California’s Same-Sex Marriage Trial

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.