Thursday, June 10, 2010

Prop 8 nears ruling

From the San Francisco Examiner:
As gay rights cases are being heard in multiple venues worldwide--including a U.S. federal case in Massachusetts challenging the Defense of Marriage Act and the Congressional effort to repeal the anti-gay military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has issued a series of incisive questions challenging both sides in the federal lawsuit to overturn California's Prop 8.
Though final arguments are scheduled for a week from today on Wednesday June 16th, Walker raised 39 questions about issues in the case and requested that both sides address his queries during their closing presentations.

Nan Hunter, a Georgetown law professor who specializes in gender issues and writes about them at Hunter for Justice, believes that the questions indicate Walker is preparing an opinion that will "be a blockbuster in its scope."

Questions are here.


James said...

Dang, those are some questions!

I think this is the best:
11. Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of
homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc
#605 at 11 (“But sincerely held moral or religious views
that require acceptance and love of gay people, while
disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not
tantamount to discrimination.”). What evidence in the record
shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be
discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and
is disputed by a small but significant minority of the
community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of
view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of
equal protection?

Millions of Americans viewed their anti civil rights stance as a moral and religious belief.

dr.primrose said...

Very good N.Y. Times editorial today on the Prop. 8 case - A Basic Civil Right.

It says in part, "The testimony made abundantly clear that excluding same-sex couples from marriage exacts a grievous toll on gay people and their families. Domestic partnerships are a woefully inadequate substitute."

dr.primrose said...

Another great N.Y Times column by Frank Rich - Two Weddings, a Divorce and ‘Glee’. It say in part (but there's a lot of good stuff in it, so read it all):


June is America’s month for weddings, and were we so inclined, we could bemoan Limbaugh, an idol to the family-values crowd, for marrying a woman barely half his age [his fourth marriage, by the way]. Alternatively, we could lament Al and Tipper Gore’s divorce, which has produced so many cries of shock you’d think they were the toy bride and groom atop a wedding cake rather than actual flesh-and-blood people capable of free will. But let’s refrain from such moralistic hand-wringing. The old truth remains: We never know what goes on in anyone else’s marriage, and it’s none of our business. Here’s a toast to happiness for the Gores and Limbaughs alike, wherever life takes them.

But there is a shadow over marriage in America just the same. The Gores and Limbaughs are free to marry, for better or for worse, and free to enjoy all the rights (and make all the mistakes) that marriage entails. Gay and lesbian couples are still fighting for those rights. That’s why the most significant marital event of June 2010 is the one taking place in San Francisco this Wednesday, when a Federal District Court judge is scheduled to hear the closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the landmark case challenging Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban. A verdict will soon follow, setting off an appeals process that is likely to land in the Supreme Court, possibly by the 2011-12 term.