Leave a Comment Sagesse
Windsor v. USA (DOMA): Clement team responds to judge’s questions
August 2, 2011
By Adam Bink
Following up on last week’s post, the judge in the Windsor v. USA case ordered Clement’s team to answer two key questions:
“What, if anything, do you contend are the compelling justifications for section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 77″
and this one:
“What, if anything, do you assert are the legitimate government interests rationally advanced by section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7?” (Interrogatory no. 3).
Here is the Clement team’s responses. Short, but doozies, particularly on the point of “legitimate government interest.”
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
84 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
James UK | August 2, 2011 at 2:12 pm
The usual rubbish then; and hardly worth $500K.
2.
Alan_Eckert | August 2, 2011 at 2:16 pm
I wonder when Congress will have to vote to raise the DOMA Defense Limit™. Oh wait, the funds were just pulled out of a hat.
3.
Alan_Eckert | August 2, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Answer #1
Unknown consequences.
*insert scary ghost noise*
4.
Alan_Eckert | August 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm
"a social understanding that begetting and rearing children is not inextricably bound up with the institution of marriage"
Did Maggie write this? I have 3 words to respond to this: Turner v. Safley
5.
Alan_Eckert | August 2, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I'll interpret their response to #3:
"We couldn't think of any, so we're gonna claim that we don't have to come up with anything at all while also claiming that everything has to do with it. We're just too busy to tell you, so there! *sticks out tongue*
6.
Archidoodle | August 2, 2011 at 2:32 pm
I think the whole thing could be summed up as:
"We got nuthin', your honor."
7.
Bob | August 2, 2011 at 2:37 pm
More like "Homos are bad, your honor. So it's okay to discriminate against them."
8.
Carol | August 2, 2011 at 2:38 pm
What I hope the court will find irrational is BLAG's fantasies that children are never begotten outside of marriage, that biological parents never divorce each other or abandon their children, and that same-sex spouses never raise children.
As the eminent social philosopher Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"
9.
Bob | August 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm
There's so much to refute here. I'll just take one, specifically "protecting the public fisc [is that even a word?] and preserving the balance struck…in allocating federal burdens and benefits…"
Let's see if I understand this: If you refuse to recognize gay marriages and (implicitly) oblige gays and lesbians to marry opposite-sex partners, it'll somehow cost the government less. Because there's only so many federal benefits and burdens available.
Let us assume that there were no gays and lesbians at all and that every last one of us wanted to and actually did marry someone of the opposite sex. Wouldn't this likewise strain the federal bank account?
The rest of it makes about as much sense.
10.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | August 2, 2011 at 2:49 pm
11.
DaveP | August 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Aaaaaand here's a smoking gun, right at the end: "defending and nurturing the institution of marriage by creating legal structures that make it more likely that children will be raised by parents of both sexes"
So they are flat -out saying that they believe it is better for kids to be raised by opposite-sex parents than same-sex parents. What century are these peopel living in??
Not to mention the fact that granting equal civil marriage rights does NOTHING to change the number of kids with opposite-sex parents versus kids with same-sex parents, so this is nonsense.
… unless you 'create legal structures' in the form of laws that prohibit same-sex couples from adopting…… So they should be asked about this. Where do they get the idea th tkids are better with opposite-sex couples? And what legal structures do they think should be used to accomplish this?
These guys are going to sound like William Tam once they get into court.
12.
Gregory in SLC | August 2, 2011 at 2:55 pm
sputtering and choking….oh my!
13.
LCH | August 2, 2011 at 2:57 pm
♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡
14.
JonT | August 2, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Our tax dollars at work…
15.
nightshayde | August 2, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. It was good enough back then, and it's good enough now. Just because marriage equality hasn't caused the sky to fall YET doesn't mean it never will.
So there, nyah. *sticks tongue out*
Also … didn't they say the same exact thing twice? o.o?
16.
