Testimony Finished in Proposition 8 Trial

Testimony has ended, at least for now, in the trial over the California Marriage Amendment. Here's Lisa Leff’s report for the Associated Press.

Defense lawyers asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to reserve their option to present more documents based on subpoenas they have issued to [marriage neutering advocacy] groups that opposed the measure.

Let's hope they can submit more.

The defense called just two expert witnesses. More than a dozen witnesses appeared for the plaintiffs.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. There were also written materials, including friend-of-the-court briefs. As emotional as the testimony has been, I have not seen an airtight argument for the federal court to remove the California Marriage Amendment, and I have seen convincing defenses of the amendment.

Walker has said he wants to take several weeks to review all the evidence before hearing closing arguments, probably sometime in March.

So this is what comes next, after the break:

Closing arguments

Decision issued by Walker

Then it will be on to the federal appeals court.

Then it will be on to the Supreme Court of the United States

Earlier in the day, the founder of a family values think-tank testified that the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.

Changing laws to accommodate the wishes of a small segment of the adult population comes second to protecting the rights and needs of children, and the larger society.

He acknowledged, however, that allowing gays to wed would have positive consequences for same-sex couples and society, such as scoring "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion," reducing anti-gay prejudice and hate crimes, and creating a higher standard of living for same-sex couples.

1) We are already tolerant, in the literal meaning of that word. Intolerance would be trying to prevent same-sex couples from their freedom of association, or, say, using litigational harassment to force a business you don't own to offer and market a new service as you see fit.

2) Inclusion is only good depending on what is being included.

3) We could also raise the standard of living for same-sex couples by waiving all income taxes for them. It is up to people to use what they have, voluntary associations, and what is legally available to improve their own standard of living. A homosexual person can raise their standard of living by marrying the right person of the opposite sex, and probably through a domestic partnership if he or she is going to be paired with someone of the same sex. "Singles" could probably raise their standard of living if they were given domestic partnership status with their platonic friend who lives in another city, or their sibling. Are we obligated to grant that?

4) I'm not sure how issuing neutered marriage licenses would reduce hate crimes, and I thought he was probably making a wild leap with that one; sure enough when I checked Maura Dolan’s coverage on LATimes.com, she writes it differently:

Under cross-examination today, Blankenhorn testified that he agreed that same-sex marriage might reduce prejudice and hate crimes against homosexuals, lead to higher living standards for same-sex couples and probably reduce the number of gays who marry members of the opposite sex.

That’s a little different. The rest of the quotes below come from Dolan’s blog entry.

[Much more after the jump - click below.]

Blankenhorn identified three principles of marriage, saying it involves opposite-sex people, is limited to two people and includes a sexual relationship.

Boies pointed out that much of the world has practiced polygamy in the past, that some societies practiced homosexual marriage and that some marriages, such as those of prisoners, are never consummated by sexual intercourse.

Brideless or groomless "marriages" were scattered aberrations, and I’m sure same-sex couples don't want their relationships likened to marrying locked-up convicts.

Blankenhorn, however, insisted that polygamy satisfied the principles of marriage because it involves a man who marries one woman at a time.

Boies asked whether Blankenhorn was testifying that a man with five wives is consistent with his rule that marriage involves two people.

Blankenhorn said yes, adding that the marriages did not occur at the same time, and "each marriage is distinct."

Marriage unites the sexes. The polygamy being cited always involves uniting the sexes. There is more precedent for polygamy than for neutering marriage. Certainly, if there is a "right" to marry someone you love, how can we deny polygamists? How many people these days are truly fully monogamous, having only one partner in a lifetime? Conversely, if we aren't obligated to issue marriage licenses to a pairing in which one of the persons is currently married to another, then we surely aren't obligated to issue marriage licenses to a brideless or groomless pairing.