At Closings, Judge Asks Same-Sex Marriage Foes, "Where's Your Evidence?"

New York Lawyer ^ | June 17, 2010 | By Dan Levine | The Recorder

[a fool in paradise]

Ask the judge why there is a prohibition on marrying relatives.

[marron]

In fifteen thousand years of human civilization it has never existed and it doesn’t exist now.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Pass all the laws you want, it doesn’t change the reality of it. There isn’t and never has been such a thing as gay marriage. Never will be.

Its the old joke. If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Call it anything you want to, a dog’s tail is not a leg. Pass all the laws you want to, the dog still has only four legs.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”At one point, Walker asked Cooper to recount the trial evidence showing that marriage is designed to encourage procreation. That's the central reason Prop 8 supporters cite as why voters have a rational basis to ban gay marriage. But as Cooper named different expert authorities, Walker interrupted. ...The marriage case involves a fundamental right, Olson replied, like the one allowing interracial marriage. Civil rights activists have always been told to move more slowly, he said.... “It's the same argument made to Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Olson said, referring to the current Supreme Court justice's advocacy for women's rights in the 1970s. ...If Walker rules for the plaintiffs, it could be narrow, striking down Prop 8 on equal protection grounds but declining to recognize a broad federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. He did not say when an opinion would be handed down.”

Maybe a legal marriage certification(and benefits) is not really a right. I would also argue that homosexual behavior/desires is NOT the same as race or sex but my thinking on that has fell out of favor. Race and sex are easy to classify and prove scientifically but sexual desire is not. It is implied by behaviour. Child molesters are characterized by their sexual desires too. How about racists?

[skeeter]

I’m no expert, but doesn’t “evidence” have to come from those contesting the law?

[Ol' Sparky]

It is a California Constitutional amendment. How can it be overturned?

The same way a right to an abortion can be created out of thin air when it was never intended to be a right.

[IrishCatholic]

Actually, this is different. In abortion they made up a right by inferring it was already in the national Constitution. They didn't throw out a section of the Constitution.
Here at the state level they are effectively throwing out a portion of the state constitution and nullifying the very concept of what a constitution is. It is supposed to be the highest law in California and judges should only be able to rule based on that standard whether some other law is in compliance with that standard. Now they are simply changing the standard itself to say anything they want.
Anarchy will result.

[magellan]

This whole trial was a joke. They were debating the merits of marriage, not the merits of the law.

There are only two things which are relevant:

1. Can the state regulate marriage?

2. Is the ballot initiative legal?

All of this touchy-feely stuff about marriage is irrelevant.

If #1 is determined to be false, and the state has no right to regulate who can marry, then brothers and sisters are legal to marry, and there is no legal justification for monogamous marriage. If #2 is determined to be false, then all prior ballot initiatives are null and void.

The idea they will somehow selectively overturn a ballot initiative because we don't like the results sets a hell of a precedent.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The outcome of this “trial” was determined long before it started.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Ted Olson is a disgrace.

That depends upon which side of the street he's working at any given moment.

He was the conservatives' hero when he worked on Bush's case in 2000.

Now that he's defending homosexuals, he's a disgrace.

In truth, he's a lawyer who will take any position as long it pays enough money.

[glennaro]

The idea they will somehow selectively overturn a ballot initiative because we don't like the results sets a hell of a precedent.

That's the point. It makes votes irrelevant. I'm thinking the next time I'll complete my ballot except the propositions. I'll send it to the judge for him to fill out so my votes will be "correct" in the eyes of the court.

[ClearCase_guy]

Where did he get his law degree -- out of a box of Cracker Jack?

I don't have a lot of exposure to this case, but I heard short interviews with both Olson and Cooper on the radio:

Olson is smooth and eloquent. He's a persuasive speaker who made a cogent argument. He's wrong on this issue, but clearly a talented lawyer.

Cooper is ... uh ... the question is ... the question is ... uh ... marriage is a tradition and ... uh ... did you want evidence? ... uh ...

I see this crap and I think the case is rigged from the start, and the worst possible lawyer was picked to take up the side of traditional values.

[presently no screen name]

Good point!

[ivyleaguebrat]

The California Constitution is not the highest law in California, the U.S. Constitution is.

Here, they are arguing that a portion of the California Constitution—that added by Prop 8—conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, and is nullified thereby.

[ModelBreaker]

“In truth, he’s a lawyer who will take any position as long it pays enough money. “

Back when I was practicing law, I had a chance to be heavily involved in the “Boy Scouts have to admit gay boys” case. I passed because it would be bad constitutional law had I won.

[darkangel82]

You did the right thing.

[massmike]

The judge is a queer...who didnt know what the result was going to be months ago?

Kind of like the feeling I got when they picked OJ's first jury.....

[ModelBreaker]

“You did the right thing.”

Thanks. I think Olson has a thing for promoting the homosexual agenda. If I recall correctly, he did pro bono work on the Roemer case.

[fwdude]

You got it. The burden of proof, an incredible one, belongs to the anti-Prop 8 side.

[fwdude]

The outcome of this “trial” was determined long before it started.

I'm hold out on hope that the judge is asking hard questions as a smoke screen. He just might find for the defendants.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I would be very surprised if it’s a smoke screen. The judge is an openly gay man.