courtroom trial of  Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This case has been brought into Federal Court to challenge California's proposition 8 which revoked gay marriage within the state.

Comments

[sassette726]

Thanks for this; it was a really interesting read.

I too would love to hear a cogent argument against gay marriage that doesn't boil down to "Jesus says so." Because even that doesn't hold water considering 1) Jesus didn't say that and 2) divorce is perfectly legal and common.

[mcguffin]

sassette, I agree with you on points 1 and 2. I also add that there are a whole # of people who live lives of faith and still support civil equality.

Stay tuned for the defense-intervenor's case. It should be interesting.

For a different perspective on the trial, see the protectmarriage.com website (the defense-intervenor's website). According to the the Defense-Intervenor's general counsel, Andy Pugno:

"When you synthesize the hours of testimony provided this morning, two points come in to focus: the plaintiffs have done absolutely nothing to disprove the belief that the optimal social and personal outcomes of children are best achieved by being raised by their biological married parents, and that such a notion is a reasonable and rational reason for people to have voted for Prop 8."

The key word in that statement is "belief." They're focused on beliefs and not science.

[sassette726]

Because their whole argument is based on their moral belief.

Like I said, where it all falls down to me is divorce. If the people who believe gay marriage is such an abomination really put their money where their mouth is, they'd be opposed to legal divorce too. But you suggest that and you get scoffed at. All that proves to me is that this isn't about Christian morals or any of that crap, but about keeping a group marginalized.

[chapel_of_words]

Did they argue the "optimal" line in court? Because that may end up being a hamaratia. I don't think SCOTUS, even Scalia, is ready to rule on using the government to create "optimal" child rearing conditions - since that standard is so variable and subject to interpretaiton it would require a massive intervention into previously held freedoms of - as you say - many groups not specifically targeted by Prop 8. "Reasonable" or "appropriate" is probably the best you can get in a child-rearing laws. Take dwelling cleanliess as an example - like it's neither reasonable nor appropriate to leave a young child in a physically unhealthy (mold, sewage etc.) environment. But what is the "optimal" level of cleanliness to raise a child? You can't define it, nor if you could, could you really enforce it without massive government efforts

[selinker]

Thanks for the play-by-play. I agree that it has the potential to be ranked alongside Plessy and Brown, whichever way it goes.

Mike