Demonstrators For And Against Proposition 8

Demonstrators For And Against Proposition 8

Helen Zia tesified in the Same Sex Marriage Trial presently going on in San Francisco that California’s domestic partnership law is not a compatible substitute to traditional marriage.  Ms. Zia and her partner Lia Shigemura were one of the couples who took advatantage of the gay marriage law that was briefly in effect in 2008. 

Earlier that same day, Cambridge University psychologist Michael Lamb had testified that children raised by same sex parents were as well adjusted and safe from abuse from other kids who grow up with a mother and a father.  Lamb said there was no evidence that gays or lesbians were more likely to abuse children than traditional couples. 

The attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8 on cross examination asked if there was any empirical evidence related to children of transgender individuals and the outcomes of children of bisexuals.  Lamb agreed he did not have any evidence.  Lamb also agreed on cross examination that men and women were significantly different; that men were more likely to be alcoholics, have learning disabilities and engage in acts of violence.  The attorney also got the psychologist to agree that breast-feeding has benefits for children that men cannot provide to a child. 

Lawyers representing the proponents of Proposition 8 are expected to start presenting their case this week.  For further information concerning the same sex marriage trial, domestic partnerships or divorce please feel free to e-mail me.

Chief city economist Edmund Egan testified today that the state ban on gay marriage is costing San Francisco millions in lost revenue and increased services.  Although Egan could not precisely quantify how much the city would have gained if it had allowed same sex marriage, he estimated the number was around $2.6 million in hotel and sales tax revenue every year.

The figure cited by Egan was based on the roughly 5100 marriage licenses that were issued in San Francisco when gay marriage was legal in 2008 for a 5 month duration.  Egan’s logic derived from the assumption that if San Francisco experienced an uptick in weddings, economic activity related to weddings would also increase.

Further testimony was given that the city had seen higher mental health costs due to discrimination against gays with projected costs at $2.5 million.  Egan indicated that San Francisco must spend more on health care for uninsured workers because same-sex couples are not always covered under their partner’s employee health care plans.  Testimony given by the city was clear; the ban on gay marriage has a negative economic impact on incoming tax revenue.

Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court decided to block cameras from covering the same sex marriage trial presently going on in San Francisco.  Judge Vaughn Walker had previously permitted real-time streaming of the proceedings and had wanted to post the trial itself on YouTube.  However in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court majority criticized Judge Walker of trying to change the rules “at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials.”

Although all 50 states have traditionally allowed cameras into certain state-level proceedings, federal courts have usually refused to allow cameras into their courtrooms.  Congress itself has failed numerous times to pass legislation allowing such technology in the federal court system.

The same sex marriage trial is nothing short of controversial and hostile.  Proponents for gay marriage in the case produced a letter from a Chinese American church group that expressed having sex with children was next on their agenda list and that “other states would fall into Satan’s hands” if gays were permitted to marry.  Opponents to gay marriage will be arguing that the passage of Proposition 8 was not directed as bias to same sex couples.

Arguments for the case are contiuning.  Check back here for updates.

Credit:  David Paul Morris / Getty ImagesThe present ban on same-sex marriage gets heard in a California federal court today to determine the issue of allowing gay marriage.   Plaintiffs have purportedly made it known their intentions of taking the issue of same sex marriage all the way to the Supreme Court should the judiciary derail their efforts at allowing gay couples to marry.  Although only five other states have allowed same sex marriage, it has all been the result of judicial decisions or legislation.  No popular vote in any state has yet permitted gay marriage.

The one tweak to today’s court case is that it is going to be aired on YouTube.  This is the first time a federal case has been permitted to be broadcast online which begs the question, why is this being done?  Courts have historically been an open affair, permitting the public, media and others to come and view proceedings whenever they choose.  Proposition 8 supporters have vigorously opposed the televising of the trial believing it would subject their supporters to “harassment.” Prop 8 opponents support the distribution of the content citing the First Amendment as the main reason there is no reason to deny the trial to be aired.  The judge has the power to determine what scope the cameras may or may not be allowed.

The attorneys believe the case should last two weeks but there is no doubt the issue itself will reign for generations of debate and controversy.  Note that the case will be taped and then posted to YouTube.  You won’t find it live, but you can always check here for updates.


SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline