Prop 8

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

Prop. 8 trial: San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders says lesbian daughter should have right to wed
By Howard Mintz

SAN FRANCISCO — For supporters of same-sex marriage, Tuesday's testimony from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders in the Proposition 8 trial would seem an important moment for their cause. A conservative Republican describes his transformation from gay marriage opponent to vocal critic of denying gays and lesbians the right to wed.

To foes of gay marriage, however, such testimony, in the words of Proposition 8 counsel Andrew Pugno, is "just irrelevant."

These competing views of the value of the emotional side of testimony in the historic Proposition 8 trial are now among the issues Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker must resolve in the legal challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Sanders'
Prop 8 Trial Primer

* The Judge: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker
* Plaintiffs Attorney: Theodore Olson
* Plaintiffs Attorney: David Boies
* Defense Attorney: Charles Cooper
* The Plaintiffs: Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier; Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo
* What the Prop 8 trial is all about
* What's at stake in the Prop 8 trial

testimony came as the plaintiffs are drawing closer to finalizing their case in their effort to overturn Proposition 8. Lawyers for same-sex couples seeking the right to marry are expected to wrap up their case either today or Friday, with testimony from Proposition 8 backer William Tam still to come.

The trial, now in its second week, has been heavy on experts and academics on the subject of same-sex marriage, but it has been spiced all along with the accounts of individuals such as Sanders, who tearfully recounted how he renounced his own stance on gay marriage after learning his daughter is a lesbian.

The mayor, with his daughter, Lisa Sanders, in the courtroom, described the difficulty of confronting his own prejudice and risking the wrath of San Diego Republicans. His change of heart became public several years ago, when he supported the city's decision to file briefs in favor of same-sex marriage in the earlier legal battle in the state courts.

Lisa Sanders married her partner, Meghan, in Vermont last month, but Mayor Sanders said she ought to be able to marry in California. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera persuaded Sanders to testify, and questioned him Tuesday.

"My daughter deserves the same opportunity to have a wedding in front of family, friends and co-workers," Sanders testified, choking up repeatedly on the stand.

The plaintiffs consider Sanders' testimony important to exposing the depths of discrimination against California's gays and lesbians. They've included other first-person accounts from the two couples suing to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, as well as from San Francisco writer Helen Zia, a lesbian who married before voters approved the law in 2008.

But Proposition 8 supporters consider these accounts beside the point. Pugno called it "emotional testimony about feelings" that does not justify a change in the Constitution.

Tuesday's trial proceedings did include the drier expert testimony

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Very touching.

The legal issues are: Do The People have a right to self determination via voting; that is, can they legally change their laws and Constitution. And does the 14th Amendment nullify standards determined by sex and any trait or condition?

Must NFL teams hire Special Olympians? Must the army enlist disabled applicants? If Heather can have 2 mommies, can she have 5? How can anyone be excluded or denied anything for lack of money? Why cant male athletes compete in female events?

I think the appeal will fail because it opens the door to absurdity.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

We have a very long way to go in this fight for equal rights.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TF

If you sue for a Muslim holiday you likely wont get it. And if you sue to get rid of Christmas it wont happen, either.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Very touching.

The legal issues are: Do The People have a right to self determination via voting; that is, can they legally change their laws and Constitution. And does the 14th Amendment nullify standards determined by sex and any trait or condition?

Must NFL teams hire Special Olympians? Must the army enlist disabled applicants? If Heather can have 2 mommies, can she have 5? How can anyone be excluded or denied anything for lack of money? Why cant male athletes compete in female events?

I think the appeal will fail because it opens the door to absurdity.

You misunderstand the essential tenet of American freedom that's at stake here, and the basic concept of Equal Opportunity. The question is not whether NFL teams should have to hire Special Olympians, but whether Special Olympians have a right to try out for NFL teams. It's not whether the army must enlist disabled applicants; it's whether disabled applicants have any right to apply for military service. It's about ensuring equal opportunity, not about guaranteeing equal outcome.

