Perry v Schwarzenegger: Closing Arguments Arrive
Closing arguments in Perry v Schwarzenegger, the much-watched trial in the District Courtroom of Judge Vaughn Walker, are due to be heard tomorrow, Wednesday, 16 June 2010.
It has many of us anxious with anticipation; we know how empty the arguments of the anti-marriage-equality groups are; we know how much trouble they had finding any credible witnesses; we know that the few witnesses they did find ended up supporting the case for marriage equality by the end of cross examination. We know many things. We even can hope for a positive, hard-hitting argument from Judge Walker, although there's no promise.
And so there's much business today trying to read between the lines of the questions Judge Walker issued to defendants and plaintiffs that they should address in closing arguments. If you want a quick review and summary of the background and what we know, here's a good link:
To lay people like me, the federal Prop 8 case seems to boil down to the constitutional rights of gays as a group of historically disadvantaged people versus the political will of “the people” based on their religious beliefs.
[Karen Ocamb, "Brief Guide to the Federal Prop 8 Trial Closing Arguments", LGBT POV, 15 June 2010.]
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 17 June 2010 at 00.00
Permalink
It looks very hopeful, but it's worrisome to have the judge dither about which standard to apply. The court must be the equalizer when democracy lapses into a tyranny of the majority in cases where individual rights and freedoms are at stake. Courts need to be keenly aware of that potential lapse in all such cases, and come down on the side protecting individual rights. Nowhere is that more true than in cases where the majority can't do any better than speculate about potential harm from honoring the minority's rights.
I think it's good the judge wants to hear arguments about whether being gay or lesbian is a lifestyle choice. The compelling response should be:
"Your honor, to find the answer to that, ask yourself about your first childhood crush. Did you choose it to be a girl or boy, or was it simply how you felt about a particular individual? If you are heterosexual, it was just naturally a girl. If you're not, it was just naturally a boy. 'Just naturally' is your answer."