Another Recap of the Proposition 8 Trial So Far

Maura Dolan recapped the trial so far against the California Marriage Amendment in this Los Angeles Times piece.

Same-sex marriage has been practiced in various cultures over time, including among some people in China, India, West Africa and North America. Roman emperors sometimes married men.

In all of the years and cultures of human history, that a smattering of cases within those cultures can be found where a man "married" a man does not negate the truth that marriage unites the sexes, any more than the few cases of a human "marrying" an animal or a building. Furthermore, polygamy has been practiced and officially recognized throughout history, and yet we do not license polygamous marriages, and bigamists, are prosecuted.

Indeed, UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar said so far the lawyers have put together a strong evidentiary foundation for judges who were inclined to rule for [neutering] marriage to do so, but added that "it is not an analysis that is going to convince anybody who is not already leaning your way."

It’s not really that strong. It is quite weak.

Amar also said the plaintiffs did not appear to have proven that Proposition 8 was motivated by animus, which would make the law invalid.

It could be said that any law that targets "the rich" for higher taxation is motivated by animus against an economic class – just check out some of the public statements made in support of such laws. And yet the laws stand. There are reasons to have graduated or targeted taxation. There are also reasons to support maintaining the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing that have nothing to do with dislike of homosexuality or homosexual people.

"There didn't seem to be compelling evidence that the only people who could have voted for this are people who hate gays," he said.

Like I said.

Chapman University professor John Eastman, who previously urged the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8, said the trial was "trying to prove something that is not relevant to the legal issues at stake."

"Even having a trial demonstrates a real misunderstanding of Supreme Court precedent," Eastman said.

I agree.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, a Republican appointee with a libertarian bent, is presiding over the trial. He has tried to prod both sides to move more quickly but also has generally allowed in most of the evidence they want to present. Some of the cross-examination has been longer than the direct testimony.

It will be good if Walker's libertarian bent would keep him from impeding on the vote of Californians.

The testimony that appeared to most transfix the plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in the courtroom came from Columbia University professor Ilan H. Meyer, who said discrimination has made gays more vulnerable to mood disorders and suicide. One gay man whispered afterward that he felt he had just spent hours in psychoanalysis.

"A gay couple has to monitor their behavior, such as holding hands, because someone can throw something at them even on a safe street," Meyer testified.

Anyone committing assault should be prosecuted. That someone commits assault does not compel us to neuter marriage.

Defenders of Proposition 8 intended to call at least two witnesses. One is expected to testify that gays and lesbians have strong political power and the other to talk about the value of opposite-sex marriage in child rearing.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, who have failed to make their case. Any additional points scored by the defense are icing on the cake.

[I look at reader comments after the jump.]

The website is taking comments. Click through to add yours.

"Ritaville" (01/23/2010, 8:55 PM ), who is in favor of marriage neutering, called on people to leave each other alone. That's a great idea. Get the plaintiffs to drop the lawsuit.

"alan2525" (01/23/2010, 9:57 PM ) wrote:

I love my partner Bill and will marry him as soon as enough people belive as I do.

Well then, how about a popular vote, instead of one or nine (five) people?

"marcluxjd" (01/23/2010, 11:38 PM ) wrote:

What government interest could there be in letting otherwise qualified couples from calling their relationship "marriage" and enfranchising their children with two automatic legal guardians?

They're free to call their relationship whatever they want. They're not free to force the rest of us to agree. And none have any children together save for children they have both adopted together. Meanwhile, there are plenty of married couples who create children together, without a third party.

"Billy_madison" (01/23/2010, 11:50 PM ) wrote:

We have people born with XXY, XYY, or XXX at rates of 1 per 1000 births for each condition.

So we’re going to ignore that everyone else is born distinctly male or distinctly female?

We have people self-identify their race (Jamaicans may not identify as African-American) and so it's the same with sexual orientation.

Okay, but the rest of us are not compelled to change everything to celebrate someone’s decision about how to label their feelings. We don’t really know someone’s feelings or attractions. We know what they do. And their birth certificate, a government document, has them listed as either male or female.