A landmark federal trial on whether to overturn a California ban on gay marriage ended on Wednesday. The case is now in the hands of District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker who is being asked to decide whether California voters violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection when they passed Proposition 8, a referendum in November 2008 to amend the state constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Arguing for the ban to be reversed was conservative jurist Ted Olson, who served as U.S. solicitor general under former President George W. Bush. He partnered with David Boies, his adversary in the 2000 Supreme Court decision that put Bush in the White House. Throughout the case, Olson and Boies argued that the ban discriminated against one segment of the population by denying them the fundamental right to marry and that same sex marriage was no threat to heterosexuals.
"Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex the same as Virginia law discriminated on the basis of race," Olson who represented two same-sex couples who want to marry said in the Washington Post. He invoked groundbreaking Supreme Court civil rights decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, which forbade racial segregation in public schools, and Loving v. Virginia, which threw out that state's law against interracial marriage.
Leading the defense, Charles Cooper argued that t is reasonable to fear that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriage and self-evident that the purpose of marriage was procreating and raising children. He further insisted that he did not need to provide evidence to prove the purpose of marriage.
"You don't have to have evidence" to prove that the purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children, he was quoted as saying by Reuters.
Months earlier, he had surprised the court by saying he did not know how gay marriage would hurt heterosexuals -- and that he did not need to know in order to win the case.
Olson's response to Cooper: "At the end of the day, 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to present any evidence,' with all respect to Mr. Cooper, doesn't cut it."
Judge Walker is expected to rule in a few weeks.
Read related reports below.
讀者回應
Until the law catches up to the culture, the collective soul should find even the next gay wedding's Champagne a bit flat.
If you can't stay on topic, at least give credit to the guy you are quoting else you're just stealing...
Frank Rich: Two Weddings, a Divorce and ‘Glee’
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13rich.html
"The leading teenage characters in “Glee” have single parents (both widowed), absentee parent...
"Until the law catches up to the culture, the collective soul should find even the next gay wedding's Champagne a bit flat."
I think "marriage" is far over rated and is a fantasy. Otherwise why so many jokes?
"My best friend ran off with my wife, and I really miss him."
"I have been in love with the same woman (man) for thirty five years and if my wife ever finds out, she will kill me!"
"I had a bad week. My chauffer ran off on me and didn't take my wife with him."
"I have been married for thirty five years. People ask me, "what's the secret to such a successful marriage?" I tell them, every week we have romantic, candle light dinners. She goes on Tuesday and I go on Fridays!"
and my favorite........"If I am not in bed by 12 midnight, I go home."
And the classic, "Take my wife...PLEASE!"
(all jokes by Henny Youngman)
So I guess some people want to "enjoy" marriage and jon in the above? Be my guest. Just give me "equality or give me mirth!"
my sister in aust didnt married, yet she had a son with her present aussie husband for many years
my bro with her "girl friend" together for many years too but didnt married, but our family consider her as in-law now.
i always consider marriage as recognition with no true guarantee, once divorce, it will full of law binding $$$, then again who am i here to judge...
The purpose of marriage is not to bear children, but to become a unit that is more than 1 + 1 = 2.
I actually prefer a less intrusive and invasive government and more direct control of my life issues anyhow.
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/06/17/2010-06-17_cameron_diaz_says_sex_with_a_woman_doesnt_make_you_a_lesbian_in_new_playboy_issu.html
I wonder if she will testify in the California marriage law case? I hope so:)
And since when hetero and gay is different? hetero is a coupel of human ..gay is also a couple of human.. the differences is just the sex gender. we're all live on earth ..breath same air.. drink same water... or does conservative hetero thought that gay drink 'golden water'? aren't they are abit kinky to think that way and Hey! that is not conservative! LOL
The purpose of this would be to entirely remove the religious element of such partnerships from our laws, leaving only the legal element. Isn't that the way U.S. laws were meant to be?
Organized religions could continue to call straight civil unions "marriages" if they like, since a religion is not much more than a social club anyway. But "marriage" would have no meaning in our legal system.
Wouldn't this be just about perfect? Please respond if you see holes in my logic. :)
請先登入再使用此功能。