Closing arguments were heard this past Wednesday in that gay marriage case in Calif. Yeah, this is five months after the part of the trial where evidence was presented. The judge took time to review the evidence and came up with another 39 questions for both sides to answer (which I won't get into here). The pro-gay side spent the morning thoroughly summarizing the evidence they had presented during the trial and answering the judge's questions.
There was even representation from the City of San Francisco who talked about the costs of the gay marriage ban, including costs to mental health, policing associated with hate crimes, addressing bullying, lost tourism, and the cost to the city to treat all citizens equally.
The governor of Calif. and the state attorney general, being the ones named in the case as government representatives, sent representatives to say each waived his right to add to the closing arguments. The proper way to defend the indefensible.
The defense (anti-gay side) ran into a buzz saw. It’s nice to see him make such a fool of himself. He launched into the standard "marriage is for procreation" spiel. The judge asked for evidence and the lawyer tried to quote various experts. The judge interrupted, saying if you wanted to quote those witnesses, you should have presented them in the actual trial. The defense could only sputter we don't need no stinking evidence! One only needs to look at the definition of marriage in a dictionary. Well, yeah, upholding the sacred dictionary is so important that we must stop thousands of gay people in Calif. from getting married. Don't need evidence? That wouldn't have anything to do with there not being any, would it? The judge was not impressed.
The defense kept circling back to -- and changing -- it's central argument. The purpose of marriage is procreation, so gay couples can't be included. He ended up with a slew of variations.
* The purpose of marriage is to channel sexual relationships into stable unions to increase the likelihood that the offspring will be raised by a man and a woman.
* … is to provide society's approval to that sexual relationship.
* … is to license cohabitation and produce legitimate children.
* … is designed to minimize the threat of irresponsible procreation to prevent society from dealing with adverse ramifications.
* … is related to procreation and the existence and survival of the human race.
* Allowing opposite sex yet infertile couples to marry isn't inconsistent with the purpose of marriage, it even advances those purposes by demonstrating the ideal for fertile couples to follow.
* Allowing gays to marry doesn't represent a concern about irresponsible procreation.
* If gays marry then the institution will be deinstitutionalized -- lower marriage rates, higher rates of divorce and nonmarital cohabitation, with more children separated from at least one of their parents.
Got that? Me neither. I edited and shortened the above comments to highlight the shifting meaning. The original transcripts show the speaker had to work hard a times to get a coherent sentence out. A commenter noted that all of those points are about an outside authority imposing the definition of the couple. There's nothing about the desires, concerns, opinions, or emotions of the actual couple. There's no mention of family.
The head of the National Organization for Marriage complained that the pro-gay side and the judge don't understand that Americans have a right to vote for marriage. And she doesn't understand the concept of tyranny of the majority. She has admitted that her side will lose this round, but that the Supremes will see it her way.
A good summary of the arguments.
If you're really interested the entire closing argument transcript is here.
Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison wrote an opinion piece in Newsweek stating their case against marriage. They aren't saying gays shouldn't marry. They're saying straights shouldn't bother. Gays will destroy marriage? Didn't straights already do that? Some of the reasons they give:
* Now that women can be financially independent there isn't an incentive, not even a tax break, for getting married.
* Current average ages for 1st marriage are 28 for men and 26 for women. If you wait that long, why bother?
* Children out of wedlock has lost its stigma.
* Thanks to same-sex marriage battles unmarried straight couples have more rights than ever before.
* Anthropologist Helen Fisher believes humans aren't meant for long-term relationships (don't tell my parents who just celebrated their 59th anniversary) so it is better not to marry than have several divorces, which is possible with such long lifespans.
* We've all become cynical about the institution of marriage (don't tell the gays).
* Marriage forces women to conform and we can't seem to shed the roles of "husband" and "wife" with the wife getting stuck with the housework.
* The current ideal of marriage is finding a soulmate and we tend to tire of those.
* Once you establish a life together, with or without the marriage vows, it is difficult to walk away.
The authors caution that we should ask them 5 years from now if they still feel the same way.
Some dissenting opinions here.
No comments:
Post a Comment