C-span is showing the "Same-Sex Marriage" debate :: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals...

[defendandprotect]

NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY ....

San Francisco --

Presumably will be repeated on C-span overnight and usually over weekend --

and more than likely available at the C-span website --



David Boies
Arguing in Support of Same-Sex Marriage

I'm sure we all remember him from Gore side in 2000?

Miss Ted Olsen but seems he also made an argument today before the court -- he

represented Bush in 2000.



Great point by one of the Judges ... Obama can't veto their ruling --

but if what government is really doing is announcing they won't enforce or defend the

court's ruling, then it's the same thing.





Scope of the injunction?


(California is near bankrupt and they're dallying with this issue --

There's a lot at stake for their citizens -- Social Security benefits for spouses --

and children of same-sex couples. Pensions.


Also wondering .... if the States ever settle down to supporting Human Rights and

Same-Sex Marriage, etal -- could states then protect their citizens from exploitation

and harassment by government in military issues such as DADT?

Refusing to give them up to military service if they are to be harassed over DADT?)



Charles Cooper -- attorney supporting Prop 8

Arguing against Same-Sex Marriage

This this is probably his follow up and missed his original statements --

I really don't get how any bunch of citizens -- especially backed by money from organized

male-supremacist religions -- can legally limit the rights of other free citizens?


There's a break -- another hour to follow?

And -- they're back --

Cooper up again --

Anyone consider Prop 8 to be "the people deciding for themselves" in a democratic manner???

That's what Cooper argues.

Ah, Cooper gets into male/female = produces children

Society needs the creation of new life for the next generation --

And he's also arguing the negatives of single-mothers raising children --

("Good argument for prohibiting divorce" -- Judge Stephen Reinhardt interjects)

Cooper suggests that "Marriage" represents an institution which some are seeking to redefine.

California SC gave homosexuals the right to marry -- PRIOR to this prop 8 -- which took that

right away.

Judge Michael Hawkins was putting to Cooper that in racial matters, no prop could overturn

the rights the State of California has accorded to people of color -- in public education.

Cooper has to agree --

Baker vs Nelson?

"Didn't deal with the issue of REPEALING a Constitutional right accorded" Judge Reinhardt

Cooper: "Under California System the people are free - with all the sovereign power to rescind

a decision by the STATE Supreme Court - and they can reverse it. The people retain the ultimate

power of the government."

Cooper seems to be arguing that the CA State SC didn't have backing of FEDERAL Constitution --

backing that existed in rights to African Americans -- ending segregation.

Reinhardt argues that once a right has been extended -- such as CA extending the right to

same-sex marriage, then it is a question of overturning a right rather than simply denying it.

Judge Randy Smith -- notes some states have not granted "domestic partnership rights" --

What rational basis?

Cooper argues again "natural procreative ability of men and women = traditional marriage"

Infertile couples can marry -- and, actually homosexual males and females can procreate --



OLSEN UP ...

Constitutional right of citizens to fundamental right of marriage --

SC decisions make it fundamental to liberty, privacy, association and identity --

and Olsen argues that this shouldn't be labeled "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage"

because it is the right of the individual

Attacks Cooper's argument of "Society's interest in procreation" --

Argues clearly not -- rights under Constitution aren't rights state or of voters

but rights of citizens --

If Cooper's argument succeeded in procreation being engraved onto right of marriage then

society could one day look at overpopulation and it could lead to denial of right to marriage.

Federal Supreme Court has acknowledged "intimate sexual conduct between persons of same sex

is Constitutional --

It is a Constitutionally protected activity --

Thinking behind Prop 8 includes ...

"Protect our children from thinking that gay marriage is ok" ... seen as a risk

page 107/08/09 of brief they filed.

Goes on to elaborate from the brief ...

"Because eample of same-sex marriage will make children occupy their minds with

issues of sexuality --

This then is a proposition that walls off the citizens of the state from a right because children

may occupy their minds reflecting on human sexuality -- "

If that be true, we have to also ban comic books, tv, video games and even conversations

with other children!"

Without rational reason it is discrimination ...

Can't be based on dislike of a person -- "something wrong with these people" --

nor fears of protecting our children from same-sex marriage knowledge -- won't work -

no rational basis.

Prop 8 doesn't protect any heterosexuals from accidental pregnancy --

nor does it keep them from getting divorced -- or effect their choice of having children

There is no harm in elimination of prop 8 to heterosexual marriage.

Homosexuality is a characteristic -- not something chosen



Now ... Therese Stewart SF Chief Deputy City Attorney -- supporting same-sex marriage

Prop 8 didn't talk about children at all --

CA State treats both heterosexual and homosexual families the same --

Homosexual couples do procreate -- just not in the old fashioned way --

"Gay marriage sinks the institution of marriage" -- not rational --

only way that could be understood is to suggest that there is something so wrong with

homosexuals that they somehow put a "stain on marriage" --

"Homosexuals couples are not OK."


COURT ADJOURNED !!









Evidently some same-sex marriage that were performed out of state are recognized in CA --

"an irrational system" Olsen observes.