There's plenty to think about in Frank Rich's NYT Sunday column. I'm not sure if he invented the phrase, "Rat Pack From Hell," but it certainly got my Sunday off to a good start.
His discussion of Perry v. Schwarzenegger brought me back to a theme I've been pretty interested in: the right's dogged fight to keep any aspect of the trial from being televised or broadcast. That is consistent with their efforts, in general, to avoid any public defense of their opposition to same-sex marriage except in commercials and other species of sound bites, including religious ones. They're happy to agree among themselves, but they do not care to have pubic debate with people who disagree with them.
Rich takes note of the fact that the defense of Prop. 8 could only muster two actual experts to take the stand for their entire case. One of them was David Blankenhorn, who seems barely to be an expert on anything, at least in the academic or scientific sense. Like many of us, he certainly has his opinions. But it's a close call whether they're any more reliable than the next guy's. The other expert they called, Prof. Kenneth Miller, did appear to possess some expertise on politics and government, but his testimony that lesbians and gay men are not really discriminated against by initiatives like Prop. 8, isn't exactly open-and-shut.
Judge Vaughan Walker is doing everything he can to supplement the defense's case, since they don't seem to be very interested in doing that, themselves. This is how a responsible judge approaches a trial, considering the interests even of parties who don't seem capable of or willing to make their own best arguments.
Judge Walker released 39 questions he would like answered (by both sides), and Number 1 goes right to the heart of the defense's passivity:
Assume the evidence shows Proposition 8 is not in fact rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Assume further the evidence shows voters genuinely but without evidence believed Proposition 8 was rationally related to a legitimate interest. Do the voters' honest beliefs in the absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?
There's a constitutional question for you: What should a court do if voters genuinely, but without any basis, believe there is a reason for a law? Do honest but unsupportable and possibly discriminatory beliefs have a role in a court's decision about whether a law is constitutional?
That's important for any number of reasons, but here's how it plays out for me. It's possible very few people would actually have watched the Prop. 8 trial if it had been televised. It's also possible a whole lot would have watched it - maybe not O.J. Simpson numbers, but a lot.
The point of a trial, as opposed to a political campaign, is to examine, with some level of thoughtfulness, the facts supporting each side's best case. Prop. 8's defenders obviously don't think they have much in the way of factual support. But they also don't think they need facts. They rely on intuition and time-tested feelings and beliefs, rather than facts. Politics permits that.
In contrast, a public trial (in the sense that the public could actually watch it) would have been quite the opposite of the trench warfare of the Prop. 8 political campaign. No one really gets cross-examined in a political campaign; everyone gets cross-examined in a trial. Every piece of evidence is subject to challenge and counter-evidence, and it's hard to slide by on sloppy reasoning.
The lack of a full public trial will leave us in no better position than we were during the political battle. The questions and the answers in court are much more focused than the blasts and sputters of the Prop. 8 30-second ads. The very hard work of Ted Olson and David Boies - and the less hard work of their opponents -- will utterly disappear in the rush to judgment when Judge Walker releases his opinion.
The O.J. Simpson criminal trial isn't exactly a model for trials being made public, but whether it led to justice or not, it certainly allowed people to form an opinion based on actual evidence presented in a court. Disagreeing about the evidence is a very different thing from disagreeing about beliefs.
When Perry v. Schwarzenegger is decided, very, very few people will have had access to the strong evidentiary case made by the challengers, and the extremely weak, and nearly nonexistent case made to defend Prop. 8. Judge Walker will be accused of judicial activism if he rules that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, irrespective of what the facts show, what his reasoning is, or anything else. He could issue a one page judgment or a two-hundred page treatise, and it will make little difference. The headlines will be written only minutes after the bottom line is available.
That is how courts are drawn into politics despite the best intentions of the framers. The public would have been better served if it had been privy to the trial, itself; we could all have seen, directly, that a court has an obligation to take more time than any voter ever will in making a decision about matters of real consequence. Maybe people would still disagree with Judge Walker's opinion, but if so, they'd be able to explain why. That, in my opinion, is the lifeblood of a constitutional democracy.
37 Comments for “Judge Walker’s Private Trial”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Even if he did invent it, no self-respecting writer should WANT to claim credit for using a Mad Libs construction like “ (noun) From Hell”.
At least he didn’t write “über-Rat Pack from über-Hell,” in order to clue the readers in that Sean Hannity is sort of like a Nazi.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Saying that this is a ‘disageement’ puts an innocuous and equally accountable description to something that has a range of serious consequences to gay lives.
Whether it’s abandonment or abuse by family in youth, torment in schools by peers as well as educator, verbal attacks by clergy and violence in the streets.
This is not disagreement, but direct and serious conflict against a minority that, has been a constant throughout all human life and history.
It’s a long, sad hatred.
But an UNNECESSARY one.
And because it’s less and less defended by science, but religious belief, is all the more reason why decent people well educated in the history of religious based abuse, should abandon it.
Popular vote against a minority of the status of gay people, is unfair from the outset.
That gay people have usually been excised from the very discussion that affects THEIR lives is another case in that point.
And, religious belief, because of the diverse nature of our country, and non enforcement of religious beliefs…this insistence on enforcing it exclusively against gay people is contrary to how we coexist with it.
For example: blood and organ donation and contraception are contrary to religious beliefs for some people.
But they don’t consider it a restriction of it that other people use those options, nor are they banning it in general for the same.
Marriage isn’t a exclusively religious institution. It’s not restricted by BELIEFS, but by the age, familial and consent status of ALL participants.
It’s impossible to MAKE this a religious/or procreation issue at all, because it isn’t a part of the law.
That’s why it’s a hypocritical indictment when the opposition accuses judges of legislating from the bench if their decisions are in favor of marriage equality.
It’s hypocritical because for a judge to decide based on contraceptive sex, or religious grounds, that WOULD be legislating from the bench.
As I said, no one is restricted on those grounds whatsoever.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, I see.
So popular votes banning polygamists from marrying, banning incest practitioners from marrying, banning bestialists from marrying, and banning pedophiles from marrying are “unfair from the outset” and should be overturned, because everyone should have the right to marry whatever they want.
But that is passing judgment on other peoples’ beliefs, Regan, since there are other people who believe that it should be perfectly OK to marry whomever you want regardless of age, familial, or consent status.
You have stated, Regan, that the marriage of other people doesn’t negatively affect anyone who’s not in the relationship. Since it doesn’t affect you, what right do you have to object to child marriage, polygamous marriage, bestial marriage, or anything else?
Oh, and one last thing: the gay and lesbian community would be well-served to disassociate itself from people like you who are making fools of themselves over greeting cards.
posted by Jimmy on
Do you, ND30, think you are equivalent to practitioners of incest, pedophelia, or beastiality?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I would point out, NDT30, that by using the language “to ban [people] from marrying”, you’re half-conceding Regan’s overwrought argument.
When the context is marriage laws in the U.S., it’s nearly always the case that we’re talking about bans on what a state government can do (such as issuing “marriage licenses” to same-sex couples), and not bans on what private citizens (including same-sex couples) and non-government institutions can do.
This is NOT a pedantic distinction, because Jim Crow laws — by way of contrast — typically DID restrict private behavior. (In many jurisdictions that had Jim Crow laws, if you were a restaurant owner who WANTED to serve both white and “colored” customers because you thought it made excellent business sense, you were prohibited by law from being non-discriminatory.) And related to that, I’ve already made the point about a billion times that Mr. and Mrs. Loving truly were banned from marrying in Virginia, on penalty of losing their Freedom To Not Be In Jail. (It wasn’t the case that the state merely declined to make marriage licenses available to mixed-race couples — the state proactively trampled on individual liberties, which DID NOT OCCUR in the case of Prop8.)
In short, we’re not talking about “bans” or “prohibitions” or “permission” or “allowing” or “liberty” here. We’re talking about whether there should be official recognition of something that gay people already have the untrammeled liberty to do in the U.S. and the West generally — and if so, what precise form should this official recognition take.
But people like Regan (and Frank Rich) don’t want to concede that this debate is merely an argument over fair and reasonable access to a government-offered convenience — which is what a “marriage license” is today, since for the most part it has long since ceased to be “permission to cohabitate sexually.” (A “marriage license” is nowadays still a “license” — i.e., a granting of government permission — only in a few specific contexts, such as when one or both parties are under 18, or when they are blood relatives. In such cases, a marriage license does indeed clarify and certify that there is no legal obstacle to their marriage (for example, in the case of second cousins who happen to have the same last name).