AdamG | August 2, 2011 at 3:21 pm
It's the "life is a pie" argument. "If they get more, I must get less."
17.
Ronnie | August 2, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I want a refund……….. > I …Ronnie
18.
Ronnie | August 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm
ROFL……good one……….. ; )…Ronnie
19.
Christian | August 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Is that legalese for "Cuz I said so"?
20.
Steve | August 2, 2011 at 3:42 pm
"You don't need evidence, your honor"
21.
Steve | August 2, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Unless they think that gay people should just marry someone of the opposite sex and that children born into such relationships are better off than with two same-sex parents
22.
peterplumber | August 2, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Noun 1. fisc – a state treasury or exchequer or a royal treasury; originally the public treasury of Rome or the emperor's private purse
exchequer, treasury – the funds of a government or institution or individual
23.
peterplumber | August 2, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I want to marry my partner of 7 years. IF there were any federal benefits due to us as a result of that marriage, we would be paid as one couple. If each of us (shudder) were to marry a woman, the federal benefits due to us as 2 opposite sex couples would be TWICE that as would be due to us as a same sex couple. THEREfore, it is a SAVINGS to the public fisc to promulgate same sex marriages.
24.
Leo | August 2, 2011 at 4:21 pm
"Also … didn't they say the same exact thing twice?"
Mostly, but that's to be expected. They were asked separately about compelling interests and legitimate interests. Any compelling interest is a legitimate interest, so all answers to Interrogatory 1 are also answers to Interrogatory 3. The reverse doesn't hold, and so they've listed one alleged legitimate interest (maintaining consistency) that didn't make the "compelling" cut.
25.
JT1962 | August 2, 2011 at 4:54 pm
What they believe, over and over ad nauseum, is that children should be raised by a male and female set of parents and that marriage makes it more likely for that to happen. What they've forgotten or have chosen to totally ignore, is that children are born outside of marriage and end up being raised by only one parent or children are born within a marriage and then the marriage fails and they are raised mainly by one parent.
They live in a fantasy world and refuse to see the real world's reality.
26.
FlexSF | August 2, 2011 at 4:55 pm
There is a constant theme running in the defense of every pious marriage ban. "In this litigation…defending and nurturing the institute of marriage…social understaning…children will be raised by both sexes." (P.3) You might get the sense that they're waiting and hoping for a judgement, in their favor, that doesn't ever consider the absurdity of their "legal" arguments. They want the marriage bans in place simply because they like them. I can't imagine a SCOTUS justice, Scalia included, that would adopt this utter shit.
27.
Leo | August 2, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Interestingly, the list of compelling justifications here doesn't include the one and only "heightened scrutiny" justification listed in Footnote 34 in the Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment: "DOMA's classification is constitutional because it reflects and reinforces the Supreme Court's own definition of a fundamental right."
But that argument sounds so bogus that I can't imagine the Supreme Court spending a minute on it. (IANAL) Because marriage is a fundamental right, Congress needs to make sure it remains the same as before? That's the most favorable interpretation I can think of, and it still nonsensical. By that logic, would it have been okay for Congress to protect freedom of speech by banning all new media (thus preserving the "traditional" definition of "speech")? How about protecting freedom of religion by banning untraditional religions, or at least by denying them 501(c)(3) status?
28.
Trish | August 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm
They're not speaking to Scalia with this. They're speaking to Kennedy. I don't know whether Kennedy will be persuaded, but I'm fairly certain that Scalia will say that since people of the same sex weren't marrying in 1787, then it wasn't included in the constitution, and he'll believe this even if neither party mentions it in their briefs.
29.
Cat | August 2, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Wow, is this all they've got? All I see is:
- Kicking and screaming. We protest having to answer these stupid questions!
- Being scared. Who knows what will happen if we open the door to same-sex marriage? Let's just not go there your honor. It's OK to discriminate, because we already did in the past.
- Being dishonest. Your honor, there are SO many reasons! It will be so much work to mention them all. So we won't even mention one.
I hope the court won't give them the time of day.
30.
Sagesse | August 2, 2011 at 5:44 pm
More N.J. voters support same-sex marriage than oppose it, poll says
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/more_nj_…
31.
Straight Dave | August 2, 2011 at 5:53 pm
"maintaining consistency in eligibility for federal benefits based on marital status"
It doesn't. – thank you, Al Franken
If that were true, than all married couples would get what traditionally was given to all married couples. But, in fact, what DOMA does is maintain consistency in eligibility for federal benefits based on sexual orientation – i.e., married same-sex couples are treated the same as unmarried same-sex couples.
Why don't they have the balls to just say so? Because it sounds bad these days. They can't be quite as openly bigoted as they'd like, it would exhibit animus and political powerlessness, so they have to try to sneak it past us. I don't think the court will be impressed. This notion has already been shot down in flames in the Gill case.
Is Clement trying to follow Charles Cooper back down to the minor leagues? This can't be helping their careers, except for catering to a shrinking niche market.
32.
Alan_Eckert | August 2, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Exactly. The only identifiable group of people that are slighted by DOMA (section 3) can be identified as same-sex couples, identified as such based on their sexual orientation and gender (remember, it discriminates on both counts). If DOMA were not the law right now, the ONLY people that would notice a tangible, provable change (personally, not figuratively or 3rd person) are same-sex couples whose states recognize them as married. People who don't approve might try to claim that they lose the right to discriminate, but they are actually guided by the current legal system in place for discrimination. Those vary per state, and would not be affected by the removal of DOMA section 3.
33.
Sagesse | August 2, 2011 at 6:21 pm
If you're in the mood for Tony Perkins.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry: “Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me…”
http://www.frcblog.com/2011/07/texas-gov-rick-per…
34.
Sagesse | August 2, 2011 at 6:26 pm
NJ Gov Chris Christie should heed voters on gay marriage
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/08/nj_…
35.
Ronnie | August 2, 2011 at 6:36 pm
"New Adam Lambert Song Takes on Acceptance" http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/08/0…
A few days ago Adam Lambert debuted this new song he wrote for his upcoming sophomore album at a concert in Canada. Amazing stripped down live rendition of the song, can't wait to hear the studio version.
Here is the video…………….<3…Ronnie:
[youtube 8oJRuaH5FJ0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oJRuaH5FJ0 youtube]
36.
Ronnie | August 2, 2011 at 6:51 pm
"DETROIT'S LGBT COMMUNITY, CELEBRATED: VIDEO" http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/motorcity.html
<3…Ronnie
37.
Sagesse | August 2, 2011 at 6:55 pm
National gay-rights group forms Minnesota PAC in anticipation of '12 gay marriage vote
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/46294f2d9a7…
38.
Elizabeth_Oakes | August 2, 2011 at 8:47 pm
No, that's "ipse dixit." I learned that from the Prop8 appeal documents!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
39.
Carpool Cookie | August 2, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Dear god, but wasn't THAT one of the most jaw-dropping moments in a courtroom, ever. And I loved Walker's response. "(pause) I don't need…evidence?"
It's like, Okay, let's go out on a limb and suppose a lawyer DIDN'T need evidence. As a professional with your clients' verdict at stake, do you think you might want to dig around and present some, ANYWAY???
Hmmm. Such tough choices!
40.
_BK_ | August 2, 2011 at 11:27 pm
This whole document seems to be a repetition of the usual arguments put forth by NOM and friends. A tad more intelligent-sounding, though.
41.
_BK_ | August 2, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Does that mean NOM's supposedly 10,000-strong rally is an example of Ipse dixit? First they said it, then others quoted NOM, and then NOM quoted the others as "proof".
42.
_BK_ | August 2, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Great freedom of speech and religion comparison.
43.
