balmofgilead: (Default)
[personal profile] balmofgilead

Defenders of Proposition 8 produced no evidence to back up their claim that marriage between same-sex couples would hurt heterosexual marriage. “I don’t know. I don’t know,” the defense attorney, Charles Cooper, said when asked for an explanation by the judge at a pretrial hearing.

The defense called only two witnesses. The first, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, argued that gay people are a powerful political force, which was meant to support the claim that there is no need for enhanced judicial protection. He ended up admitting that gay men and lesbians suffer discrimination.

The other witness, David Blankenhorn, the president of the Institute for American Values, argued that marriage is being weakened by rising divorce rates and more unmarried people having children, but he could not convincingly explain what the genders of married couples had to do with that.

Upon questioning, he acknowledged that marriage is a “public good” that would benefit same-sex couples and their children, and that to allow same-sex marriage “would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” The net result was to reinforce the sense that Proposition 8 was driven by animus rather than any evidence of concrete harm to heterosexual marriages or society at large.

This from THE DEFENSE of Prop 8. The people who are supposed to be saying "yeah, keep this law that says no same-sex marriage in CA."

Color me cynical....

Date: 2010-06-11 03:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I honestly think the defense realizes that it can't make the case, but that since this will eventually be heard by SCOTUS, it doesn't have to.

Re: Color me cynical....

Date: 2010-06-11 04:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
True that. I'm anxious for this to come to a head already (when it gets to SCOTUS), but in the meantime this stuff amuses me a bit.

Date: 2010-06-11 04:28 pm (UTC)
ext_35267: (Headache)
From: [identity profile]
Good grief! They need to lose, not just for the sake of justice, but for not being able to make a convincing argument. No wonder they didn't want the proceedings streamed live.

Date: 2010-06-11 04:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I think their problem, simply put, is this:

There may be random legal things that they can build arguments on (sadly), but not much that stands on its own.


balmofgilead: (Default)

May 2017

78910 111213

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:23 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios