I'll have a proper update done tomorrow over at Gay Married Californian (for all my updates and posts about this trial, click here). But for right now: the final witness for the plaintiffs (our side) is currently being cross examined. The heart of that examination is to argue that being gay is not immutable, because some number of people have sexual partner of either sex. Are they gay, or straight? The defense apparently want to say that it's a problem if sexuality is fluid or changeable in any way. And that anyone who has had partners of different sexes isn't "really" GLBT (but by that logic, how can you say they are really hetero?)
If marriage is simply marriage, regardless of orientation, it makes NO difference what genders are involved. My wife was married to a man before coming out to herself in middle age. (This is not uncommon for many lesbians I know). Now she's married to a woman. Why is that a problem, if divorcing and marrying another man is not? The only problem is if you define marriage between women as something different between marriage between a man and a woman. That's the crux: we say marriage is marriage, and one definition is sufficent for both. They say you have to have a special category for GLBT people.
But (paradoxically) the defense are trying to show that there is no such thing as gay people; that it's not a characteristic that is unchangeable, but it's a choice. And therefore, we aren't a legitimate minority (in legal parlance, a "suspect class") that would deserve the highest degree of protection for civil rights. Of course religion is definitely a choice, and that is protected.
Yesterday we had a hateful, ignorant man state that marriage between gay people would corrupt children, lead to incest and siblings marrying, and prostitution and child sex.
This whole thing is making me physically sick.