Closing Arguments in CMA Trial

Closing arguments will happen this coming week in the federal trial over the California Marriage Amendment. As usual, Lisa Leff's Associated Press article refers to it as a "gay marriage ban".

The presiding judge wants them to answer 39 questions before he delivers his verdict.

I wonder what those are going to be. Here are my questions: 1. Did the people of California follow due process in voting for this constitutional amendment? (The answer is yes.) 2. Does the amendment violate the federal Constitution? (The answer is no... it treats all individuals equally under the law.)

Dismissed!

The judge expects to hear, too, whether he can find that withholding marriage from gays constitutes unlawful discrimination if voters "genuinely but without evidence" believed there were legitimate reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

From former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who will be arguing on behalf of two same-sex couples, Walker wants to know what empirical proof there is that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry would reduce discrimination against them.

Yes, there are legitimate reasons to have requirements for state licensing of anything. Without requirements, why have a license? Notice that nobody is preventing anyone from having ceremonies, or employers other than the government from considering those relationships as marriage.

What evidence have they produced to support their claim that same-sex marriage would have negative consequences to the institution of marriage? Conversely, how does denying marriage to gays and lesbians improve the odds that children born in California will be raised by a married mom and dad?

How about we not tear down a wall if we're not sure why it is there? In this case, we know why the wall is there. But if you don't, how about erring on the side of caution?

The veteran jurist, a Republican appointee, has indicated he does not plan to rule from the bench. Lawyers say they are preparing for him to hand down his ruling within weeks after the closing arguments.

We'll be watching.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer who served on the Protect Marriage executive committee, acknowledged that the ban's backers faced an uphill battle in addressing one of the key questions that preoccupied Walker — whether there was any proof that sanctioning same-sex marriage harms traditional heterosexual unions.

"The difficulty with that question is it's asking the defense to speculate about a harm that is likely but would occur only if we were to experiment with redefining marriage," Pugno said. "It's hard to disprove something that hasn't happened yet."

Hey, but it is only marriage, right? What could go wrong with eliminating the core meaning of the core building block of society? How about this - it is harmful for a federal court to strike down a duly adopted state constitutional amendment that does not violate equal protection or any other aspect of the federal Constitution? The people already voted on this. It doesn't matter if a judge agrees with the people or not, since it does not go against the Constitution. If it did, he wouldn't need to ask any more questions. He had his turn to vote in the election - just like everyone else.