The principle is: is everyone in America guaranteed the same rights? Or do rights only apply to people of a special sexual orientation? And if your rights are dependent on sexual orientation, why can't they also then be dependent on your religious beliefs, or ethnic background, or IQ, or good looks?

 

[LaRocha]

Marriage shouldn't be recognized/defined by government. There are other ways to pay less taxes, appoint legal guardians, and hold joint power of attorney for the sick, young, or old. Form an LLC. Yet, I understand the future and accept that gay marriages will eventually be recognized when filing tax returns. Then the question should be --> Why is it that three, four, or five adults can't be legally married?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You misunderstand the essential tenet of American freedom that's at stake here, and the basic concept of Equal Opportunity. The question is not whether NFL teams should have to hire Special Olympians, but whether Special Olympians have a right to try out for NFL teams. It's not whether the army must enlist disabled applicants; it's whether disabled applicants have any right to apply for military service. It's about ensuring equal opportunity, not about guaranteeing equal outcome.

The principle is: is everyone in America guaranteed the same rights? Or do rights only apply to people of a special sexual orientation? And if your rights are dependent on sexual orientation, why can't they also then be dependent on your religious beliefs, or ethnic background, or IQ, or good looks?

I get how America works! There wont be any midgets in the NBA. Ramadan isnt gonna be on our holiday calendar. Legally sanctioned incest isnt likely to happen.

Gays are gonna have to accept marriage with an ALLSTATE or KENMORE label on it, like SEARS used to do with all the shit it sold.

Its called political pragmatism.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Marriage shouldn't be recognized/defined by government. There are other ways to pay less taxes, appoint legal guardians, and hold joint power of attorney for the sick, young, or old. Form an LLC. Yet, I understand the future and accept that gay marriages will eventually be recognized when filing tax returns. Then the question should be --> Why is it that three, four, or five adults can't be legally married?

That's next. The First Amendment rights of the FLDS will eventually come face to face with the state's attempts to stick their officious noses into everyone's lives. When that happens, polygyny will be permitted and if polygyny is legal then so must be polyandry. The next obvious step will be the legalization of group marriages. It won't happen in my life time, I suspect, and I'm only 62. But in time it will happen and Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress will join the list of things he foresaw along with the atomic bomb, waterbeds, etc.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LACOCKROCHA youre full of shit. Aint no one gonna let you and your scum bum friends marry and file a group tax return.

Once the horse is outta the barn all combinations and permutations of human involvement become grist for the mill. So if you make a gozillion bucks on American Idol and marry six welfare queens with mucho dependants, the IRS is gonna slap you around and convince you that you got it all wrong.

 

[TE999]

Emotion has no place in Law, but that is what's occurring. Marriage as a civil union is not sacrosanct...only the religious aspect as to God's blessing, et cetera. They are separate and unique.

One assures joint recognition of parentage and ownership of property and an orderly transition of persons (children) and property from one spouse and/or their family to another in case of dissolution of the union by divorce or death. It also conveys certain 'rights' that are not recognized for 'single' individuals eg: taxes.

The other is purely emotional...in some cases insufferably so.

Logically, there should be no objections to the former, and removal of the latter from any aspect of the legal argument. Any movement toward this end would signal a maturation of human culture(s).

 

[R. Richard]

I get how America works! There wont be any midgets in the NBA.

Say man! Do the name Muggsey Bogues mean anything to you?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Based on the 1000s of trials and hearings I've been part of, facts dont seem to have any place in law, either. I'm serious. The process is entirely political.

I've said it before, here, several times. Gays are Democrat slaves, and until they make some concessions to the conservatives the cons are gonna piss on them every time samesex marriage comes up.

 

[al_Ussa]

Based on the 1000s of trials and hearings I've been part of, facts dont seem to have any place in law, either. I'm serious. The process is entirely political.

