Judge's impartiality in question?
Yesterday, the Federal trial began on matters before the Court pertaining to the isssue of same-sex marriage.
At the heart of the legal proceeding rests Prop 8 - a voter-approved measure - that holds that a bond through the act of marriage is a holy union reserved exclusively for a man and woman.
The issue was hotly-contested in lower and upper State courts - and in the process - nearly tore the California apart politically and socially (and otherwise).
When gay activists lost the their last battle in the State Supreme Court arena, two lesbian couples proceeded to file a lawsuit in Federal Court, in a bold-faced effort to overturn Prop 8 on the gounds of discrimination.
In sum, they argued in their briefs that the ballot initiative revoked the marital rights of one disfavored group of California residents and - thus - was unconstitutional.
Not true, argued their strident opponents, who put forth their legal notion that anti-gay bias was "off point" since the State already legalized same-sex domestic partnerships.
The basic underlying arguments sounded reasonable; unfortunately, they tended to splinter off and get shriller and shriller.
For example, opponents to the gay right to marry insisted that extending the privilege to same-sex couples would redefine marriage, weaken biological parents' connection with their children (!), tell men they don't have any significant place in the family life (!), and force many religious Americans into choosing between being a believer and a good citizen.
What a load of hogwash!
If you ask me, both sides are a little hysterical at this juncture.
But, the judge presiding over the case - Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker - is a bit of a wild card, too (if you read are inclined to read between the lines).
For example, Prop 8 supporters have lamented that the Judge's rulings to date in the preliminary phase of the trial, have tended to favor the gay lifestyle advocates.
Couple those allegations with Walker's decision to go forward with a non-jury trial - and its easy to fathom why all parties to the proceedings (and fascinated curiosity-seekers on the sidelines) - are all keyed up with emotion.
The bench-warmer's decision to broadcast the proceedings on YouTube didn't sit well with me.
On one hand, ensuring that the proceedings are transparent is of the utmost importance, but my concern is that the whole proceeding will be trivialized in the process.
The integrity of the court may be at stake.
Fortunately, as I was putting the final touches on this post, news came over the wire that the U.S. Supreme Court "stayed" the Judge's ruling to allow the trial to be broadcast on the pop culture site until Wednesday (and until such time as the Justices have the opportunity to review briefs and make a final determination).
The only way to view the proceedings currently is by dropping into Judge Walker's courtroom on the 17th floor of the Federal Courthouse where thirty-six seats daily await lucky individuals who manage to maneuver their way into the proceedings.
Another one-hundred-and-fifty seats are available in an overflow courtroom on the 19th floor where the trial is being broadcast on close-circuit television.
However, I gave the Judge a thumbs up when he explained the reasoning behind a trial process he intends to follow to the "t".
"A trial is needed because critical facts are in dispute - for example, the extent of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the possible effects on same-sex marriage on opposite-sex couples, and the intent of Prop 8."
Legal analysts argue that the intent of the measure may be the decisive issue.
Attorneys for Prop 8 proponents underscored in their legal brief that the traditional defintion of marriage does not reflect any animus against gays and lesbians.
"It simply reflects that the institution of marriage is, and always has been concerned with promoting and regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women to provide for the nurture and upbringing of the next generation," he added.
If I wanted to be Devil's advocate - I might argue on that premise - that gay couples who have naturally-born offspring (with a former spouse, let's say) or adopted children be allowed to marry for the same beneficial reasons.
If barred from doing so, under the circumstances, wouldn't that be discrimination?
In addition to this issue, the court intends to also probe the history and meaning of marriage, the adequacy of domestic parnership as a substitute, and the social political status of gays and lesbians in the community-at-large.
Say, whatever happened to the transgenders?
The searing glare of the spotlight has been on gays and lesbians primarily.
Are they out of the loop, I wonder.
The Prop 8 supporters, in the final analysis, are expecting the worst-case scenario.
For this reason, a rep from Protective Marriage, chided the naysayers.
"Forunately, the last word will come from the nine Justices in the highest court of the land," he smugly noted for the record.
Maybe he needed to do a bit of legal research before opening his yap.
After all, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against same-sex sodomy.
As far as legal eagles are concerned, any hint at what action the Justices may take on the issue of same-sex marriages, is blowing in the wind.
Today?
Day two of the controversial trial will shortly be underway at the Federal Courthouse.
See 'ya there!
Poster gals for same-sex marriage!
