Judge troubled by lack of evidence from prop 8 defenders

[MoonWater]

I found this article of particular interest.

Prop. 8 trial: Judge troubled by lack of evidence from defense - San Jose Mercury News

That was the unmistakable theme of much of Wednesday's arguments, which were filled with tough questions for both sides from Walker but distinguished by his open amazement at the lack of evidence from Prop. 8 defenders, who presented just one witness to counter nearly two solid weeks of testimony from the plaintiffs. The closing arguments marked another crucial moment in the unprecedented trial, the first federal court test in the nation of a state's right to forbid same-sex marriage.

Thoughts?

 

[Sunstone]

It will be interesting to see how much evidence (or a lack of it) sways the judge.

 

[KatNotKathy]

Can't wait till he rules against prop 8 and people flip out because he's gay.

 

[LuisDantas]

This may turn out to be very constructive. People should indeed question what a marriage is supposed to mean and represent.

Am I the only one with a mental picture of other people trying to decide from the outside that some couples shouldn't be married due to the "express desire of the community"?

It is quite ridiculous when you come to think of it.

 

[KatNotKathy]

Am I the only one with a mental picture of other people trying to decide from the outside that some couples shouldn't be married due to the "express desire of the community"?

Well considering the Mormon church illegally funded the pro prop-8 campaign... (and got a slap on the wrist from it)

 

[MoonWater]

Can't wait till he rules against prop 8 and people flip out because he's gay.

yeah you just know that if he rules against prop 8 that everyone in favor of the proposition are going to call cheat and say the only reason he ruled that way was due to bias because he's gay. heaven forbid they blame the lame arguments or lack of evidence presented by their own side.

 

[MoonWater]

Well considering the Mormon church illegally funded the pro prop-8 campaign... (and got a slap on the wrist from it)

shouldn't something like that nullify the proposition, since the means taken to get it put on the ballot and passed were illegal? Even if it doesn't I think it should.

 

[xkatz]

Well there is little evidence and no reason to support or even have a ban on homosexual marriage. Go figure.

 

[TheKnight]

I think it will be a very interesting battle to see the outcome of.

So far as I know, DOMA is still in place. And that's a federal law. So I wonder if the judge's ruling will affect DOMA.

 

[MoonWater]

I think it will be a very interesting battle to see the outcome of.

So far as I know, DOMA is still in place. And that's a federal law. So I wonder if the judge's ruling will affect DOMA.

I don't think so since this focuses on california and because DOMA is about not having to recognize marriages from other states so I'm not sure if even a federal legalization of gay marriage would do anything to DOMA

 

[KatNotKathy]

shouldn't something like that nullify the proposition, since the means taken to get it put on the ballot and passed were illegal? Even if it doesn't I think it should.

Nah, it just earned them a $5,000 slap on the wrist.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't think so since this focuses on california and because DOMA is about not having to recognize marriages from other states so I'm not sure if even a federal legalization of gay marriage would do anything to DOMA

Right, but DOMA states, "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state."

That being said, how can it be said that what California did is unconstitutional without also bringing up the fact that DOMA is? Because to say that California's actions were unconstitutional is the very same as saying that DOMA is wrong. Because then the ruling is basically saying that a state does have to treat relationships between persons of the same sex as marriage.

If it doesn't directly affect DOMA, it would certainly allow for judicial pressure to get DOMA challenged in court.

 

[MoonWater]

Right, but DOMA states, "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state."

That being said, how can it be said that what California did is unconstitutional without also bringing up the fact that DOMA is? Because to say that California's actions were unconstitutional is the very same as saying that DOMA is wrong. Because then the ruling is basically saying that a state does have to treat relationships between persons of the same sex as marriage.

If it doesn't directly affect DOMA, it would certainly allow for judicial pressure to get DOMA challenged in court.

ah, I see. In that case yes it would

 

[LuisDantas]

It should. And none too soon.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I think DOMA is going to go the way of DADT

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well if the Supreme Court does federally recognize gay marriage I don't see how California can do anything about it. The Supreme Court is the "highest court in the land".

 

[MoonWater]

Well if the Supreme Court does federally recognize gay marriage I don't see how California can do anything about it. The Supreme Court is the "highest court in the land".

true but if same sex marriage is legalized on a federal level while DOMA is still in place then while same sex couples could get married in any state DOMA could still very well prevent that marriage from being recognized in another state. But then I could be wrong, maybe a federal recognition would nullify DOMA, I really don't know.

 

[AxisMundi]

I found this article of particular interest.

Prop. 8 trial: Judge troubled by lack of evidence from defense - San Jose Mercury News


Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Quite reminicent of Kitzmiller v Dover, another example of religion creeping into government.

 

[TheKnight]

Well if the Supreme Court does federally recognize gay marriage I don't see how California can do anything about it. The Supreme Court is the "highest court in the land".

California could just ignore the Supreme Court. It's not like the Supreme Court has an enforcement body to ensure that what it says goes.

Ultimately, I think that the Court will vote in favor of California. Because otherwise the Supreme Court (if it gets that far) will be blurring the line between itself and the legislative branch, and also between the federal government and the States. It would be a nasty precedent; to not only strike down federal laws, but to disregard a States right to define marriage (it really is a State issue).

 

[Wandered Off]

It would be a nasty precedent; to not only strike down federal laws, but to disregard a States right to define marriage (it really is a State issue).

It would unless that definition itself stands in violation of the equal protection clause. In that case, the SCOTUS would simply be doing its job.