Similar stories:
•
Defense lawyers rest case at gay marriage trial
The first federal case to decide if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from stopping same-sex weddings came to an anti-climatic break Wednesday after a judge heard nearly 12 days of wide-ranging testimony on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.
Attorneys for sponsors of California's Proposition 8 tentatively rested their case after introducing materials from the 2008 election campaign.
They called just two expert witnesses, including David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, who capped the historic proceedings by saying the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.
•
Defense lawyers rest case at gay marriage trial
The first federal case to decide if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from stopping same-sex weddings came to an anti-climatic break Wednesday after a judge heard nearly 12 days of wide-ranging testimony on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.
Attorneys for sponsors of California's Proposition 8 tentatively rested their case after introducing materials from the 2008 election campaign.
They called just two expert witnesses, including David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, who capped the historic proceedings by saying the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.
•
Same-sex marriages may hinge on 1 man
The federal trial on the constitutionality of California's gay marriage prohibition, which voters passed in 2008, has been more a sociological and philosophical debate than a traditional evidentiary hearing.
The testimony and the opposing lawyers' arguments so far boil down to this: Some folks believe that same-sex couples should have the constitutional right to marry, and other folks deny there is such a right.
The debate is more philosophical than legal because this is virgin territory for the federal courts, no pun intended.
•
Witness: Rights of gays 2nd to preserving marriage
The founder of a family values think-tank testified Wednesday that the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.
David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, said under cross-examination there are many valid reasons for allowing gays to wed, but the considerations are outweighed by the likely damage it would cause the already weakened state of heterosexual unions.
He acknowledged, however, that allowing gays to wed would have positive consequences for same-sex couples and society, such as scoring "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion," reducing anti-gay prejudice and hate crimes, and creating a higher standard of living for same-sex couples.
•
Witness: Rights of gays 2nd to preserving marriage
The founder of a family values think-tank testified Wednesday that the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.
David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, said under cross-examination there are many valid reasons for allowing gays to wed, but the considerations are outweighed by the likely damage it would cause the already weakened state of heterosexual unions.
He acknowledged, however, that allowing gays to wed would have positive consequences for same-sex couples and society, such as scoring "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion," reducing anti-gay prejudice and hate crimes, and creating a higher standard of living for same-sex couples.
Proposition 8, which would define marriage in California as only between a man and a woman, raises a number of issues. But one question stands out: Should we use the state constitution to take the right to marry from a particular group of people? We believe that notion is wrong, and recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 8.
We understand that many Californians, because of religious or personal convictions, oppose same-sex marriage, and these are deeply held beliefs. But there are others who believe that marriage should not be limited to heterosexual couples.
In May, the issue took a legal turn. Same-sex couples won the right to marry when the state Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in 2000.
The court said that was discrimination, and unconstitutional: "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights," wrote Chief Justice Ronald M. George in the majority opinion. He got that exactly right.
Proponents of Proposition 8 have offered several arguments for their position.
They complain that "activist judges" overturned the will of the majority. But that's what judges are supposed to do when the majority seeks to deny the rights of a minority.
The notion that same-sex marriages somehow threaten the sanctity and strength of heterosexual marriages is simply absurd. Those who worry about the health of heterosexual marriages should focus their attention on divorce, which is the real threat to marriage.
No church will be compelled to perform same-sex marriages if Proposition 8 fails.
The claim that schools will be forced by the state to teach "gay marriage," featured in TV ads flooding the airwaves, is a flat lie. Local school districts control such curriculum, and state law permits parents to withdraw their children from lessons they find objectionable.
Proposition 8 proponents claim that same-sex partners can enjoy the same legal rights and benefits as married couples. That's another falsehood. Domestic partners don't share Social Security benefits, health insurance or pensions, for instance. They don't get family leave and cannot file joint tax returns, nor do they share rights to retirement benefits.
This nation outgrew the thoroughly discredited theory of "separate but equal" decades ago, yet proponents of Proposition 8 would have us enshrine that notion in our state constitution.
All loving, committed couples should have the right to marry, with all the benefits and obligations that relationship incurs. That's the law now in California, and it should remain the law. The state constitution shouldn't be used to turn some people into second-class citizens. Vote "no" on Proposition 8.
E-Mail
Print
@Nyx.CommentBody@