Well, the appeal has been filed in the Prop 8 case, and it’s something to read. Facts? They don’t need to refute the facts in Judge Walker’s case, since they will do enough just by telling you how his opinion runs contradictory to so many court opinions before him. (Way before him). They offer quotes and cases all way back to the 1600’s. How progressive.
Their "dictionary" argument is embarrassing, to say the least. They claim that since dictionaries have long "understood" the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman, then hey, that’s what it is. Okay, forget about societies maturing and making some changes, let’s just look at the fact that they’re implying that dictionaries decide what words mean through some philosophical meditation on the matter, rather than just writing down what the word means. AT THE TIME!. Wow.
At one point they quote John Locke from, get ready, 1690, who explained that marriage was vital for, of course, the "continuation of the species". It’s so strange to me that the opposition continues to argue this matter as if legal same sex marriage means that straight people have to stop having kids. Not to mention all the children that same sex couples will have, adopt and take care of. There will, be, uh, you know, probably, like, more kids if same sex marriage is legal, not less.
On the subject of infertile straight couples being allowed to marry and how that undermines their argument that marriage is about procreation? Well, you’ve got to read it for yourself…
And even where infertility is clear, usually only one spouse is infertile. In such cases marriage still furthers society’s interest in responsible pro-creation by decreasing the likelihood that the fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party, for that interest is served not only by increasing the likelihood that procreation occurs within stable family units, but also by decreasing the likelihood that it occurs outside of such units.
I’ll wait while your head explodes.
Ready?
They go on to argue that since no biological reason for homosexuality has been found then of course, we aren’t necessarily who we are. Riddled at great length, probably the bulk of the document, is that marriage is about children. They say that it’s okay for gays to adopt children because they’re taking care of children who’d been abandoned by their parents. The "threat" to traditional marriage, in this case, is on a few levels. Gays are using it to be "subversive", the "unknown" long term effects, the weakening of the meaning and importance of marriage to (again) have children. It’s all the same argument, all baseless, all idiotic, but still, fascinating. It definitely shows how a lawyer’s mind works, in twisting and manipulating irrelevant facts to make them seem relevant. They’re basically saying that since Judge Walker didn’t agree with judges of the past, nothing should change. You know, like they argued all civil rights cases in the past, "this is the way it is and that’s all there is to it".
The document is about 95 pages, but it’s worth a look. Read it HERE