Wow. You must really have a lot of bastard kids out there or something.

 

[al_Ussa]

The real reason that prop 8 will never pass... politics! But not for the reason you think. The conservatives want prop 8 to exist because it gets the religious right worked up. If they are afraid gay people could get married they will vote republicans. On the other side the democrats want prop 8 to stay where it is because once it gets passed supporters will have less reason to vote democrat. Its a carrot... 'vote for us and we'll TRY to pass it again this year.'

Neither side really wants change. They want to keep the status quo because it benefits them.

 

[LaRocha]

That's next. The First Amendment rights of the FLDS will eventually come face to face with the state's attempts to stick their officious noses into everyone's lives. When that happens, polygyny will be permitted and if polygyny is legal then so must be polyandry. The next obvious step will be the legalization of group marriages. It won't happen in my life time, I suspect, and I'm only 62. But in time it will happen and Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress will join the list of things he foresaw along with the atomic bomb, waterbeds, etc.

The problem with the fake Mormon child molesters isn't really the group marriage thing or communal living, it's more the child molestation and child slavery.

Gays are the first to shoot down the question of bigamy, of course gay marriage won't lead to a question of whether three consenting adults and the word 'marriage' can occur in the same sentence. Then there's what else consenting adults can and can't do, but that's a question for 2110.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The problem with the fake Mormon child molesters isn't really the group marriage thing or communal living, it's more the child molestation and child slavery.

Gays are the first to shoot down the question of bigamy, of course gay marriage won't lead to a question of whether three consenting adults and the word 'marriage' can occur in the same sentence. Then there's what else consenting adults can and can't do, but that's a question for 2110.

The molestation hasn't stood up in court very well and most of them are very well-behaved. Given that Big Love is so popular, the idea must be resonating with a large portion of the public. It's but a matter of time. And bigamy entails the multiple wives being unaware of each other. That's basically a fraud rap. If they're friends, it can't apply. What is basic is the question of consenting adults. How dare the state tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own bedroom?

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

Nice discourse.

It is but the politic of our country. A politic built upon a morale foundation born of flocks following religious icons. It is as it is, and at this point, must change through a democratic process. But the process is built upon that foundation of morale supremacy owned by the religious right. As a lesbian woman, I believe that to change we must act within a system that's not too easy for us given the obstacles, but some inroads are being made. Who'd of believed that a lesbian mayor in Houston would've been elected twenty years ago?

Sincerely, I'm still happy to be in this country. Much better than let's say, China.

Me, for one, it just is upsetting on a personnel level due to the financial implications. Sorry folks, I'm gonna cry for my Special Olympics Trophy (funny James). Because I'm involved with a lesbian partner, our marriage is not recognized as legitimate. What does that mean? Money, and loads of it—to the tune of thousands a year, mainly in insurance premiums. I cannot be carried on my partner's policy—A grand a month, instead of $300.00. That's money for young folks.

So what if I just don't get insurance since the market is beyond my means? Who picks up the tab? Why, you do, in higher insurance premiums and health care costs to cover the bills I can't pay. The entire thing is a vicious circle, and in the end, we're all just fooling ourselves if we think not recognizing gay marriage does anything but save more than it costs. From an economic standpoint, it's the often-used win, win.

May your day and life be peaceful,

Esperanza

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

EH

If costs were the issue Americans would walk about in pink jelly shoes, eat gray meat & brown veggies, shit in the street, and sleep in refrigerator packing cartons; much of the world does and is contented. The Haitians come to mind.

Americans insist on better.

Americans dont want their public streets to resemble Disney World on Gay Day. We dont want Gays turning our values and lifestyle into officially sanctioned cartoons. Most of us think Gays are cartoon people. Its the quality of life thing.

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

EH

If costs were the issue Americans would walk about in pink jelly shoes, eat gray meat & brown veggies, shit in the street, and sleep in refrigerator packing cartons; much of the world does and is contented. The Haitians come to mind.

