California’s Same-Sex Marriage Trial

California’s Same-Sex Marriage Trial June 29, 2010

And more, what does it say about a law when neither the leader of the State’s legal system nor the leader of the State’s government are willing to defend it?

Another aspect of this case is that the federal judge is finally asking for real evidence. The judge wants both sides to present information documenting their claims.

The plaintiffs can point to arguments that were used against interracial marriage, arguments that, in some cases, seem almost verbatim to the arguments against same-sex marriage, simply substitute “same-sex” for “interracial.” If those arguments against interracial marriage could not be considered Constitutional, how then can the exact same arguments now be considered Constitutional when used against same-sex marriage?

The State’s arguments rest on two assertions; First that marriage has always been this way (emphasis mine) and changing it would destroy marriage. As Attorney Pugno stated in a recent blog, changing the definition of marriage “would result in such a profound change to the structure and public meaning of marriage as to severely damage society, possibly beyond repair.” Second, their argument is that the State has to ensure that all children are raised by both a mother and a father.

I have my own personal responses, but I like the judge’s response.

Prove it.

"I"m an ASPIE and fall dead center in the "Geek Triad" as mentioned but with ..."

The Spiritual Component of Autism
"If you have not already discovered this, if you want a Pagan temple, go to ..."

My Hopes For The Future of ..."
"I will miss you and your posts SO MUCH, Star. You are amazing."

So Long, And Thanks For All ..."
"One of the festivals I've attended a few times was just that - Paganstock in ..."

My Hopes For The Future of ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sara A.

    Inheritance doesn’t just apply to children; a spouse is considered the legal heir if the other spouse dies. This has proven to be important in more than one case, where the blood relatives have contested wills in which a same-sex partner was named as primary or sole heir. They have won, too, sometimes leaving the partner with nothing after having invested decades into a place. There’s also the issue of visitation rights and medical decisions.

    I think that the state has interest in all of those things. Laws step in when people can’t be relied upon to treat one another fairly. Until we live in a world where nobody gets denied inheritance or visitation (or health insurance) because they are in a same-sex partnership, it’s going to matter.

  • Greenman

    My understanding is that historically Marriage was the last Sacrament added to the list. It’s all about property. The rich needed ways to guarantee that money and property stayed intact…..And the poor? Well if you had no property or money then who cared. The church closed off priesthood or the professional religious life to bastards thus making them “illegitimate”.
    I agree that the state needs to be involved in protecting marriage but that should be ALL marriages. But you know what? I’ll bet most who rerad this blog already agree with that!

  • This is the best site, i’ve ever seen, bookmarked