Prop 8 Trial and Coverage: Afternoon Update

From Lisa Leff's Associated Press update:

Cooper said societies around the world have always seen marriage as a way to keep children from being born out of wedlock.

"The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships," Cooper said.

Some people try to discount this by citing out-of-wedlock births, including "third-party" reproduction. But that people mess up and fail to give children a home headed by bride and a groom is a problem itself, and shouldn't be used to justify the replacement of marriage.

Walker asked if people get married to benefit their communities or themselves.

It doesn't matter why individuals get married, unless they are doing so under fraudulent pretenses. What matters is – does the law benefit society? There are many examples of laws and government programs that are offered for a purpose that may not be the reason a given individual uses that law or program. Some people recycle cans and bottles to get money, but the purpose of the program isn't to give individuals money – it is to recycle materials and reduce litter. Some people join the Army to make a living, but that is not why we have an Army.

And if procreation is so central to marriage, why doesn't the state refuse to sanction marriage by infertile couples or couples who choose to remain childless?

Because those are private decisions and conditions; medical information is private. We know that no same-sex couple will naturally produce children alone, but be know that bride+groom couples may, and usually do.

Walker also heard from lawyers for the city of San Francisco, which joined the case to argue that [restoring marriage licensing’s bride+groom requirement] has negative economic consequences for local government.

"Government and taxpayers in part pay for the cost of that discrimination," Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart told Walker, citing lost wedding revenue and increased public health costs "created by stigma introduced by measures like Proposition 8."

Homosexual behavior causes increased public health costs, should we outlaw it? Local governments lose out on revenue because of bans on cockfighting, child-selling, polygamy, incestuous marriages, prisons, and nuclear waste dumps. So what? Local governments lose money to lawsuits by injured persons - should we ban lawsuits against government? Local governments don't have a right to a certain level of wedding revenue, and same-sex couples were having ceremonies years before Prop 22 was struck down, and they can still have ceremonies. Why is this testimony even allowable?

Peter Henderson's Reuters story had this headline: "No Good Reason for Gay Marriage Ban, Court Told"

Sure there’s a good reason not to license brideless or groomless pairings as marriage: That’s how the people voted. The time to convince someone there was no good reason was before Proposition 8 passed.

Same sex weddings would not harm traditional marriages and California voters had no good reasons to ban them, a lawyer said on Wednesday at the end of a six-month trial likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Right, and counterfeiting the dollar doesn't hurt the dollar, either. Issuing actual UC diplomas to nonstudents wouldn't hurt students, would it?

Allowing same sex marriage would do nothing to prevent heterosexuals from continuing to marry and would in fact heighten the institution's value and reputation, Olson told the court on Wednesday.

"Eliminating invidious restrictions on marriage strengthens the institution of marriage," he said.

Okay, then let's get rid of the restrictions on bigamy and incest. If the arguments apply to those, then how can you not argue for those, too? Simply saying, as some marriage neutering advocates do, that you're not calling for those changes as well and that's why it isn’t necessary undermines your claims about rights and strengthening marriage.