Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Opening today is the first ever federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits individual states from outlawing same-sex marriage.

Among the questions [Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn] Walker plans to entertain are whether sexual orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers.
It boggles my mind that such ridiculous questions are being asked in a court of law. Of courwe, we all know these arguments can so easily be dismantled with facts. (Not that logic, reason and sense enters into it all.)

As Jennifer Pizer, marriage director for Lambda Legal says:

Can the state reserve the esteemed language and status of marriage just for heterosexual couples, and relegate same-sex couples to a lesser status? Are there any adequate public interests to justify reimposing such a caste system for gay people, especially by a majority vote to take a cherished right from a historically mistreated minority?
Proponents of bigotry fall to their old stand-by: What about the children!?!?

Their witnesses will testify that governments historically have sanctioned traditional marriage as a way to promote responsible child-rearing and that this remains a valid justification for limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
Regardless of the outcome, the case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

[Proceedings can be viewed here.]

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme court has temporarily blocked broadcast of the trial.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus