Same Sex Marriage Hearing in California - Likely to Go to US Supreme Court

[Gaybutton]

Witness: Civil Unions like Allowing just One Bite of Twinkie

 

By Dan Simon and Augie Martin, CNN

January 11, 2010

 

San Francisco, California (CNN) -- A gay couple challenging Proposition 8 in federal court Monday said civil unions and domestic partnerships aren't the same as marriages, something they view as a stepping stone toward starting a family.

 

"[it's] like putting a Twinkie at the end of a treadmill and saying, 'You can only have a bite,' " testified Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs. "And you want the whole thing. ... All I want is to be married."

 

Katami and his partner, Jeffrey Zarrillo, are among plaintiffs asking Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco to issue an injunction against the enforcement of California's Proposition 8, arguing the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

 

If allowed to marry his partner, 36-year-old Zarrillo said he would finally feel equal and complete.

 

"I'd be able to stand there as one family, as a married individual," Zarrillo said, noting the "pride that one feels when that happens."

 

During testimony, attorney David Boies asked Zarrillo why he believed marriage was a better option for same-sex couples when compared with domestic partnerships and other arrangements states have for same-sex couples.

 

"Domestic partnership would relegate me to second-class citizenship, maybe third-class -- and that's not enough," he said.

 

Zarrillo and Katami of Los Angeles, California, are joined by Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley, California, in the court challenge.

 

Zarrillo said he believes it's an important step to be married before having children, saying it would make it easier for the couple and the child and would afford the child additional protections.

 

Being married and wearing a wedding ring sends a message to society, he said.

 

"It says to them, these individuals are serious," Zarrillo said. "They're committed to one another."

 

Another attorney for the couples, Theodore Olson, argued to the judge that a ban on Proposition 8 leaves gay couples out of something available to all other people in the United States.

 

"Marriage is central to life in America," Olson said. "It promotes mental, physical and emotional self. It's the building block of family, neighborhoods and community in our society."

 

Proposition 8, Olson said, ended the dream of marriage for same-sex couples, which includes hundreds of thousands of Californians. The state, he said, "has put people into categories."

 

"You're different, and we're going to take away that right from you," Olson said, interpreting the meaning of the ban. "... That's discrimination."

 

However, Charles Cooper, an attorney representing Protect Marriage, the group that came up with Proposition 8, told the judge in his opening statement the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation between men and women.

 

Same-sex marriage "will likely lead to very real social harm; it's too novel and experimental," he argued.

 

Californians "are entitled to make this critical decision for themselves," he said, pointing to voter support of the proposition.

 

Except for the issue of marriage, gays and lesbians have been successful in attaining policy goals, Cooper said, adding that California has some of the most comprehensive protections in the nation.

 

About 100 protesters against the measure and in favor of same-sex marriage gathered peacefully outside the courthouse before the hearing, waving signs supporting equal rights.

 

The case will likely head to the U.S. Supreme Court no matter the outcome. It is expected to set legal precedents that will shape society for years and result in a landmark court decision that settles whether Americans can marry people of the same sex.

 

In legal circles and across the Internet, it has been dubbed this generation's Brown v. Board of Education, the case that led to the Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation in schools. Some say it could be the biggest ruling since Roe v. Wade, which tackled abortion. It also closely echoes the Supreme Court case that overturned bans on interracial marriage.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

If the Supreme Court rules in their favor that will be a major step in allowing same sex marriage nationwide.

[Bob]

In my opinion, there is no (zero) chance that the US Supreme Court as presently constituted will ever rule that states must recognize let alone legalize same-sex marriages. Just no chance at all so nobody ought to get their hopes up.

[Gaybutton]

Just no chance at all so nobody ought to get their hopes up.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

- James Branch Cabell

[Guest GaySacGuy]

If the Supreme Court rules in their favor that will be a major step in allowing same sex marriage nationwide.

 

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, it will do much to increase the immigration rights of gay partners..such as fiance (sp) visas for boys in a relationship with gay Americans.

 

It could go a long way to improving gay rights in many areas!!

[Gaybutton]

fiance (sp) visas for boys in a relationship with gay Americans.

 

It could go a long way to improving gay rights in many areas!!

I agree, but there is still the problem of the policy about refusing a visa to anyone suspected of having been involved with prostitution. They don't even need any evidence. All they have to do is just think the boy may have been a prostitute. A Thai boy applying for a visa to travel with someone twice or even three times his age, and beyond, is still facing a problem.

 

I hope the gay marriage issue is favorably resolved. Then maybe they'll get over this crap about denying someone a visa because he may have been a prostitute. I'd be the first one to tell them that when I was their age, if someone had offered me money to have sex with him, I would have loved it! Sadly, nobody has ever offered me a damned thing to have sex with him. If it wasn't for the way things work in Thailand, the only sex dates I probably would ever get would still be dating my hands . . .

[Bob]

Sincerely, the best possible result from the US Supreme Court is a ruling that the states have the right on their own whether to allow or not allow same-sex marriages. The Court has ruled in the past (precedent) that marriage is an issue for the states and any court, liberal or conservative, would likely follow the precedent. Given the conservative nature of the existing court, it's almost guarateed.

 

What I'm concerned about is if the California Supreme Court rules to uphold same-sex marriages (meaning, they rule Proposition 8 is unconstitutional) based on any constitutional provision in the US Constitution (versus the State of California constitution). If that happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US Supreme Court will reverse that part of any such ruling - on the basis that the US Constitution in no manner allows same-sex marriage. Remember, we have a conservative Court led by "orginalists" such as Scalia and Thomas - and there is no way they're going to rule that the framers of the constitution had any inkling to approve or bless same-sex marriages. From the legal point of view, this is simply a no-brainer (meaning, there ain't no chance, folks, of the US Supreme Court helping the cause of same-sex marriage).

 

The only hope is that the California Supreme Court rules for same-sex marriage based on the California state constitution and that the US Supreme Court later chooses not to rule at all (essentially ruling that California has the right to define and interpret its own constitutional provisions).

[Gaybutton]

we have a conservative Court led by "orginalists" such as Scalia and Thomas

Scalia has always been my personal favorite. Remember when he actually came out and said that proof of innocence is not a valid reason to overturn a conviction and set a prisoner free? I almost had that dipped in bronze and framed. And these are the people who have the final say-so. Your tax dollar at work . . .

[Guest lvdkeyes]

We should all remember that the US Supreme Court is who decided the 2000 presidential election.

[Bob]

We should all remember that the US Supreme Court is who decided the 2000 presidential election.

 

And a rather profound result (in a negative way, of course), wasn't it? Essentially, we still have the same court philosophically-wise so that ought to give you a drift about the chances of any liberal causes.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Sadly, I think you are right.