Closing arguments in the Prop 8 trial today

A big trial is finishing today, with closing arguments being presented by the counsel on both sides. This case is the legal challenge to Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that was passed by California voters in November of 2008. The case challenges the ban based on its constitutionality, and the decision may have a huge impact on the future of same sex marriage in the US. Via LGBT POV:

The timing is synchronous with the two-year anniversary of the first legal marriages in California on June 16, 2008. And not coincidentally, the lawsuit at the center of the challenge, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was launched by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) in Los Angeles on May 27, 2009 – the day after the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Prop 8. This was the same court that ruled a year earlier, on May 15, 2008, that same sex couples had been denied the fundamental constitutional right to marry. To underscore just how this profound fight for the freedom to marry transcends partisan politics, AFER brought together two of the best legal minds in America – Ted Olson and David Boies – who had been on opposing sides in the historic Bush v. Gore case in 2000.

A ruling is expected this summer, which will most likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome.
You can follow livetweeting of the closing arguments at Prop 8 Tracker, as well as read the answers from the pro-gay marriage side to the Judge’s questions posed to the legal counsel.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

4 Comments

  1. cattrack2
    Posted June 16, 2010 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I lean toward supporting same sex marriage but I have to concede that the term “marriage” has never been meant to refer to anything other than heterosexual. I don’t know that a Court can change the meaning of the word. They can certainly extend all of the same rights & obligations as heterosexual married couples have, but its a significant issue to change the meaning of the word itself.
    Vermont’s Court skirted this issue by requiring Civil Unions. I think that might be the best decision. In that case same sex couples get all of the rights they want, while the definition of the word “marriage” remains the same.

  2. Nicole
    Posted June 16, 2010 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Well, despite the etymology, it worked here in Canada. And in Denmark. And in Belgium. And South Africa. And Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland…

  3. konkonsn
    Posted June 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    This isn’t a court ruling to tell Webster’s Dictionary to rethink its definitions.

  4. darkladynyara
    Posted June 16, 2010 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    In that case same sex couples get all of the rights they want, while the definition of the word “marriage” remains the same.
    Too late. The definition of marriage was changed beyond recognition when it was established that women aren’t property.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

163 queries. 0.639 seconds