{"id":9473,"date":"2010-01-13T01:01:42","date_gmt":"2010-01-13T08:01:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=9473"},"modified":"2010-01-13T01:01:42","modified_gmt":"2010-01-13T08:01:42","slug":"perry-v-schwarzenegger-proposition-8-on-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=9473","title":{"rendered":"Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Proposition 8 on Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"

I don’t know about the rest of you, but for me the most exciting thing in the news is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the lawsuit to overturn California’s anti-gay Proposition 8. (You can find a fairly complete background of this case in The New Yorker<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The trial began Monday<\/a>, with testimony from the two couples (one lesbian, one gay) who are suing the state of California for equal treatment. On Tuesday<\/a>, Harvard historian Nancy Cott testified.<\/p>\n

First, Professor Cott provided a detailed historical account of how marriage restrictions based on race, ethnicity, and immigration status have been used \u201cpunitively\u201d – to stigmatize and demean disfavored groups – in the same way that Prop 8 now stigmatizes same-sex couples. When these kinds of laws are enacted, she explained, many people believe they simply reflect \u201ccommon sense\u201d or God\u2019s will. Only later is it fully apparent that they are in fact based on a failure to appreciate the full humanity of certain groups. The same is true of Prop 8.<\/p>\n

Second, Professor Cott explained that in the past, marriage law imposed strict gender roles that sharply distinguished the legal rights and duties of wives and husbands. For example, at one time, married women were unable to sign legal documents or testify in court, because they were not considered to be individual citizens – once married, a woman had no legal identity apart from her husband. But today, the law recognizes that all adults should be given equal rights regardless of gender and should be able to choose for themselves how to allocate duties in a marriage. Because modern marriage law is gender-neutral in this way, permitting same-sex couples to marry doesn’t change the law’s basic structure.<\/p>\n

Finally, Professor Cott showed that marriage has changed significantly over the years, and that most of those changes involve \u201cshedding inequalities.\u201d But the central function and purpose of marriage – to enable adults to create stable families that provide enormous benefits to the couple, to children, and to society – has endured. Professor Cott testified that based on the historical evidence, permitting same-sex couples would not undermine marriage, but instead would strengthen it. Both couples and the larger community would benefit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yale Professor George Chauncey also testified Tuesday; his testimony will continue Wednesday.<\/p>\n

In the afternoon, Terri Stewart questioned Dr. George Chauncey, an expert in LGBT studies. Dr. Chauncey gave a lengthy discussion about discrimination and oppression of gay people in America.<\/p>\n

Dr. Chauncey showed how the themes of Anita Bryant\u2019s \u201cSave Our Children\u201d campaigns in the 70\u2019s were successfully carried into the 80\u2019s and 90\u2019s and are the central themes of Proposition 8. He sees them as part of a continuum.<\/p>\n

Stewart: Do you believe Prop. 8 ads perpetuate the stereotypes of the history you describe?<\/p>\n

Chauncey: I think they do, but they are more polite than the Anita Bryant ads. Society has changed such that what you can say in polite society is different, but most striking is the image of the little girl who comes in to tell her mom that she can marry a princess. There\u2019s a strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people will lead a generation of young people to become gay.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This will be the fullest trial to date of the marriage equality issue, with both sides calling and cross-examining expert witnesses. (David Blankenhorn<\/a> will be appearing for the anti-gay side.) One interesting question is whether or not the trial will be broadcast on YouTube<\/a>; the Judge wants it to be, but Prop 8 proponents are trying to get the Supreme Court to forbid it. The Supreme Court has put a stay on the YouTube broadcasts, and will issue a final ruling sometime soon.<\/p>\n

Overall, I think this lawsuit is a bad idea; it’s likely to go to the Supreme Court, and I doubt the Supreme Court (or, more accurately, Justice “swing vote” Kennedy) will vote for marriage equality. In the New Yorker<\/a>, Nan Hunter (whose blog <\/a>is excellent, btw) is quoted:<\/p>\n

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University, is skeptical about Olson and Boies\u2019s chances. \u201cAs a purely formal matter, one could argue that Olson and Boies are correct,\u201d Hunter said. \u201cBut invalidating roughly forty state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman is an awfully heavy lift for the Supreme Court, and especially for Justices who take a limited role of the scope for the judiciary.\u201d She added, \u201cI fear that their strategy is: Ted Olson will speak, Anthony Kennedy will listen, and the earth will move. I hope I\u2019m wrong about this\u2014they\u2019re excellent lawyers\u2014but I fear, frankly, that there\u2019s more ego than analysis in that.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But sometimes unexpected things happen; maybe this time justice will win out. In the meanwhile, I expect the trial will be fascinating.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I don’t know about the rest of you, but for me the most exciting thing in the news is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the lawsuit to overturn California’s anti-gay Proposition 8. (You can find a fairly complete background of this case … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-same-sex-marriage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}