Testimony in a groundbreaking legal challenge to California's [duly adopted constitutional amendment] resumes Tuesday with testimony from two Ivy League historians who will discuss the nation's experience with matrimony and anti-gay discrimination.This is irrelevant. One can be completely neutral towards or even supportive of homosexual behavior (and people, of course) and still be in favor of maintaining a bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing.
Nancy Cott, a U.S. history professor at Harvard and the author of a book on marriage as a public institution, is scheduled to take the witness stand for a second day. Cott, a witness appearing on behalf of two gay couples who are suing to overturn Proposition 8, on Monday disputed assertions made by the measure's sponsors during the 2008 campaign that cultures around the world always have recognized marriage only as a union of a man and a woman.Really now, professor. Each of those examples involved uniting the sexes. All you did was show that perhaps we should bring back polygamy. (No howls of protest of her comparing same-sex "marriage" to polygamy? I guess it is okay when "your" side does it.)"To think of marriage as universal, the same around the globe, simply is not accurate," Cott said, explaining that America's founders knew that group marriages were common in other societies and among some Native American tribes. "The Bible is a document with characters that are practicing polygamy, which is the case with ancient civilizations."
[Much, much more after the jump.]
After Cott is cross-examined by lawyers for Proposition 8's backers, who are defending the voter-approved initiative in court, Yale history professor George Chauncey is expected to testify about anti-gay bias.You see, Californians – you need Ivy League professors telling you how to live your lives and how to vote.
The expert testimony will mark a change in tone from the trial's first day, when two same-sex couples gave intimate accounts of their private and public lives, at times tearfully testifying about moments of awkwardness, disappointment and shame that they said resulted from their inability to legally wed.I know of straight people in the same boat. That doesn't mean we should give them, as individuals or as pals, marriage licenses, no matter how many cats they collect.
"I've been in love with a woman for 10 years, and I don't have access to a word for it," said 45-year-old Kristin Perry of Berkeley, the lead plaintiff.Let me help. It is right there in California law: D-O-M-E-S-T-I-C… P-A-R-T-N-E-R-S-H-I-P. I could just as easily bring up tears about how people are trying to remove a word from describing the kind of relationship I have with my wife: marriage. So are your tears worth more than mine?
"In a store, people want to know if we are sisters or cousins or friends, and I have to decide every day if I want to come out wherever we go, if we are going to risk that negative reaction."Guess what? People are still going to react differently when you call her your "wife". Even if you can waive around a state marriage license. What are we going to do about that? Have thought police? The programs in the schools and workplaces haven't been enough? How about this when someone asks: "Guess!" or "You don't need to know."
"In the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is the most important relationship in life and of fundamental importance to all individuals," said Olson, who represented George W. Bush during the Florida recount in 2000 and later served as his solicitor general.Yes, because it unites both basic elements of society and perpetuates society. This is like saying military service is fundamental to a nation's survival, so let's declare all conscientious objectors "veterans".
Walker pressed for examples of how allowing gay couples to marry "in any way diminishes a procreative function or denigrates a marriage for an opposite-sex couple."
Because it says marriage is not about children or perpetuating society; it is about tingly feelings - a very subjective thing.
Here is Maura Dolan's Los Angeles Times article.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked if the state should simply get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses."That may solve the problem," Olson said, but it "would never happen."
Which problem would that solve? Only the "problem" of how to further tear down marriage. When the marriage neutering advocates talk like this, it smacks of that – that their intent is to harm marriage, not better the lives of people. Marriage stands as a glaring example of the very real difference between couples that unite the sexes and those that exclude one of the sexes, and as such, is loathed by those who fantasize that their behavior and decisions in life are not different that the majority's. I wouldn't wish gender confusion upon anyone (and I am vehemently against harassing or bullying or otherwise mistreating people in that condition) but I do not think this is a solution to the issue of individuals having feelings that are different from the majority. Whether we go by strict biology or some tradition, sexual organs are reproductive organs – sexual feelings help perpetuate the species. There is some disruption – regardless of cause – that renders a tiny minority of the population without those feelings or with different feelings. This does not obligate us to deny marriage and an important building block of society, any more than we are obligated to pretend all IQs are the same because someone who is born with the tendency towards extremely high intelligence feels ostracized or lonely.
If neutered state-issued marriage licenses are a fundamental right, as the marriage neutering advocates have been arguing, then how in the world could eliminating state marriage licensing possibly be acceptable? Again - it smacks of "yes, go ahead and cut the baby in half". All the trees will be kept equal by hatchet, ax, and saw.
Olson replied that U.S. history is filled with moral condemnation of people based on their race, gender and ethnicity.Irrelevant. This is based on behavior – what someone chooses to do. Homosexual people are not even prevented from living as they choose (or feel compelled to live) - nor should they. But we have the constitutional permission to set limits on our state licensing.
Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of California voters in 2008, perpetuates discrimination "for no good reason," Olson said.There's more reason for the state to be involved in bride+groom relationships than any other kind of voluntary personal association.
Checking into hotels with Katami is often "awkward," he said, as clerks sometimes ask if they meant to reserve a king-size bed.A state marriage license will not change this. If you're proud of who you are and what you do, why do you care if a hotel clerk doesn't get it?
Asked whether he might one day marry a woman, Zarrillo said he felt no attraction to or desire to be with a member of the opposite sex.
Marriage is optional. Even if your mother nags you. We're not playing a forced game of musical chairs, here.
Here is the article from David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams of the Los Angeles Times on the situation with the video distribution.
The marriage neutering advocates ask why we are so camera shy now. Funny that they ask, since their ads against Proposition 8 and promoting the neutering of marriage didn't feature any same-sex ceremonies. After seeing some of the images of them and demonstrations carried in the sympathetic news media over the last few days, I suspect it is because the images would have done nothing to promote the idea that such ceremonies are respectful of marriage and the people participating in them are your average neighbor. Yes, there are plenty of well-adjusted and integrated people who have a homosexual orientation, but these images aren't reflecting them. The activist groups might want to talk to their newsroom friends about that. Surely there are pictures and videos that would be better, right?
Previously:
Answering Olson's pro-SSM argument
Roundup of Proposition 8 Coverage
Low expectations of success for Olson challenge to CA marriage amendment
Proposition 8: California Marriage Amendment On Trial - Again
Judge Walker Making a Farce of Judicial Role in CA Marriage Case
I noted your blog at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. The host of the blog listed a anti-prop 8 link that is racking the trial. One commenter wondered if the trial was tracked by any Pro-prop 8 bloggers. The commenter wanted an "interesting read." So I posted your address.
ReplyDeleteThanks for doing that, ss.
ReplyDelete