Why it's different than the previous case: Previous challenge to Prop8 was based solely on California Constitutional issues about the legality of amending the state constitution. It did NOT involve federal issues and was heard by the state Supreme Court. The California court ruled, with some regret, that California's misguided constitution allows any minority's rights to be abolished by popular vote. Federal constitutional issues were not addressed.
Why it's risky: This case will certainly be appealed up to the US Supreme Court, which is still very conservative. A setback from the Supreme Court could set back marriage rights for a generation or more. A win would be amazing!
Crucial Questions:
- Are GLBT people a protected class? (think protections of race, or of religious practice). The proponent will attempt to prove that being GLBT is a choice, and not subject to protection (but religion is a choice, and protected....)
- Were the proponents of Prop8 motivated by legitimate concerns, or by animus against GLBT people? The proponents will try to hide their witnesses from public identification, and want to keep their campaign correspondence hidden.
More info from these sites:
The Court's webpage on this trial
LGBTPOV
Law Dork
American Foundation for Equal Rights
Gay Couples Law Blog
There's a delayed broadcast of proceedings on this YouTube video
Update: SCOTUS blocks the Youtube, at least for now.
Update: Live twitter feed here:
UpdateFrom the defense counsel: "Marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse."
Oh, so THAT'S all it's about!
Their argument is going to be based on procreation, and on the reduced marriage rates in the Netherlands. (Caused by gay marriage!) I'm so frustrated at these people ....!
6 comments:
If you want to read the Supreme Court order you can read it here.
"From the defense counsel: 'Marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse.'"
The theology of marriage in TEC is this: "The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord."
To the extent we're going to have a state-approved definition of marriage that merely reduces to marriage to the state-approved poking of body parts into body parts, it's not only repulsive but probably violates the constitutionally mandated free exercise of religion as expressed by not only TEC but virtually every other mainline church.
What's your take so far on the trial, Primrose?
There's a really good blow-by-blow account of what's going on at the trial at Prop. 8 Trial Tracker.
IT, way to early to figure how things are going.
Word Verification = "matchi"!
Why it's risky: This case will certainly be appealed up to the US Supreme Court, which is still very conservative. A setback from the Supreme Court could set back marriage rights for a generation or more.
The SCOTUS's preemptive decision today to allow the 'phobes to "keep their white hoods on" underscores that RISK, I'm afraid...
"Marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse."
Well, it's certainly nice of the defense to admit that what they're trying to do is control what forms of sexual expression are "approved of." I'm not sure how such an admission can possibly help their case. I'm not sure how it doesn't hurt it, in fact.
Post a Comment