Mostly Recapping Day Two of Proposition 8 Trial

I'm mostly looking at published opinions, which came after the news updates yesterday.

Associated Press Writer Paul Elias has a story about cameras in federal courtrooms.

Heres the latest Lisa Leff story.

Now, on to what's in the Los Angeles Times.

Maura Dolan has an article in today’s edition that mainly rehashes her blog updates from yesterday.

[Cott] noted that that divorce rates rose steeply in the 1960s and marriage continued to be viewed negatively in the 1970s as heterosexuals advocated "open marriages" and "swinging." But divorce rates hit a plateau in the 1980s, and marriage is now held in high esteem in the U.S., she said.

She attributed the higher status of marriage to advocacy by the Christian right and the growing clamoring of gays and lesbians to participate in it.

Wow, the folks in the "Christian right" should be flattered that she thinks they've had such influence over everyone - including Obama voters in California.

Or is it that enough people have enough regard for marriage that they want to save what is left of it?

Cott maintains that marriage is about "stability", not about children. However, isn't the main reason we want to encourage stability in such a relationship for the benefit of children? Does it really matter to society if what amouts to two childless best-friend roommates who are having sex with each other have stability?

"jrs90210" commented (01/13/2010, 8:26 AM ):

It brings a smile to my face every time you describe how the Opponents of Equality complain about how awful gay marriage is, but then can never explain how it is actually harmful.

Even if that was true, the burden of proof is on those who want change. We do not strike down or pass laws based solely on asking "What could it hurt?" Immediately, it hurts our "government of the people" way of doing things.

"lovesweetlove" (01/13/2010, 12:49 AM ) – quite a doozy. This person accuses marriage defenders of being worse than mass-homicidal terrorist bombers and faults believers for looking forward to Heaven.

[Much, much more after the jump.]

The paper printed some letters to the editor today.

Anna Koepke of El Sobrante invokes God against homosexuality. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, one need not be a theist nor disapprove of homosexual behavior to see the value in keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing.

Mike Lambert of Studio City wrote:

Perhaps individuals who are so concerned about making their personal beliefs public should not be advocating the enshrinement of those beliefs as public policy.

We're all allowed our private vote, and there is no requirement that we base our vote on something other than our personal beliefs. Lambert probably votes according to his personal beliefs, too. I'm certainly not required to vote according to his.

I looked at this blog update yesterday. I submitted my own comment on the website. Unlike with past instances, my comment was not published. There was nothing in the comment that should have kept it from being published. Now I'm wondering what other comments they are not posting?

"kristin" wrote January 12, 2010 at 05:05 PM:

Bigamists have also been despised and persecuted throughout American history. Does that mean we should allow bigamy as well?

Good question. Many people, especially men, feel an attraction and desire for more than one partner, after all.

"Sam" wrote January 12, 2010 at 05:50 PM:

Kind of like [the] Rich who have been a "despised category," a minority that have been harassed, assets stolen, villanized, scrutinized, and bad-mouthed by the majority. We demand equal rights!!!!!! EVERYONE should pay the same tax rate. Oh wait, discrimination and equal rights doesn't apply to us.

There's a new one.

"jim" wrote January 12, 2010 at 07:21 PM:

Chauncey is gay himself and his entire academic career has been built on special pleading for his identity group. He has "testified" many times as a paid expert witness in litigation raising gay issues, including the well known Lawrence case.

That reminds me. I wonder if the defendants can call to the stand people who used to identify as "gay" or "lesbian" and practiced homosexuality, but are now married happily to people of the opposite sex; voted for Prop 22 and Prop 8, and feel violated when their votes are disparaged and tossed aside, and when other people say that homosexual orientation is immutable? Of course, homosexuality could be immutable, healthy, and inborn, and it still wouldn't obligate us to neuter state marriage licensing.

"Kris" wrote January 13, 2010 at 09:04 AM:

I'm a little bit confused about the comments about "what's next?" Currently. 2 consenting adults of opposite gender are granted the right to marriage. We're now just trying to allow 2 consenting adults of the same gender those same rights.

But why just 2? If we are compelled to change marriage licensing based on what a minority wants, then we are compelled to change it for polygamists.

Maura Dolan blogged an update this morning.

Here are more comments, this time from another one of yesterday’s blog postings.

"aduran08" wrote January 12, 2010 at 10:45 AM:

reinstating the ban on same-sex marriage is a regression in history.

So was the repealing of Prohibition. Not all new law or policy or court decision is an improvement just because it is new.

"Lila" wrote January 12, 2010 at 01:32 PM:

The worst kind of people in the world are religious... All the most horrible things happened between religious people.

Sure, if you include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as "religious", but they certainly were not basing their views nor actions on the Bible. There were not theists. At least three were officially atheists. Those guys are responsible for more murders and killings than all of the churches and traditional religions combined.

"Heather" wrote January 12, 2010 at 01:55 PM:

So many sad and ignorant people...The bible has been written over and over by human beings.

I would like to ask Heather exactly how many times any given part of the Bible has been rewritten, and what her proof of this would be. Besides, laws are rewritten all of the time - this does not preclude them from informing us of something important.

"Zach" wrote January 12, 2010 at 02:50 PM:

The comments here really stretch the imagination. 'If a woman can marry another woman, why can't a woman marry a dog?"

I used to think this was a ridiculous argument, too. But now there are serious movements in various parts of the world to give other species (dolphins and chimps come to mind) the designation of "persons" and therefore, human rights. It would only be a matter of time before that would include a marriage license if a line isn't maintained now.