California Marriage Amendment Trial Resumes Tomorrow

The closing argument phase of the federal trial over the California Marriage Amendment (Proposition 8) starts tomorrow. Maura Dolan covers the story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to it as a "ban on same-sex marriage", of course.

A federal judge who will decide the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage wants lawyers during closing arguments Wednesday to discuss the meaning of "choice" in sexual orientation and a possible finding that Proposition 8 attempted to "enforce private morality."

Like I've said, what is relevant is: 1. Did the people of California follow due process in voting for this constitutional amendment? (The answer is yes - even the state Supreme Court that neutered marriage in the first place agreed.) 2. Does the amendment violate the federal Constitution? (The answer is no... it treats all individuals equally under the law.)

Someone's feelings are not relevant in this case. Someone could have been born with a feeling, but it doesn't obligate the rest of us to change anything. Keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing in no way enforces private morality. It doesn’t prevent anyone from shacking up, engaging in sex and sex-like behaviors, or whatever. It enforces a public standard for licenses that are issued on behalf of the public.

Among the questions asked of attorneys for the Proposition 8 opponents is how much importance should be placed on the motivation of voters who approved the marriage ban.

Registered voters are allowed to vote or refrain from voting based on any or no reason, and that is their private decision to make. What matters is what the law says. If someone voted to neuter marriage because they want same-sex couples to be "as miserable as heterosexual couples", would that make a law neutering marriage invalid?

Even if a ban on gay marriage has no rational purpose, Walker asked, is it legal if voters truly believed it would prevent harm?

It is legal because a majority of the vote adopted it, in accordance with the state constitution.

[Much more after the jump.]

"Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination?" Walker asked both sides. "What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory?"

All laws discriminate. But one need not disapprove of homosexual behavior to favor the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing. As I have said before, I personally know at least one same-sex couple that is against the neutering of marriage.

There are comments on the article worth noting.

"Romgtr" at 8:16 AM June 15, 2010:

the reason the state should forbid gay marriage because it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "I'm a married bachelor." It's an oxymoron!

"dejapooh" at 9:22 AM June 15, 2010:

So, because the way some people live makes no sense to you, it should be illegal?

Homosexual behavior, cohabitation, and ceremonies are not illegal, and maintaining that state-issued marriage licenses shouldn't be given to groomless or brideless couples is a far cry from calling for the recriminalization of homosexuality.

"Carrot Cake Man" at 11:19 AM June 15, 2010:

Rom, YOUR marriage "doesn't make any sense" to me. Can I take away YOUR equality based on my dislike for your "lifestyle choice"?

If you can get enough people to vote for it, then yes, you can change the marriage laws. There is a difference, however: heterosexual behavior is how we all got here.

"P-Funk" at 8:55 AM June 15, 2010

If marriage is redefined, could someone explain why the bounds must then end with marriage between only TWO, NON-IMMEDIATELY-RELATED, CONSENTING ADULTS?

Because most LGBTQQUAI??? Activists aren't arguing for that. It is a matter of who is making the most noise, not logic.

What is the great barrier between homosexual marriage and "sibling" marriage? Or, a union of two versus a union of three?

There isn't one, according to these people. Actually, polygamy and incestuous marriages do have a long history in various places around the world, unlike same-sex "marriage". But they are not recognized by state licensing, nor should they be.

"joe31183" at 9:23 AM June 15, 2010:

When "sibling" marriage and polygamous marriage are on the table, then deal with it then.

Notice he doesn’t make an argument against them. Instead, he appeals to numbers. "P-Funk" points on the double standard:

You argue that "a large group of people" have pushed for homosexual marriage. That's why we should allow homosexual marriage and, at this time, preclude the lessor supported types of marriages which I mentioned. The constitutionality of homosexual marriage, then, would be because of the large number of supporters pushing for it, right?

He continues in another comment:

Assuming that a critical mass is needed for an issue to become constitutional, I have two questions:

#1 At which point is critical mass reached? ("...a large group of American citizens requested gay marriage.")

#2 Would the large group of American citizens pushing "against" the constitutionality of homosexual marriage be equally valid?

"joe31183" at 10:29 AM June 15, 2010:

1) If the group is large and it is shown that to prevent the group equal treatment would be harmful, then legalization should be approached. Denying families equal protections under the law is obviously detrimental to the family in question.

2) I don't believe that we should ever vote on the rights of couples that do not affect ourselves. It's just cruel. I believe it should be left up to the courts to decide if something of this nature be legalized. In history, the courts were the most powerful when it came to approving civil rights. You just can't leave these things up to the public because they vote with bias and not out of what's right and wrong.

Unfortunately for Joe, the people of California are allowed to vote.

Last I checked, nobody pointed out a logical reason why same-sex pairings should get marriage licenses but the others shouldn't.

Please see my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant