Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

記住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新聞&特寫

« 較新的 | 較舊的 »
17 Jun 2010

California gay marriage trial closes, ruling expected in weeks

A six-month trial on whether to overturn a California ban on gay marriage ended dramatically on Wednesday when a lawyer defending the prohibition said he did not need evidence to prove the purpose of marriage.

A landmark federal trial on whether to overturn a California ban on gay marriage ended on Wednesday. The case is now in the hands of District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker who is being asked to decide whether California voters violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection when they passed Proposition 8, a referendum in November 2008 to amend the state constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Arguing for the ban to be reversed was conservative jurist Ted Olson, who served as U.S. solicitor general under former President George W. Bush. He partnered with David Boies, his adversary in the 2000 Supreme Court decision that put Bush in the White House. Throughout the case, Olson and Boies argued that the ban discriminated against one segment of the population by denying them the fundamental right to marry and that same sex marriage was no threat to heterosexuals.

"Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex the same as Virginia law discriminated on the basis of race," Olson who represented two same-sex couples who want to marry said in the Washington Post. He invoked groundbreaking Supreme Court civil rights decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, which forbade racial segregation in public schools, and Loving v. Virginia, which threw out that state's law against interracial marriage.

Leading the defense, Charles Cooper argued that t is reasonable to fear that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriage and self-evident that the purpose of marriage was procreating and raising children. He further insisted that he did not need to provide evidence to prove the purpose of marriage.

"You don't have to have evidence" to prove that the purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children, he was quoted as saying by Reuters.

Months earlier, he had surprised the court by saying he did not know how gay marriage would hurt heterosexuals -- and that he did not need to know in order to win the case.

Olson's response to Cooper: "At the end of the day, 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to present any evidence,' with all respect to Mr. Cooper, doesn't cut it."

Judge Walker is expected to rule in a few weeks.

Read related reports below.

United States

讀者回應

1. 2010-06-17 22:21  
The leading teenage characters in “Glee” have single parents (both widowed), absentee parents and, in one case, two gay dads. The teenagers suffer, struggle and occasionally triumph like any others, but along the way we see how families reconfigured by death, divorce and sexual orientation can be as loving, nurturing and, yes, as dysfunctional as any other. The landscape is recognizable as the country we actually live in. Even if family-values zealots do retain the ability to prevent America from watching the Prop 8 trial, we’re lucky that the era when they could banish a show like “Glee” from network television seems to have passed.

Until the law catches up to the culture, the collective soul should find even the next gay wedding's Champagne a bit flat.

2. 2010-06-17 23:02  
lagunabro, we know how much you love Glee and all...

If you can't stay on topic, at least give credit to the guy you are quoting else you're just stealing...

Frank Rich: Two Weddings, a Divorce and ‘Glee’
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13rich.html

"The leading teenage characters in “Glee” have single parents (both widowed), absentee parent...

"Until the law catches up to the culture, the collective soul should find even the next gay wedding's Champagne a bit flat."
修改於2010-06-17 23:04:22
3. 2010-06-18 01:17  
sorry should have added the foot notes like the good Stanford grad that I am and credit should go to Mr. Frank Rich, but not enough space here, thanks Kellenbro
4. 2010-06-18 01:18  
the rest of Frank's op piece is really excellent commentary, Roger Fisher my friend who works for the New York Times sent it to me
5. 2010-06-18 01:20  
Ban state approval of all marriage. Government is fine to approve contracts so straights and gays can get their churchy weddings, but with the equal treatment clause, everyone also gets a domestic partnership contract so the state can earn its 500 bucks or so. However this ruling comes down, it will be headed next to the Supreme Court. So no final ruling im guessing till after 2012.
6. 2010-06-18 01:56  
Domestic partnerships are fine, legal equality.

I think "marriage" is far over rated and is a fantasy. Otherwise why so many jokes?

"My best friend ran off with my wife, and I really miss him."

"I have been in love with the same woman (man) for thirty five years and if my wife ever finds out, she will kill me!"

"I had a bad week. My chauffer ran off on me and didn't take my wife with him."

"I have been married for thirty five years. People ask me, "what's the secret to such a successful marriage?" I tell them, every week we have romantic, candle light dinners. She goes on Tuesday and I go on Fridays!"

and my favorite........"If I am not in bed by 12 midnight, I go home."

And the classic, "Take my wife...PLEASE!"
(all jokes by Henny Youngman)

So I guess some people want to "enjoy" marriage and jon in the above? Be my guest. Just give me "equality or give me mirth!"

7. 2010-06-18 04:09  
Geez Mr. Kellen, you are quite the cranky one.
8. 2010-06-18 04:09  
Geez Mr. Kellen, you are quite the cranky one.
9. 2010-06-18 06:16  
Domestic partnership is NOT equal to marriage. 1) Domestic partnerships are recognized in only their own state 2) they cannot bring foreign partner into the USA (only 2 of Im sure many such points). Till full nationally recognized marriage is granted to ALL people, there is no equality
10. 2010-06-18 09:51  
does marriage really that important?

my sister in aust didnt married, yet she had a son with her present aussie husband for many years

my bro with her "girl friend" together for many years too but didnt married, but our family consider her as in-law now.

i always consider marriage as recognition with no true guarantee, once divorce, it will full of law binding $$$, then again who am i here to judge...
11. 2010-06-18 10:29  
People should look beyond the shell. Beneath, it is just two souls wanting to join each other, be it straight, bisexual, transgender, or gay.

The purpose of marriage is not to bear children, but to become a unit that is more than 1 + 1 = 2.
12. 2010-06-18 11:24  
I want lasagna for dinner, but please make sure it is all long slender noodles and the meat shapedin balls. Since obviously words have no meaning anymore - wishing doesn't always make it so. Why get so hung up on changing the definition of marriage to suit our needs. I care very little if the government recognizes my relationship ( or lack of one).
I actually prefer a less intrusive and invasive government and more direct control of my life issues anyhow.
13. 2010-06-18 12:39  
in other news OMG the very interesting Cameron Diaz has a hot comment about lesbians...

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/06/17/2010-06-17_cameron_diaz_says_sex_with_a_woman_doesnt_make_you_a_lesbian_in_new_playboy_issu.html

I wonder if she will testify in the California marriage law case? I hope so:)
14. 2010-06-18 20:50  
man have penis and women have vagina... only women can breed baby but not man .. even some women thesedays doesn't want to have kids. Isn't that same as gay marriage? at least gay marriage save more money without needing any big ceremony or women afraid if gay marriage will threatened them from not getting a husband? =p

And since when hetero and gay is different? hetero is a coupel of human ..gay is also a couple of human.. the differences is just the sex gender. we're all live on earth ..breath same air.. drink same water... or does conservative hetero thought that gay drink 'golden water'? aren't they are abit kinky to think that way and Hey! that is not conservative! LOL
15. 2010-06-18 21:13  
marriage is irrelevant to heterosexuals procreating or to having enduring relationships as well..example: my Sister is with her original Partner they have 5 sons up to 18 yrs, their relationship out lasted her siblings who all married and are now divorced.. I think civil partnership that is open to all..gay/straight Monogomous/Polygamous is the better model to go for marriage is a dated and conceptually dubious model oh and those god awful out fits
16. 2010-06-22 09:17  
I don't understand why a simpler route isn't taken: Forget about the word "marriage" in our legal system. Strike that word from all our laws in this country, local, state and federal. Replace it with some other word or phrase, such as "civil partnership" or "civil union", which would be defined to include any type of *legal* union between two consenting adults (gay, straight, whatever).

The purpose of this would be to entirely remove the religious element of such partnerships from our laws, leaving only the legal element. Isn't that the way U.S. laws were meant to be?

Organized religions could continue to call straight civil unions "marriages" if they like, since a religion is not much more than a social club anyway. But "marriage" would have no meaning in our legal system.

Wouldn't this be just about perfect? Please respond if you see holes in my logic. :)

請先登入再使用此功能。

Social


請選擇新聞及專欄版本

精選個人檔案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

讚好

合作夥伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement