Is This The End for Proposition 8?

Is This The End for Proposition 8?

by Spencer Hamilton on Monday, December 6, 2010 at 8:31pm

For those of us without a history of Proposition 8, (the ballot initiative that eliminated the recognition of single gender marriages and effectively stopped California from giving new marriage licenses to same sex couples) it has a small history going back to Proposition 22, which stated: which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" after that a lawsuit went from a lower court to an Intermediate Court--The California Supreme Court. From Wikipedia, it states this: In December 2006, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral argument on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as In re Marriage Cases.[18] The Court ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 violated the state Constitution and was therefore invalid.[19] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately issued a statement pledging to uphold the ruling, and repeated his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment initiative that would override the Court's ruling and again ban same sex marriages by placing the text of Proposition 22 in the State Constitution.[20]

Now comes, Proposition 8 which overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry (wikipedia article on Proposition 8).  So from May 2008 until November, when the outcome of the vote on Prop 8 would be known,  18,000 same sex couples married and their marriages were valid, countless others weren't

Then we come to Judge Vaughan Walker's court where Kristin Perry and her lover Sandra Stier along with another same sex couple, Jefferey Zarillo and Paul Katami filed suit against the clerks offices of Almeda and Los Angeles and of course Governor Schwarzenegger in his official capacity. Judge Vaughan Walker ruled in a 136 page decision that there was no rational basis (the lowest level of Constitutional analysis) for Proposition 8, same sex married couples wouldn't hinder heterosexual couples from procreation, they would not endanger children, and there is no real benefit of the state to exclude same sex marriages.

David Boies and Theodore Olson, who were opposing council in Bush v. Gore (I believe Olson was on the Bush side) came in and stated that this is in fact discrimination and that this singles out gay families as not good enough. Paul Katami said that the Protect Our Children advertisements made it seem as if same sex couples were ominous, and something that children needed protection from, never minding to mention that at many same sex couples are raising children. The main issue with children that the proponents side had (and I've only read the 1st day transcripts for the Prop 8 trial) was that they'd be taught that same sex marriages were okay.

Next, procreation--now I feel this argument is full of it because marriage doesn't make for responsible procreation any more than it does monogamy and stating that marriage should be reserved for dual gender couplings because you need both to make a child would be akin to saying that procreation is the only reason that marriage exists. There are plenty of reasons we have many childless married couples as well as unmarried couples with children, and even an adoption system when people can't take care of their children at the level necessary for healthy children. Yet, they want to exclude same sex couples from marrying because they can't procreate--with each other that is

They eventually ditched this argument. One can ask then: What about gays and lesbians that have children with the opposite sex and then maintain custody of their children? Does it then demean procreation or marriage if that happens? And if so, how does it demean marriage or procreation since that is the only purpose of marriage? Not to mention intimacy, protecting one another and building a life for both of the parties involved? (Mind you: I'm only reading through the First Day of Perry in North Cali federal court)

Then they moved to the deinstitutionalization of marriage, which I find crazy as including same sex couples only widen the circle of participation between two people only and not multiple parties (slapped polygamy down right there!).

Brian Lees, a Legislator who originally wanted a state amendment to ban same-sex marriage said, "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry." Taken from an article: "Same-Sex Marriage Win In Boston". CBS News (AP). 2005-09-14. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/14/national/main846230.shtml.

So in other words, what is the deinstitutionalization message? It falls flat on its face. Plaintiff Katami said: I just want to get married.

The two couples had in fact stated that domestic partnerships and civil unions are only like stepping stones for marriage equality. I believe witness Katami said this: We hear a lot of, "What's the big deal? Get most of the same rights, virtually all of the same rights. What's the big deal?" The big deal is -- and we've discussed this. The big deal is, it's creating a separate category for us. And that's a major deal because it makes you into a second, third, and, as Mr. Olson said today, a fourth class citizen now that we actually recognize marriages from other states. And everyone says, "Oh, but that's a huge stride; you get rights." But we still have discrimination. So it's like -- for lack of a better image, it's putting a Twinkie at the end of a treadmill and then saying, "Here's a bite. Here's another bite." Well, you want that Twinkie. You want the whole thing.--END OF QUOTE.  Anyone who's been married doesn't understand the benefits of being married, until they actually look into and research it,  most straight couples take it for granted that the State and Federal governments have an OBLIGATION AND INTEREST in making sure that if the marriage ended with the death of one spouse,  the survivor will be able to protect the life built with them. Simply, civil unions and domestic partnerships don't give the full array of benefits and protections of our federal government to same sex married couples (Pederson v. OPM is a case that is dealing with that as it related to DOMA, Massachusetts Atty Gen Martha Coakley filed another lawsuit against DOMA)

So, the experts for the proponents couldn't find any real reason or psychological harm, societal harm, any kind of harm that would be caused to justify this law being on the books. When you look at the campaign literature you can see that the proponents used misinformation, and outright lies to get the majority--some of whom may be die hard bigots and some not being comfortable with gay marriages and having to explain that some gays and lesbians get married--to vote to strip civil liberties away from a minority. Civil rights are rights given (once recognized) to a minority so that they can participate in the full gamut of civic life, and marriage is a part of civic life

So now Prop 8 has been appealed by Protectmarriage.com and the Imperial County Deputy Clerk neither of whom are named defendants in the case. The Council for the Opponents of Prop 8, David Boies mainly argued that the appelants (the two organizations that filed the appeal) have no standing to defend the law and that neither the Governator or the Attorney General has stepped forward in an effort to do so. The Court responded saying that the Governor can't veto a ballot initiative and by not appealing the ruling, he has in fact run beyond the duties of his office.  Theodore Olson also argued about the scope of the ruling (which I believe should be statewide since Prop 8 was a statewide ballot initiative) b But it may be that the two counties that the lawsuit was filed in-- LA, and Almeda--may be the full scope of the ruling. There were a few other points raised but it is best if you watch the video to see exactly what took place you can find both parts of today's arguments on Youtube under http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_vFjjd3yM--this is the first part, the second part should be linked.

For now, we are in limbo until tomorrow morning, court like the Senate chamber can't be told or predicted by what you hear, positive or not. Tomorrow at 1pm ET the Ninth Circuit Court will reconvene and the proceedings will either continue or the case will be thrown out and Judge Walker's ruling will be affirmed!

I really hope so!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_vFjjd3yMhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTA_vFjjd3yM