Mostly, however, marriage licenses are indeed a convenience — they lump together a dozen or so important legal protections so that couples don’t have to go through the legwork of obtaining the same protections a la carte.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Explain the difference, Jimmy.
After all, you state that everyone has the right to marry whatever they want as long as they love it, and that their definition of love is not subject to anyone else’s determination or definition.
You also state that anyone else’s relationship does not affect your own or anyone else’s, and therefore you cannot claim that any other type of relationship is “harmful” to yours or anyone else’s.
Finally, you have stated that marriage to whatever you love is a guaranteed constitutional right, and that laws that abridge this in any way are an unconstitutional attack by a tyrannical majority on a minority.
So by those arguments, what makes practitioners of incest, pedophelia, or beastiality so different that they should be prevented from marrying that which they love by a tyrannical majority?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thanks Throbert. Excellent points.
posted by Jimmy on
I know it’s a shock to you, ND30, but it’s 2010 and being gay is neither a crime or an illness, unlike the other phony, bullshit instances you brought to the argument.
So I ask again, do think you are the same as a pedophile?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If having sex with children is an illness, why is it supported and endorsed by the gay and lesbian community, why is the gay and lesbian community so adamantly opposed to making it illegal, and why are gay and lesbian psychologists touting it as an “educational experience” for kids and insisting that anyone who opposes it is “close-minded”?
Besides, Jimmy, that’s very bigoted of you. Haven’t you already said that no one has the right to pass moral judgment on other peoples’ sexual preferences? Can you demonstrate how other people having sex with and marrying whatever they love affects you negatively?
Why are you such a hater, Jimmy? What gives you the right to deny people the right to marry whomever they love because you disapprove of it? That’s imposing your moral values on other people, which you USED to claim was wrong.
posted by Jimmy on
ND30 –
Since you always need to take the long way around the barn, via the stables, when responding, from here on out, you shall be known as Pony Fuc*er.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, Jimmy, if all you can do is make up nasty names for people, I think that speaks volumes for how little thought you or your fellow Hallmark hater Regan have actually put into this.
posted by Jimmy on
ND30 –
But, it’s totally in a nonjudgmental way.
High Ho, Silver!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Neither pedophilia nor bestiality should ever be spoken of in the same breath with consensual adult homosexuality. But if one considers first-cousin heterosexual marriage to be within the realm of “incestuous,” then there ARE rational grounds for saying that in certain contexts, adult homosexuality and first-cousin hetero marriage resemble each other in falling well short of “What’s Optimal for Society.”
What I mean by this is that the traditional objections to 1st-cousin marriage are in some sense overstated: if I were to fuck my cousin Jessica, the genetic odds of us having perfectly normal kids are ALMOST as good as if Jessica weren’t my first cousin at all. That is, the genetic difference between any randomly-selected male/female first cousins is usually enough that the odds of a fetus “drawing a matched pair” of harmful recessive genes is quite low. So there’s no reason to be bothered by first-cousin marriage as long as it remains a rather rare phenomenon, because the odds of a “bad genetic outcome” in any given first-cousin mating is low.
On the other hand, if you have first-cousins making babies with each other as a routine cultural practice within a larger demographic group, the entire demographic group will tend to become less genetically diverse — i.e., comparatively more inbred. Which means the odds significantly increase for a baby of first cousins to have a “harmful matched pair” of recessive genes, compared to the odds of this happening when first-cousin matings are mildly frowned on and thus rare events.
In short, there is a completely non-religious argument that first-cousin marriage is NEITHER an abomination, NOR something that society at large should treat just as favorably as 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th-, or 50th-cousin marriages.
And it’s not difficult to make a case that society should treat homosexual pairings the same way — something that can be tolerated without fear, but that perhaps should be explicitly acknowledged as not-quite-as-desirable-for-society.
posted by Tom on
Whether or not this turns out to be true depends, in large part, on how Judge Walker writes the opinion. I hope that Judge Walker will write an extensive opinion, drawing heavily on findings of fact and the basis of those findings.
If Judge Walker does that, the core trial evidence will be clear in the opinion.
A well-written opinion in a case of this magnitude will set out the basis of the opinion. Judge Walker has a good reputation for legal craftsmanship.
