Ed Whelan has added a third and a fourth blogpost in his series about the basis of the federal trial of the CA marriage amendment. Judge Walker has embarked on a fact-finding quest that Whelan has described as a fool's errand.
Snippets:
Part 3
Given all the discussion about Prop 8 in newspapers, on television and radio, among friends and neighbors, and on the Internet, what possible basis is there for giving central importance to this purported disconnect between the messages of Prop 8’s sponsors and the state interests that Prop 8 advances?
Part 4
Insofar as it might (in a hypothetical alternative legal universe) be relevant to look to the messages of Prop 8’s sponsors to discern voter intent, the arguments made by the Prop 8 sponsors in the official voter information guide that the state of California sent to all voters would surely deserve priority over other messages.
* * *
Return to "Whelan: Judge on a Fool's Errand in Prop 8 Trial."
Last week at the legal beagle blogsite, Volokh Conspiracy, I touched on this very thing.
ReplyDeleteSee: here.
Other commenter: "Obviously, the experts' views on homosexuality are in there; surely that’s perfectly appropriate for trial.
Me: Howso? The amendment’s operation is independant of such views. Why might you presume otherwise?
And here, in response to the reply.
Me: As with the marriage category, the nonmarriage category is not defined by a gay-straight dichotomy.
A trial is not required to discover these facts, surely.
Gayness is not a criterion for ineligiblity to marry; straightness is not a criteriion for eligibility to marry. This, too, is a known fact that Walker’s court need not search for in the testimony of experts, surely.