Closing remarks in Prop 8 trial

[greenie_breizh]

Three links with a lot of overlap, but they all add some details, like quotes, etc, so if you're interested, it's worth reading all three:

Yahoo!News's Lawyers give final arguments in gay marriage case

OMTD_political's Where's the Evidence? Judge Asks Proposition 8 Supporters

The NY Times's Closing Arguments in Marriage Trial

Of course, the comment section is full of idiots who make claims that are either illogical or cannot be backed up with evidence... but whatever. Overall it sounds like the judge is really taking the defendants' lawyer to task, which he should, because there's no good rational reason to back up discrimination in this case. While I ultimately agree with the plaintiffs' lawyer that justice shouldn't come down to whether or not public opinion is ready for this, I do see why the judge would worry that a decision in favoring of overturning Prop 8 might stiffen opposition when trends show that overtime people are becoming used to the idea that same-sex marriage should be legal. That said, if we waited for public opinion to change completely for these kinds of things, we could be waiting for ages, and there is a point where discriminatory practices need to be addressed, period.

Point is... it will be interesting to see how the judge rules. I think there is a really good chance that he will rule against Prop 8.

I'm going to spare you going over every single argument that the defense attorney made and pulling them apart, I've been over all of them too many times before, but I need to comment on one thing. This?
The plaintiffs say there is no way to understand why anyone would support Proposition 8, would support the traditional definition of marriage, except through some irrational or dark motivation," Cooper said. "That is not just a slur on the 7 million Californians who supported Proposition 8. It's a slur on 70 of 108 judges who have upheld as rational the decision of voters and legislatures to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."
Is bullshit. I'm so tired of this attitude - I really really fucking hate when social conservatives not only expect us to engage with their prejudiced view, but get offended when we call them prejudiced. Yes, this is exactly what Prop 8 was - a prejudiced piece of legislation. Does that mean everyone who voted in favor of Prop 8 is a bad person? Of course not. Does that mean they hate gay people? Not necessarily, though most likely if you probe they think that gay people are not quite as great for society as straight people. But yes, opposing same-sex marriage is prejudiced and irrational; over the years, I have become convinced that the anti-same-sex-marriage view is not a view that can be sustained by rational arguments. (Religious arguments, yes, but we're not discussing religious marriage here.) It would be easier if prejudice was always about malice, but it's not. Most people who voted against Prop 8 were convinced by arguments based on fear and illogical reasoning, but that may have been convincing when it panders to deeply-ingrained heterosexist beliefs - prejudiced beliefs that are anchored so deep in us, from so early on, that we don't necessarily know when these prejudices get activated. It's work to come to recognize heterosexism, and it's work that we don't encourage a whole lot. So of course people would be convinced. It's always easier (and less scary) to be convinced by the status quo.

Comments

[vae]

Thanks for those links - have bookmarked them to take a look at lunchtime.

There was a lovely quote in the Advocates 150 reasons to have Pride that someone linked me, can't remember the exact words but it was something along the lines of "we're not afraid to let heterosexual people marry each other" and that, to me, sums it up rather neatly.

[ourdramaqueen.livejournal.com]

The questioning seemed to occasionally fluster Mr. Cooper, whose voice rose as he told the judge that the central procreative aspect of marriage was commonly understood in legal writings, unless it “was written by one of their experts or written over the course of the last 30 years.”

Mr. Cooper added: “The pages of history, your honor, are filled with nothing — nothing — but this understanding of marriage.”

Uuuuuuuh yeah, but probably not the way you used it in your arguments, Cooper... For much of history marriage was and sometimes still is mostly a way for a man to get ownership of his wife/wives - because he wanted to be able to control her and make sure her offspring could only be coming from him and not from some other guy. With (theoretical) equal rights, the possibility of divorces, and unmarried couples or even single parents being able to have children without extreme social stigma being attached to it anymore, and couples getting married even though they don't want or know they can't have children... I'd say that argument has sailed years ago! (Talking about most Western societies, obviously).

The arguments that "traditional" marriage would somehow suffer if gays&lesbians are allowed to get married, and that society would crumble if the institution of marriage gets "damaged" - gee, did I somehow miss that the legalization of divorce or the ability for het couples to have civil partnerships brought down our society? No? So why should same-sex marriage have such a huge negative impact? *eyeroll*

I'm very curious to hear the judge's ruling.

[menyhapyreturns.livejournal.com]

Olsen was absolutely brilliant in his arguments. I almost got the impression the Pro-Prop 8's had just phoned it in, even their witnesses were a big joke (and it was hilarious how the plaintiffs used the proponents own witness (Blakenthorn) against them! The NOM folks have already been stating they are sure Walker will rule in favor of the plaintiffs (ya know, since he's gay, and not for any rational or judicially valid reason) so the real test will be to see if this makes it to the Supreme court, or if Walker's ruling will have any impact on the DOMA MA suit going on right now. I look forward to reading it.
Re: non-homophobic Pro-Prop8 types - in my experience their arguments tend to come down to a particular perspective of Natural Law (and that it's Constitutional to uphold it), rather than civil rights/contract rights, but isn't the concept of Natural law in and of itself pretty...circular?