What I’m most curious about is whether Judge Walker’s opinion will be narrowly drawn, or more broad. I am hoping for the narrowest possible opinion, because I think that a narrow opinion has the best chance of success in SCOTUS. We’ll all see what happens in a few months.
posted by Danni on
Only one point – one major difference (among many) between homosexuality and pedophilia or bestiality is consent. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Neither a child, nor an animal can consent to such a relationship. And a child is certainly not consenting to a sexual relationship with an adult, hence the term rape. I am always amazed when this argument comes up, as if raping a child or abusing an animal is in any way similar to a consentual relationship between two adults.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Funny, the gay and lesbian community says that children are perfectly capable to consent to sex.
And the Obama Party and its representatives state clearly that drugging and having sex with a thirteen-year-old is not rape, that thirteen-year-olds can consent to sex, and therefore those who have sex with them should not be prosecuted or punished.
And finally, the gay and lesbian community adamantly opposes parental notification laws and fully supports and endorses underage minors consenting to sex and abortions.
So no one really buys that theory that the gay and lesbian community thinks having sex with children is a crime, especially when gay and lesbian rights groups are stating that sex with children far younger than you are is “common” in the gay and lesbian community.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Bigoted statement.
After all, Danni, haven’t gays and lesbians argued that no one else has any right to determine the appropriateness of other peoples’ sexual preferences?
Haven’t gays and lesbians argued that it’s no one else’s business with whom you have sex and that no one else’s relationship has any influence or bearing on yours?
So again, the same question: how does allowing people to marry and have sex with children or animals harm you in any way? Who gave you the right to determine whether or not other peoples’ sexual practices and loves are valid, when you have stated that no one else has that right? Why are you discriminating against those whose sexual preferences aren’t the same as yours? Why are you not demanding that the definition of marriage be changed to accomodate them?
posted by M. on
ND30:
I don’t often say this, but you are really out of your mind. Get professional help please. I don’t argue with the deranged.
posted by Throbert McGee on
M.: The best way to deal with ND30 is to treat it like a cleverly-written ELIZA program — you can engage with it if you like, but you should never take any of its responses too seriously. (Also, bear in mind that whether ND30 is a computer or a sub-human gimp/slave, it seemingly has no concept of “thou”, and treats almost everyone it speaks to as though they are part of a collective hive-mind. Therefore, you should feel no moral embarrassment about referring to it as a thing, rather than a person.)
On rare occasions, ND30 may say something rational or even proffer a compliment — but under no circumstances should you yield to the normal temptation to give it “positive feedback” by thanking it for the compliment or acknowledging that it said something sensible… unless you want to feel like a complete chump when ND30 almost immediately reverts to its characteristically loathsome behavior.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hey M, do us a favor, would you?
Since you claim you can diagnose insanity remotely, please post your credentials, including your professional degree.
By the way, in the unlikely event that you are a mental health professional, diagnosing someone without meeting them is an ethical breach in and of itself, and doing so for the sole purpose of denigrating their opinion usually results in your being stripped of your license or certification.
Or you can simply admit that you don’t have any qualification whatsoever to diagnose mental illness and instead are trying to substitute name-calling for your inability to confront the facts or make a cogent, non-hypocritical argument.
posted by Pat on
Only one point – one major difference (among many) between homosexuality and pedophilia or bestiality is consent. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Neither a child, nor an animal can consent to such a relationship. And a child is certainly not consenting to a sexual relationship with an adult, hence the term rape. I am always amazed when this argument comes up, as if raping a child or abusing an animal is in any way similar to a consentual relationship between two adults.
Excellent point Danni. The fact that there are persons, gay or straight, who support and/or actually engage in pedophilia is irrelevant to your point.
Throbert, interesting analysis.
posted by Jorge on
There’s a constitutional question for you: What should a court do if voters genuinely, but without any basis, believe there is a reason for a law? Do honest but unsupportable and possibly discriminatory beliefs have a role in a court’s decision about whether a law is constitutional?
I would answer that a sincere belief that a law rationally related to a legitimate state interest is almost by definition a “rational basis” and thus something that the courts should give deferrence to. A belief has to come from somewhere. The courts have held that even beliefs based on religious values and traditional values can be upheld in the law. This certainly applies to beliefs–such as attiudes on homosexuality homosexuality–that are included but not exclusive to religious or traditional values.
The courts must accept the assumption that if a majority expresses something, then it is consistent with the majority’s own values, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge. Deny that, and you deny the people’s ability to make value judgments and to act on them, which prevents them from solving society’s problems.
