Not definitive – it’s bound for the Supreme Court.
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.
I can’t think of two lawyers I respect more (Olson’s wife Barbara was murdered on 9/11 and died bravely) and as a divorced father, I have nothing legitimate to say on the sanctimony of marriage. My personal opinion is that, if two people love each other and want to marry, the state should have no say in the matter. But maybe the state should have no say in marriage to begin with – civil unions, yes, but leave the rest to churches.
12 responses to “California trial on gay marriage ends”
I’d be curious to see the statistics regarding the number of gay marriages in town. Seems you can’t open the NYTimes wedding section without the announcement of at least one gay marriage at Town Hall or Binney Park. If you can’t fight it, make it a profit center!
Well said, Christopher. My sentiments exactly.
Fiddlesticks — why would you want to fight? I’ve never understood the people who think they have something to protect or defend by getting the government to set rules for other peoples’ marriages.
You nailed my long held Libertarian view. The state should offer civil unions to any two people, and leave “marriage” to the churches. Separation of church and state. It seems pretty obvious to me.
The state should not offer even civil unions. Marriage should be purely a matter of religious practice (with secular equivalents for those who want them). Divorce as well, with courts stepping in as needed to divide property, award custody and mandate child support.
With the advent of paternity testing, sexual liberation and women’s empowerment to have their own careers, I believe that marriage as a civil institution is outmoded, a waste of time and money and an invasion of privacy. The sensible thing is for all people wishing to form a union of any type in which they share a household and potentially children is to have a contract in which they spell out expectations and contingencies.
The rest of us should not be forced to recognize anyone else’s union as legitimate. If as an employer I want to extend benefits to opposite-sex spouses but not same-sex spouses, I should be entitled to do so.
gay marriage is here and its fine. our diverse and socially liberal cultural is not going to turn back the clock now that the genie is out of the bottle in many parts of this country, nor do i think we should go back. any energy expended fighting gay marriage is a waste of time and political capital.
the real issues that matter in our time are i) nuclear containment ii) terrorism and religious extremism, iii) capitalism vs socialism, iv) health care and social security v) self reliance vs victimhood.
let gay marriage be.
Fine with me, CC – I agree.
Gay marriage was always fine with me too until my own daughter came out. Of course I want her to be happy but I see the obstacles she faces socially if she marries and has children. GA isn’t likely to accept a lesbian couple into the mix. I worry for her, not me. People are pretty quick to tell me they are all for gay marriage but I have to be honest and say when it’s your own daughter, maybe we ought to think abiut the law before passing it.
Completely agree Chris, and glad to see your open-mindedness on this issue. Having a problem with gay marriage has more to do with homophobia than it does with the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, and it delights me to see bigoted old relics stomping their feet trying to prevent the inevitable.
long time conservative here, but I totally agree CC…
leave marriage to the church, leave civil unions (of anyone of age and agreeing minds) to the court. I do think there should be some governing provence so children, property, etc can be duly registered and counted.
As a gay man, I’m gratified to see such open-mindedness here re: marriage equality. Obviously you and your readers, Chris, do think for themselves. 🙂
Caught a soundbite of Attorney Boies who framed his argument in terms of the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” which has always seemed pretty straightforward (so to speak) and clear to me.
I’m very proud of my readers, WBH – we have a very civilized community here, even if I do stretch the limits of tolerance (it’s so much fun!). God bless you.