rssJudge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called Only One Witness
Thursday, June 17, 2010 at 3:56 pm
- 25 Comments
As closing arguments ended Wednesday in the Northern California District Court trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state’s voter-approved ban of same-sex marriage — a case that’s likely headed to the Supreme Court — the judge in the case wanted to know why defenders of the initiative put up only one witness during the first phase of the trial, reports the San Jose Mercury News.
By comparison, the plaintiffs in the case — those who want Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional — brought forward two weeks of testimony. According to the Los Angeles Times, opponents of Proposition 8 called 16 witnesses, with emotional testimony from the four plaintiffs and evidence from eight experts and “122 years of Supreme Court decisions.”
According to the San Jose Mercury News, Proposition 8 lead attorney Charles Cooper and other defenders of the initiative have relied on an argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples because the purpose of marriage is procreation. But during the first phase Cooper called on one witness “whom the judge is considering disregarding altogether because his credentials as an expert are in question,” the Mercury News reported.
And that one witness did not testify on the procreation argument, the paper added.
That gave Judge Vaughn Walker pause on Wednesday.
“What testimony in this case supports the proposition?” Walker asked.
“You don’t have to have evidence of this,” Cooper replied.
The judge then asked Cooper why it’s OK for the state to allow infertile couples to marry, but not gays and lesbians, according to the Mercury News.
Cooper answered that it’s not the same, saying that even infertile straight couples “further the traditions of marriage,” the paper reported.
Cooper’s proposition — that the purpose of marriage is for procreation — and his decision not to give any expert testimony to defend the argument brought a vigorous response from former Republican U.S. Attorney Theodore Olson, who is serving as the attorney for the anti-Prop 8 side.
“You have to have a reason,” Olson said of denying same-sex couples marriage rights. “I don’t know, and I don’t have any evidence, doesn’t cut it.”
25 Comments
Pingback posted June 17, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mommadona, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called Only One Witness – http://bit.ly/a2oNGI [...]
Pingback posted June 17, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
[...] full post on The Washington Independent Don't miss a single post! Subscribe to my RSS [...]
Pingback posted June 17, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called … [...]
Comment posted June 17, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
Correction: Ted Olson was never a “U.S. Attorney.” He was once an Assistant Attorney General, and he was Solicitor General of the United States. But he has never served as a U.S. Attorney. And there should be no such thing as either a “Republican” or “Democratic” U.S. Attorney.
It looks to me as if the defenders of Prop 8 are all but daring Judge Walker to strike it down. Or they have tacitly acknowledged what is already common knowledge: there is no rational basis for the ban on same-sex marriage.
Pingback posted June 18, 2010 @ 1:41 am
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called Only One Witness « The Washing… [...]
Comment posted June 18, 2010 @ 12:56 am
They had no witnesses because they have no defense. Prop 8 is designed to discriminate against a minority of people. You can't allow a majority to vote on the rights of a minority- they minority will lose every time.
Comment posted June 18, 2010 @ 12:58 am
Hey, bear!
Funny, isn't it? For all the bluster, it seems gay and lesbian couples are far more likely to respect and adhere to their vows to each other, even though they have been systematically prevented from making them legal, than hetero couples.
I think that's why proponents of Prop. 8 could find only ONE witness.
Comment posted June 18, 2010 @ 1:18 am
I think they are hoping to appeal this into the US Supreme Court, where they can count on the friendly conservative activism of the Gang of Four. In that court, with those judges, “I don't have any evidence” is as compelling an argument as any.
Pingback posted June 18, 2010 @ 4:48 am
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called Only One Witness « The Washing… [...]
Pingback posted June 18, 2010 @ 6:37 am
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called Only One Witness « The Washing… [...]
Pingback posted June 18, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called … [...]
Pingback posted June 18, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called … [...]
Comment posted June 18, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
That's the plan, and the way Olson and Boies have framed the lawsuit, the Supremes will have to deal with it on strict constructionist grounds. No matter how they rule, watching Scalia and Thomas try to get around that should be entertaining.
Comment posted June 18, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
All I can say is that Massachusetts, first state to legalize same-sex marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the country….
Comment posted June 18, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
The hidden syllogism in the argument of the Prop. 8 supporters amounts to: “Tradition is good and should be allowed to continue; discrimination is traditional; therefore, discrimination is good and should be allowed to continue.” Yes, I would find it amusing what basis Scalia and Thomas can find, other than just that: it is traditional, and changing traditional is harmful per se.
Comment posted June 18, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
And then there was the story of Elton John (in a commited gay relationship for some 15-20 years) playing at Rush Limbaugh's 4th wedding. Yay, Family Values!
Comment posted June 19, 2010 @ 3:55 am
Perhaps he donated the million he received to an organization that assists gays and lesbians! Or made Limbaugh donate another mil or two to someone Limbaugh wouldn't have done otherwise.
Pingback posted June 19, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called … [...]
Comment posted June 20, 2010 @ 2:02 am
the funny thing is, the Dark Side may have once wanted this to go to The Supreme court, completely forgetting, it seems, how The US Constitution contains absolutely NO provisions for upholding discrimination of any kind…
(it would have behooved them to remember, that, in order to discriminate on a state level with nonsense like Flop 8, state constitutions have first had to be edited, so such “laws” could be seen as “constitutional” – which of course, sounds like someone is cheating the values of the constitution with such cynical ploys… US Constitution contains no such edits, and the 2/3 majority required under federal law…no longer exist in the 21st century!)
Flop 8, is what the last desperate dance by the heterosexual-elitists looks like.
It's *not pretty, nor is it sustainable* as the court proceedings have finally thus proved…
Pingback posted June 20, 2010 @ 8:23 am
[...] Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Asks Why Pro-Prop 8 Side Called … [...]
Comment posted June 23, 2010 @ 3:35 am
assuming SCOTUS agrees to hear it at all – they can decline for no reason at all, after all
Pingback posted December 11, 2010 @ 7:24 am
[...] The judge in the Prop 8 trial wants to know why the anti-gay marriage defendants only called one witness. [...]
Pingback posted May 21, 2011 @ 10:07 am
[...] The judge in the Prop 8 trial wants to know why the anti-gay marriage defendants only called one witness. [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