We have stricter standards of review in discrimination cases, and for good reason. The real question and controversy is which standard of review should apply to gay marriage.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
I knew Rich’s column would provoke. He must have sat back and collected a sprig or two from everything he’s ever written on the subject and included it in that one.
IIRC, Rich has been unlucky in marriage…….but I could have him confused with someone else.
Hasn’t he been divorced a few times, himself?
There’s a “lid” for every “jar” and Frank Rich would lend credence to that sentiment.
But I still don’t know how men like that find a woman who will actually marry them.
I agree with ND30 that anytime someone has to resort to armchair psychiatric diagnoses or advising someone to “take their meds”…….they basically show themselves to be the most magnificent of fools.
Such a lazy way to debate.
While I certainly concur that bestiality and pedophilia are unrelated topics alongside the topic of consenting relationships between adults, an atmosphere is often cultivated by some gays in which the most grotesque behavior is not simply accepted but gleefully encouraged.
And when the entire gay community remains silent or tries to cover up and ignore egregious cases of child molestation by gay men—(the media and everyone else pummel and vilify, rightfully, heterosexual men who perpetrate such crimes on children)—it somehow gives the entire topic a patina of acceptance on a certain level.
Or that’s the way it appears to observers.
posted by Jimmy on
“The courts must accept the assumption that if a majority expresses something, then it is consistent with the majority’s own values, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge. Deny that, and you deny the people’s ability to make value judgments and to act on them, which prevents them from solving society’s problems.”
The courts, particularly the highest in the land, don’t have to accept jack if it doesn’t pass constitutional muster, regardless of who feels what about this or that, even the majority. Conservatives don’t seem to get that.
posted by Brian Miller on
Assume the evidence shows Proposition 8 is not in fact rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Assume further the evidence shows voters genuinely but without evidence believed Proposition 8 was rationally related to a legitimate interest. Do the voters’ honest beliefs in the absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?
Only if that standard is consistently applied.
For example, if a majority of Californians sincerely believe that allowing Tea Party members to vote would lead to the end of civilization, and vote to remove the right of Tea Partiers to participate in elections by popular mandate in the California constitution, the same standard would have to be upheld as that “justifying” the separate legal treatment of gays and lesbians under California law — i.e. despite the irrationality of it, “the majority has spoken.”
Ironically, such an amendment would have about equal weight as a legal concept to Prop 8, since other states ban “undesirables” from voting (convicted felons, even after their sentence is served) and there’s no explicit “Tea Partier right to vote” in the Constitution (merely bans on discrimination based on race and gender).
These conservatives dive down a scary hole that leads to nasty places with their legal pretzel logic.
posted by Brian Miller on
Deny that, and you deny the people’s ability to make value judgments and to act on them, which prevents them from solving society’s problems.
You know, the right wing is quite hypocritical. On one hand, they rail against an activist liberal Democrat president and Congress who believe that the government is the ultimate force for solving society’s problems. On the other hand, they fret that the constitutional protections of insular minorities prevent government from — you guessed it — solving society’s problems.
Pretzel logic at its finest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Absolutely. Go for it.
Indeed, I challenge you, Brian Miller. Put your money where your mouth is and have your “OutRight Libertarians” group raise such a petition. Make it clear that the gay and lesbian community supports stripping anyone who has ever participated in or has been involved with a tea party activity of the right to vote.
Why won’t you? Certainly you can get the support of the Obama Party that owns you. HRC and NGLTF and the rest of Gay, Inc. will support it. Are you too much of a coward to do it?
Not really.
In short, the Constitution explicitly states that the right to vote can be taken away from criminals.
Perhaps that’s the plan of the Obama Party and its puppet gays like Brian Miller, then; have dissent declared criminal and strip people of the right to vote.
Very “libertarian”, indeed.
posted by Mark on
Throbert:
Thanks, that response made my day. Still, I can’t resist one more crack at ND30.
ND30: I’m not a psychiatrist so I can’t make a medical diagnsis of insanity. However, I use the term “insane” in the popular non-medical sense. There is something seriously wrong with you, my friend. You are urrational, illogical and just an all around removed from reality pain in the butt. You rarely contribute anything intelligent to a discussion. This is not a disagreement over political ideology–I actually sometimes agree with conservatives although I fancy myself an independent libertarian. But your sole aim in life seems to be to pick fights and accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being part of the alleged big liberal gay conspiracy which runs the world.
