Opinions From Here and There on the Proposition 8 Trial

The drumbeat continues over at the Los Angeles Times. Columnist Tim Rutten chimed in bemoaning the lack of a broadcast, and is clearly in favor of neutering marriage. He thinks SCOTUS' decisions on broadcasting is troublesome. Also "troubling", according to him, is the notion that SCOTUS might actually decide to protect marriage and the due process of the California vote.

Notice that in his thinking, one side is for "marriage equality" and the other side consists of "Propostion 8 defenders". How about "defenders of the California constitution"? Or "defenders of traditional marriage?" And "marriage equality", of course, is a bogus concept in the sense he uses it.

It's true that a tiny handful of activists on the movement's fringe have behaved outrageously toward opponents of same-sex marriage, but that criticism can't be made against the plaintiffs in this case.

It isn't the plaintiffs who are of concern. Even their expert witnesses say there's a lot of mental illness in "the community". Homofascists came out in force after the amendment was adopted. Think of it this way, in terms I'm sure someone who works at the Los Angeles Times can understand – the people who shoot abortion doctors aren't plaintiffs in lawsuits, either.

That was for Saturday's edition. From Sundays edition comes a news article version of the same topic, from David G. Savage.

The lawyers challenging the California measure hope to build a convincing case that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, suffer from prejudice and bigotry that requires a remedy from the courts.

So far, they've mostly shown that the family and friends of those testifying have been the "problem". Are federal courts really supposed to do something about that? It is one thing for courts and legislatures to get involved in housing or employment issues, but should they tell family members they can't do anything to make other family members feel awkward?

I notice this article also uses phrases like "opponents of gay marriage" and "Prop. 8 defenders". It's biased language. Why aren't the plaintiffs called "opponents of the voters" or "opponents of the state constitution" or "foes of traditional marriage"?

Legal experts on the left and right gleaned three insights from the high court intervention:

First, the justices are following this case closely. They typically rule on appeals after cases are decided. It is rare for them to intervene in a pending trial.

Second, the court's conservatives do not trust Walker to set fair rules for proceedings. Their opinion described how he had given shifting explanations of his plans. This suggests Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 may be viewed with some skepticism.

And third, the majority has a distinct sympathy for the foes of same-sex marriage. The justices cited a series of newspaper stories reporting on the threats and harassment faced by those who have publicly opposed gay unions.

Let's hope this is all true.

Several California law professors who said they supported gay rights worried about a 9th Circuit ruling that broadly endorsed [neutering] marriage.

"The worst-case scenario is a 9th Circuit ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. That will force the Supreme Court's hand, and it will lead to a bad precedent," said Vikram Amar, a law professor at UC Davis and a former court clerk. "I don't see the five justices to affirm that. There may not be two or three even."

Despite articles like this, the activists will still pretend to be shocked if SCOTUS affirms marriage and due process.

[Favorable opinions after the jump.]

Diane Medved published some thoughts here. Check them out.

Depth of feeling for another person may create a relationship, but it does not constitute or necessitate marriage.

Later she writes...

I do think it's true that California marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples. Couples where both partners are the same gender are treated differently from couples where the partners are of opposite sexes. That's called "discrimination based on sex." Which for many purposes is perfectly legal, and which advocates of gay marriage do not seek to change. For example, women are not required to register for the draft, and if there were one, women would not be required to serve. Public restrooms may be segregated by sex. Male and female convicts go to facilities separated by gender. And California marriage laws always assumed--and now specify--a bride and a groom.

I urge you to click through and read the whole thing. Also found at Townhall.com is Kevin McCullough latest column, "Why Ted Olson is Wrong".

Even though we have not one ounce of biological evidence as to the origin of what creates homosexual feelings, desires, inclinations, and temptations, Olson et al are adopting the mantra that people who engage in that behavior are in some way forced by nature to do so. Even if the argument compels science to argue that homosexuals are "born that way," advising such behavior is not necessarily healthy. Newborns with fetal alcohol syndrome are not expected to take to beer instead of milk.

Even if it was true that someone had no control over what their body does, that would not obligate us to remove the bride+groom requirement from marriage licensing. Everyone needs to eliminate waste from their bodies, but we still have male and female restrooms, and only the male restrooms have urinals – and we expect people to control their bodies enough to use those restrooms, and not the entryway of a courthouse - or to have medical accomodations.

Binding legal relationships between people of the same sex already exist in nearly every state in the union. Rights like hospital visitation, inheritance, financial planning, even severance upon the ending of the relationship can already be contracted by any two people, a piece of paper, and a notary.

In California, which has full domestic partnerships, it is all about hijacking a word, and hoping to force a SCOTUS court mandate.

Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason blogged some thoughts.

If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention. We can define it how we want. Now, I don’t accept that view, but even if I did, this doesn’t help homosexual marriage. Society has voted, and they’ve voted it out. On what grounds do you appeal for a change? Moral grounds? You’ve surrendered that opportunity when you claim that there is no right or wrong definition of marriage. If so, I have no moral obligation to opt for one view over another. If marriage is merely defined by society, well then, we voted and defined it as one man and one woman.

There was a letter written in to the Orange County Register that caught my eye.

Cherilyn Harline of San Clemente wrote:

If biology demands that human offspring derive from one male and one female, then it is safe to conclude that children have a right to both a father and a mother.

Perhaps this is one of those natural rights that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, because it wasn’t under threat at the time" Perhaps now, we need an amendment spelling this out - or maybe SCOTUS will spell it out.

It does not deny homosexual couples the right to unite, nor does it deny them "respect and dignity" any more than it does the divorced, the single or the childless. It merely promotes a standard that, across cultures and generations, has supported the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Children do not consent to their parentage or custody. Just think of that a time-honored cry of the teenager: "I didn’t ask to be born!"