Americans insist on better.

Americans dont want their public streets to resemble Disney World on Gay Day. We dont want Gays turning our values and lifestyle into officially sanctioned cartoons. Most of us think Gays are cartoon people. Its the quality of life thing.

Good response James, and much I agree with, except of course you oppie on gays, but believe me, I respect your right to feel as you wish. That's a great thing about our country, which I do so love. I can say as I wish, and so can you, and we can debate until the bitter end.

Yes, I want more comfort, an easier life. It 'tis the American way, and no, I don't want Gays shoving their "Gayness" down people's throats, just like I don't want hetero's shoving (Chuckle--I won't go there). I do think you use the word 'most' liberally, but could be wrong. I'm often told I am wrong (another chuckle). As far as obstructing the quality of life . . . uhm, uhm, least not this one.

Sorry about my simplistic nature, but I have my Pollyanna view that you should treat people the way that you want to be treated, and again, not referring to a gay thing on that one, so don't come after me about that little sentence.

Cost, equity and fairness are my points, but, dear sir, to each his/her own.

May your day and life be peaceful,

Esperanza

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

EH

One of my ancestors was a member of the Florida Secession Convention; he believed secession was treason and wasnt shy about expressing his views clearly and plainly; he told the assembly they were goddamned traitors and going to hell. He died in Virginia commanding all of Florida's troops in battle. He also served in the Confederate Congress.

So I wondered about his 'hypocricy'. Raising hell then joining the opposition.

And I came across an interview with James Madison. Madison told the interviewer that Americans are obligated to raise as much hell as possible, demounce, and resist what they oppose until the vote is called; and after the results are known they are equally obligated to support and embrace and do the will of The People. This idea is the foundation of our society, and especially military service.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

EH, I think you are very tolerant of an unacceptable position.

TE and Dr M called it right.

We desperately need to cede 'marriage' to the religious , who can impose their own restrictions on it, and create an overarching Federal legal status of 'civic union'. If two people want to establish a legal partnership they should be able to and the secular Government should walk away from 'marriage'.

Given the ridiculous buttock-clenching that creates Winter Holidays, Winterval and such, why confuse legal union with religion. We are secular as a country.

I go against polygamy being represented in legal union - not because I am offended by it, but it crosses the line of 'legal partnership' - and doesn't polyamory, by definition, rule itself out.

To throw a spanner in the works, why, if partnerships/relationships of all types - hetero, gay and lesbian - are to be constitutionally accepted can we not allow spinster sisters or bachelor brothers to be eligible. Incest is hardly an issue. Even brother and sister - but that's for another time.

But, but, splutter! No! Any lesbian should have empathy for two aged sisters trying to reduce their health premiums or look after each other in illness and death. We talk about legal recognition, not sex per se.

Despite the glorious passion of erotica, isn't our first concern - prosaic and unsexy - to look after our nearest and dearest in a legal contract that makes them our next of kin and allows a sharing recognized by the authorities and allows us full rights to represent our partner when they need us to.

I'm a tad sappy, but isn't this what lies behind true loving partnerships?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Like I said, Gays need to get used to the idea of something with the KENMORE or ALLSTATE label on it because they are the door that opens marriage to every relationship combination that exists. If the Gay POV about the 14th Amendment is correct, then it applies to all.

 

[LaRocha]

The molestation hasn't stood up in court very well and most of them are very well-behaved. Given that Big Love is so popular, the idea must be resonating with a large portion of the public. It's but a matter of time. And bigamy entails the multiple wives being unaware of each other. That's basically a fraud rap. If they're friends, it can't apply. What is basic is the question of consenting adults. How dare the state tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own bedroom?

I think bigamy is the only legal term we have now for someone marrying more than one person. In many cases the bigamist leaves a double life, but some have gotten in trouble for obtaining multi-state marriage licenses, with all three being charged.