Your comment to Brian Miller reveals how much of an idiot you are. He obviously was not literally suggesting that tea party people be denied the right to vote–but in your disturbed mind, you actually tought that.
I have some advice to you: go out and get laid instead of wasting time online. (Maybe that’s advice I should take as well.)
posted by Jorge on
The courts, particularly the highest in the land, don’t have to accept jack if it doesn’t pass constitutional muster, regardless of who feels what about this or that, even the majority. Conservatives don’t seem to get that.
No. I am referencing the rational basis test. In order to find out whether a law is constitutional under rational basis, we need to apply the test to the law to figure out whether or not it’s constitutional in the first place. You don’t decide whether or not it’s constitutional, and then figure out if it passes constitutional muster. If you’re talking about something else, then you shouldn’t have been replying to my post. In other words, either you’re not paying attention to what other people are writing or you don’t have very good decisionmaking skills.
posted by Jorge on
You know, the right wing is quite hypocritical. On one hand, they rail against an activist liberal Democrat president and Congress who believe that the government is the ultimate force for solving society’s problems. On the other hand, they fret that the constitutional protections of insular minorities prevent government from — you guessed it — solving society’s problems.
Pretzel logic at its finest.
I am neither a right-winger nor particularly distrustful of the government and I resent your insane assumptions.
You are accusing me of not valuing the Constitution’s protections for minorities. Nothing could be futher from the truth. You have purposely chosen to ignore the portion of my post which recognizes that we have stricter standards of review in discrimination cases, and for good reason. The real question and controversy is which standard of review should apply to gay marriage.
Your misrepresentation of my words is unacceptable. I demand an apology.
posted by Debrah on
Party affiliation aside, below are two videos which should be used as a “how to” and a “how not to” tutorial for every aspiring pol.
LOL!
One guy is asked a question by a self-identified student journalist on the streets of Washington. If Etheridge isn’t under the influence of something, he shouldn’t admit it.
Democrat Etheridge illustrates how not to respond.
Republican Neumann illustrates how to respond when surrounded not by just one or two students, but an array of detractors with questions.
posted by Brian Miller on
Put your money where your mouth is and have your “OutRight Libertarians” group raise such a petition.
Typical Republican. Everyone else has to do the work, all the time, while they sit and whine about it (yet benefit if the initiative is successful).
that’s the plan of the Obama Party and its puppet gays like Brian Miller
Oh darn, my secret agenda has been exposed. Curse you, closet-case sleuth!
posted by Brian Miller on
The real question and controversy is which standard of review should apply to gay marriage.
Not really. It’s only controversial to those who believe that the 10th and 14th amendments don’t apply to gay Americans “just because.”
I demand an apology.
That’s nice.
posted by Jorge on
Party affiliation aside, below are two videos which should be used as a “how to” and a “how not to” tutorial for every aspiring pol.
LOL!
One guy is asked a question by a self-identified student journalist on the streets of Washington. If Etheridge isn’t under the influence of something, he shouldn’t admit it.
Democrat Etheridge illustrates how not to respond.
Republican Neumann illustrates how to respond when surrounded not by just one or two students, but an array of detractors with questions.
Oh God. That second one was so sickeningly sweet I couldn’t even last a minute.
posted by Tom on
For those interested, the shape of the arguments and the possible shape of Judge Walker’s opinion are framed by a series of questions Judge Walker addressed to the parties, and the responses of Gibson Dunn, et al, on the one hand, and Alliance Defense Fund, et al, on the other. It is fascinating reading for those with the time to read the questions and responses.
posted by Brian Miller on
The closing argument by Olson was a nicely done item too. He’s very quick on his feet and obviously committed to the issue — which is one reason why GOProud has completely ignored the entire case, no doubt.
posted by John Howard on
They should have gotten an expert witness to testify about epigenetics, about how conception requires a male-imprinted gamete joining with a female-imprinted gamete. And how much is unknown about what exactly goes on during that process, and how it is impossible to study human epigenetics in other animals, and impossible to make “female sperm” or “male eggs” that would be safe enough to ethically use to create human beings. It would be easy to find an expert in genetics to testify that it would be unethical to attempt same-sex conception and that it should be banned by a law.
And, another expert could testify that no marriage has ever been prohibited from attempting to conceive children together using their own genes, and it would be a huge change to marriage if we forced married couples to use modified or third-party genes to reproduce instead of attempting to use their own somehow.