Gay marriage has a good day before the 9th Circuit

[MNBrewer]

<http://www.slate.com/id/2276608/pagenum/all/#p2>

That is what the whole debate over the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, the voter referendum that banned same-sex marriage, came down to Monday in a long argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. It was amazing to see lawyers and even one judge scrape around to find any sort of justification—and how thin what they finally dredged up was. Ten or even five years ago, opposition to gay marriage looked like a thick blanket you could wrap yourself in. Now it's threadbare, with more holes than stitching.

[racaulk]

1. It sucks that I missed the broadcast of the court proceedings.

I was at work. Boo. :(

However, I hear that Ted Olson was particularly impressive when he spoke before the court.

Thank you for posting this article. It was a great read, and I'm encouraged by the positive (for our side) mood that was set in the court yesterday. The case is off to a good start.

:hi:

K&R!

[RetiredTrotskyite]

2. OK, So How Many People...

still think Olson is out to screw GLBT people over?

[MNBrewer]

3. I don't

Edited to remove "hate you".... darned autocomplete.

[Ratty]

4. All the time they've had

To come up with *some* rational basis and still they are reduced to marriage = procreation which is so laughably wrong. I mean one assumes the other side has some smart legal minds stashed away somewhere that could come up with something better than that. But I don't think there is any argument better than that to be found.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

5. Any Truth to the Rumor...

that the Justices may issue a positive ruling for CA yet leave the bans in the other states under their jurisdiction intact?

[TheWraith]

7. At this point, anything is absolute speculation.

The only people who really know what the justices involved are thinking are the justices themselves. Anything else is tea-leaf reading.

[plantwomyn]

6. The Prop 8 argument =

Because heterosexual couples cannot be expected to be held responsible for "the possibility that an unintentional and unwanted pregnancy" may occur, it is a "vital interest of the state" for heterosexuals to have the exclusive right to marriage.
Judge Reinhardt then says "Sounds like a good argument to prohibit divorce." Everyone laughs.
Seriously, no gay marriage because straight people cannot be expected to be responsible for their own reproductive processes.
The biggest problem I see with this is that OBTFW it ain't workin'. Man and woman marriage is the law of the land in most states and it hasn't kept straight people from popping out babies out of wedlock.