University of California, Davis law professor Vikram Amar told WSJ that he would be “quite surprised” if Judge Vaughn Walker didn’t rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Final statements were heard this week in the California federal trial of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. Walker questioned the argument that marriage is aimed at serving society’s importance in procreation.
The judge asked Ted Olson, who represents the two same-sex couples, why domestic partnerships aren’t sufficient. Mr. Olson responded with testimony from gay and lesbian witnesses describing the humiliation they felt by not being allowed to marry.
However Judge Walker rules, the case is likely headed for the 9th Circuit and then the Supreme Court.
(For more information on closing arguments, check these articles on NYT, WSJ, and LAT.)
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is currently before a federal district court in California but is likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, is the case to repeal Proposition 8 in California. The Perry case has scheduled closing arguments for next Wednesday. The case was taken to court by two couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and their four children, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. These couples are asking for equal marriage rights, which are granted to every other American family. Their rights are blocked from obtaining marriage licenses under California’s Proposition 8.
“We have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation’s character. This is not about politics; it’s about an indispensable right vested in all Americans,” stated the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a supporter of the Perry case.
American courts have ruled on issues such as marriage since their forming. When the court faced the subject of interracial marriage, a Gallup poll stated that 74 percent of Americans disapproved, yet the courts voted for equality. A recent same-sex marriage poll showed 47 percent of people support same-sex marriage. The odds for equality are set much better and the uphill battle from the public is less resistant than for interracial marriage.
“Among individuals ages 18 to 29, an estimated 65 percent support marriage equality. Our history will soon be written by young people who are seizing the reins from the baby boomers’…. As the country evolved the meaning of one small word — “all” — has evolved as well,” stated Robert A. Levy, co-chair of the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.
The New York Daily News reports that on June 3rd, New York City, after 17 years of registering domestic partners, will open its doors to marriage-like ceremonies, akin to the services offered to straight couples.
The city began registering domestic partners, most of whom are not gay, at the city clerk’s offices in 1993. Up until now, the nearly 50,000 domestic partners who signed up received nothing more than a piece of paper.
Registering as a same-sex domestic partner is not the same as gay marriage – which the state Senate nixed last year – but it does convey some legal benefits, especially if one partner is a city employee.
…
With last year’s rejection of a gay marriage law by the state Senate, a domestic partnership ceremony “is a good gesture,” agreed Councilman James Van Bramer (D-Queens). “Not everyone is going to want a ceremony, but if they do they should be able to have it,” Van Bramer said.
The idea of providing a ceremony was suggested by a group of Fordham Law School students who spent time last year working with the City Council’s legal division.
Unlike married spouses, domestic partners don’t usually receive inheritances. They also don’t have marital-type confidentiality privileges.
At least now, they can have a party.
David Weigel, a journalist who covers and blogs about conservatives and libertarian politics for the Washington Post, got into some controversy when tweeting about ‘bigots’ who fight against same-sex marriage. While he did retract from his endorsement of the term, he reiterated his opposition to laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation:
I’m a bystander in the same-sex marriage debate — I haven’t given to any cause on either side. But in 2006 I did vote against a Virginia same-sex marriage amendment, which passed. I didn’t, and don’t, think social issues should be subjected to votes like that. I don’t support much direct democracy in general — this is a republic, and we shouldn’t throw these kinds of decisions to the electorate at large.But why was I willing to be so disrespectful to one group of activists? Unlike with most activists, I don’t really see the direct impact on their lives, or on the lives of the people who agree with them, of the cause they oppose. Antitax protesters are threatened by higher taxes. Anti-health-care-bill protesters fear their coverage will get worse. Anti-meat-eating protesters believe animals are being murdered and the environment is being made worse.
Even the birther movement has always made a kind of sense — oust Obama from office, and you get a chance to reverse what damage you think he’s done to your country.
But who’s threatened by legal same-sex marriage? Whose life is made worse? If there was science suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off than children raised by traditional families, that would be one thing, but I haven’t seen it. We’ve watched legal same-sex marriage in several European countries and several states, and it hasn’t ushered in some decline in the quality of life, or marriage, for those who don’t participate in it.
That’s what I don’t understand. That’s my bias, for now. I’ll happily entertain arguments for the contrary.
Hawaii’s state legislature passed legislation legislation affording same-sex couples many of the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The state House of Representatives passed the bill by a 31-20 vote late Thursday, but Republican Governor Linda Lingle has until early July to sign or veto the groundbreaking new law.
Marriage equality in the ‘Aloha State’ has a long history, as it was in 1991, in a decision by the State Supreme Court that invalidated laws that prohibited same sex couples from wedding. However as a reaction to this action, voters passed a constitutional amendment empowering the legislation to define marriage as a heterosexual insitution. That referenda did not close the door on civil unions though.
If approved, Hawaii will become one of six states including California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington granting civil union status to same sex couples. Full civil marriage are legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, DC. Marriages performed in other states are recognized in Maryland, New York and Rhode Island.
The legislation has sparked an intense lobbying effort by the Catholic Archdiocese and many religious groups seeking a veto from Governor Lingle.
Reade more about Hawai’i’s new civil union law and the efforts surrounding the legislation in the Honolu Advertiser.
