Things are looking moderately good at the Prop 8 trial. Right now, the plaintiffs (the gay couples who want to be able to marry) are presenting their case so it is expected. We have had the very emotional testimony from the plaintiffs about what being denied this right that every heterosexual citizen takes for granted means.
They have talked about their growing up, their coming out and why it is they want to be able to have the same standing in the community as any other loving and long term couple has. One couple, Sandy Stier and Kristin Perry, were actually married twice already, back in 2004 when San Francisco was issuing marriage licenses. The testimony from these women about how heartbreaking it was for them to receive a letter from the State telling them their marriage was no longer valid and would like the cost of their marriage license back or would they like to donate it to charity was heartbreaking in and of itself.
"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"
Yesterday there was mostly expert testimony about the history of marriage and discrimination and demonization of gay citizens in the United States. The professors gave great evidence that the arguments of the Prop 8 defenders is spurious. One of the big points the defendants attorney keeps trying to make is that marriage is a social institution solely for the purposes of procreation.
Yeah, you read that right, they are going hang their hat on the idea that the only social purpose marriage hold is to have children born. They are going to put aside love, they are going to put aside stability in the community, they are going to put aside the social interest of people having a public status as a couple and push the procreative aspect completely.
We have already seen them mentioning that the U.S. birth rate is only at replacement levels. Though the expert witness demolished that by saying immigration has always driven the U.S. population. When the defense attorney jumped in with "Illegal immigration?" the calm and cutting response was "All immigration", which to the Dog just goes to show when you are bigoted in one area, you are bigoted in all of them. But that is not what this post is about.
By the logic the defense will present, the Dog and his wife and partner Mrs. Dog should not be allowed to be married. You see, 12 years ago Mrs. Dog fell down on a stone floor at a restaurant she was managing. She ruptured two discs in her upper back. For a couple of years she was barely able to work, but through a whole array of treatments, she is doing fine today. Unfortunately, she is permanently on a set of drugs to keep her healthy. Two of these drugs are anti-inflammatory medicines. This means she cannot carry any pregnancy to term. We found this out the hard way with a couple of miscarriages.
So, our marriage of 14 years would be one that the Prop 8 forces are going to argue should not really be allowed. However, they are not going to come after couples like the Dog’s, since we fit into their narrow and bigoted view by being heterogeneous. This is where their defense is going to go all to hell in the Dog’s opinion.
They are saying they want to protect the purpose of marriage (as they define it) of having only people who can procreate get married. The problem is they are going to be unwilling to say that those who are heterosexual and unable to have children should be excluded from marriage. There the inherent intent to decimate will be made clear. This argument ignores the fact that lesbian women could indeed procreate through the same kind of in vitro fertilization that straight couples use. It is only two gay men who could not have a child that is born by one of them.
That discrimination is what this is all about, the fact that bigotry about the so-called "gay lifestyle" and "gay agenda" is at the root of the denial of civil marriage. It has nothing to do with protecting procreative functions, and everything to do with stigmatizing the sexuality of 10% of the population of nation.
The Dog knows there is a lot of testimony to go, then there will be the inevitable appeals to the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court, but right now it looks as though the forces of bigotry and intolerance are in a real trick bag. Their definition of the societal purpose of marriage and claims they are not decimating are on very thin ice and likely to get thinner. If this trend continues, we could very well see this decided on 14th Amendment equal protection grounds, and finally all citizens will be able to marry the love of their life and stand proudly in their communities.
One piece of housekeeping. If you have the interest and time, Teddy Partridge is live blogging the trial from San Francisco over at The Seminal. He is doing a masterful job and even if you are not a law buff it makes compelling reading.
The floor is yours.