Yeah, I don't want get to into the fake Mormons. The First Amendment won't protect the 'marriage' and impregnation of 14-16 year old girls, I hope. The biggest problem with it is the girls who aren't legally married can collect welfare and all the social service programs.

I stand behind state power when it's going to stop an adult from preying on children(anyone under 18)

It's really technically silly trying to say the question of polyamorous marriage can't come up because marriage is legally defined as two people. In most states marriage is defined by a male and female, so if you're changing one ingredient under the Equal Protection Clause you can just as easily change the min/max number of people involved in a marriage.

"In the United States, the Model Penal Code (section 230.1) defines bigamy as a misdemeanor and polygamy as a felony. Having more than one spouse at the same time gets classified as polygamy, and bumped to a felony, if it is done "in purported exercise of a plural marriage...""

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think bigamy is the only legal term we have now for someone marrying more than one person. In many cases the bigamist leaves a double life, but some have gotten in trouble for obtaining multi-state marriage licenses, with all three being charged.

Yeah, I don't want get to into the fake Mormons. The First Amendment won't protect the 'marriage' and impregnation of 14-16 year old girls, I hope. The biggest problem with it is the girls who aren't legally married can collect welfare and all the social service programs.

I stand behind state power when it's going to stop an adult from preying on children(anyone under 18)

It's really technically silly trying to say the question of polyamorous marriage can't come up because marriage is legally defined as two people. In most states marriage is defined by a male and female, so if you're changing one ingredient under the Equal Protection Clause you can just as easily change the min/max number of people involved in a marriage.

"In the United States, the Model Penal Code (section 230.1) defines bigamy as a misdemeanor and polygamy as a felony. Having more than one spouse at the same time gets classified as polygamy, and bumped to a felony, if it is done "in purported exercise of a plural marriage...""

Quit attempting to link child molestation with the behavior of consenting adults. We are all in agreement that children need protection until they are sophisticated enough to enter into adult relationships. End of discussion. Additionally, the elderly siblings don't need the legal protection of marriage because they are already blood relatives. Red herring and thus end of discussion. Marriage historically, clear back into the dawn of civilization, is and remains a legal contract, period. It originally linked families and provided for the economic support and continuance thereof. Polygamous marriages are widely accepted world-wide. Given the claim that America is the freest nation in the world, why should we be forbidden it?

 

[LaRocha]

Quit attempting to link child molestation with the behavior of consenting adults. We are all in agreement that children need protection until they are sophisticated enough to enter into adult relationships. End of discussion. Additionally, the elderly siblings don't need the legal protection of marriage because they are already blood relatives. Red herring and thus end of discussion. Marriage historically, clear back into the dawn of civilization, is and remains a legal contract, period. It originally linked families and provided for the economic support and continuance thereof. Polygamous marriages are widely accepted world-wide. Given the claim that America is the freest nation in the world, why should we be forbidden it?

Why would you defend an institution, such as the plural marriage of FLDS, where the institution as a matter of practice abused children? Plural marriage of FLDS isn't the institution you want representing plural marriage and equal rights.

"Jeffs, 51, the "prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or FLDS, was convicted in September. He was accused of using his religious influence over his followers to coerce a 14-year-old girl into marriage to her 19-year-old cousin."

Rulon and Warren created the institution of FLDS plural marriage. The plural marriage they represent includes the abuse of children as rule. The status you get for having more than one wife in most polygamist societies has nothing to do with what a plural marriage in the US would be about.

It doesn't matter if every other nation on Earth accepted polyamorous marriage. We're talking about US law and American culture, the outside world has no bearing on what we do or accept. And it's just ridiculous using the woman barter marriages that are the majority of marriages of the world as an example, even between two people the majority of marriages of the world don't resembles the common marriage here. The United States isn't going back to the 19th century where children and women were property under the contract of marriage. The 14th Amendment was America saying we've left the barter and property rights of people behind.