.
.
.
Today is pretty historic. For the first time, TV viewers at home are going to be able to watch opening arguments before a Federal Court of Appeals – specifically the next stage of the ongoing case Perry v. Schwarzenegger which will determine whether California’s Proposition 8, which disqualifies same-sex marriage in the state, is constitutional or not.
It’s interesting that the plaintiffs – those who want to overturn Prop 8 and re-legalize gay marriage – have been fighting to have as much of the hearing televised as possible, while the defendants who oppose gay marriage want to keep the whole proceedings under wraps as much as possible. Hey who’s in the closet now? Maybe those who know deep down that their position is indefensible.
So, switch on C-SPAN from 10 to 12 this morning if you’re at home – it should be some very good TV. Our pro-marriage-equality team is led by the brilliant conservative Ted Olsen and the brilliant liberal David Boies. The defendants are basically the folks who wrote the Proposition, although the rednecks of Imperial County are trying to qualify to defend the initiative as well, since our Governor and our AG are refusing to lift a finger to defend the cruel measure.
SO, the first hour or so of arguments will consist of our David Boies arguing that Imperial County has no standing in the matter, not being materially harmed by the prospect of Prop 8 being overturned. After that, we’ll get down to the basics of why this churro is unconstitutional with Ted Olsen. Here’s a little preview from Ted (who fought against Boies in 2000 in Bush v. Gore – on the wrong side – and whose wife died in the Pentagon plane crash 9/11/2001.)
Nice summay of the proceedings from Freedom To Marry’s Evan Wolfson:
“Earlier this year, the anti-gay forces behind California’s Prop 8 were yet again shown to have no evidence and no good arguments that would stand up in the light of a courtroom, under oath and cross-examination. Lacking any serious expert witnesses or facts to justify marriage discrimination, they fought to block cameras from the courtroom and actually asserted that they ‘don’t have to have evidence.’ After Judge Walker conclusively found that they had failed to justify stripping the freedom to marry away from California’s gay couples, the anti-gay groups swiftly took to attacking the judge.
“Today, unable to hide, these same opponents of equality stood before appellate judges and, this time, cameras, and all the world could see what a majority of American people have already come to understand: there is no good reason for continuing to exclude committed loving couples from the legal commitment of marriage. When the gavel came down, it was clear yet again that the anti-gay forces still have nothing. Their case is, in Lincoln’s words, ‘as thin as the homeopathic soup made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that starved to death.’”
Uhh, this is not about evidence and shouldn’t be. This is a purely legal argument over whether the court should let stand the will of the people. I can only imagine the howls of horror heard ’round the world if any group had stepped in to try and overturn a proposition passed by the people that allowed gay marriage.