Carpool Cookie | August 2, 2011 at 11:32 pm
I haven't watched it, as I have to keep an eye on my blood pressure, but I wonder if "subtly gay marriage" (like Michelle Bachmann has?) is okay with him.
44.
_BK_ | August 2, 2011 at 11:33 pm
"If you're in the mood for self-inflicted pain."
45.
_BK_ | August 2, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Finally! Thanks, Sagesse. I'd been trying to find out whether or not any campaigning had begun. The early we start, the more time we have to educate the people of Minnesota. Have you heard of any opposing PAC or campaign being formed yet?
46.
Sagesse | August 3, 2011 at 4:50 am
I have always thought that the reason NOM didn't testify at the Prop 8 trial is because no one there has any relevant academic credentials whatever… worse than Blankenhorn. Alvin McEwen's point is interesting nevertheless, because it strikes me they were virtually AWOL in New York as well.
NOM’s Proposition 8 hypocrisy will not be forgotten
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/08/noms-propositi…
47.
Gregory in SLC | August 3, 2011 at 6:09 am
I wonder if NOM will ever be cross-examined in some case by Olsen and Boies?
One can daydream…..
48.
FlexSF | August 3, 2011 at 6:24 am
That doesn't sound rational.
49.
Steve | August 3, 2011 at 7:24 am
Nah. They'll refuse to testify, claiming that they'll be persecuted if they do
50.
AnonyGrl | August 3, 2011 at 7:42 am
Michelle Bachmann's marriage is OK by Tony… a man married to a woman. Whatever else is going on or not going on is trumped by the fact that the marriage has a tab A and a slot B, even if those things don't ever intersect. Remember, it is not about love, commitment, caring, sharing or anything else, it is only about one partner having the appearance of being an egg maker, and the other have the appearance of a sperm maker. THAT is marriage, as far as Tony Perkins is concerned.
51.
RWG | August 3, 2011 at 8:11 am
"We got ours, and we ain't sharin' it with no damn queers!"
52.
AnonyGrl | August 3, 2011 at 8:13 am
No, they won't… and for a very good reason that makes me rather glad they won't.
The reason is this. NOM has no actual interest in these cases. It does not pertain to them in any way other than they have expended a lot of hot air and money over it, but they are not principles in any way, on either side. That being the case, and that they are not actually expert witnesses, means they won't be given the platform to speak, and won't be granted legitimacy by doing so. I am ok with that.
Also, while the lawyers on the other side have proven time and time again that they are NOT the sharpest crayons in the box, they are not stupid enough to call Maggie or Brian, neither of whom would hold up under cross examination.
53.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 8:57 am
Yes I think you are right.
54.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 8:58 am
ROTFLMAO Trish!
55.
Sheryl, Mormon Mom | August 3, 2011 at 9:05 am
I wonder if they ever see their argument in those terms. Certainly states what is their only argument in a very succinct manner, tab A and slot B (and i notice you put the tab before the slot underlining their male supremacy ideals).
56.
Jon | August 3, 2011 at 9:07 am
"That's it? That's your case?"
Once again, the slogans and soundbites and window dressing and handwaving that may sound good in media events fail to impress in the court.
57.
Sheryl, Mormon Mom | August 3, 2011 at 9:07 am
Have any of their witnesses held up under cross examination? Certainly those in the Prop8 trial did not.
58.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 9:09 am
I sure do wish copy paste would work but it doesn't so I typed out their arguments. I am not that great in transposition so I hope I didn't make any errors –
Here goes what they responded with #1
"Defending and nurturing the institution of marriage by acting with proper caution in the face of the unknown consequences of a proposed novel redefinition of the foundational social institution of marriage"
59.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 9:10 am
They responded with #2
"Protecting the public fisc and preserving the balance struck by earlier Congresses in allocating federal burdens and benefits"
60.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 9:11 am
They responded with #4
"maintaining consistency in eligibility for federal benefits based on marital status"
61.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 9:11 am
They responded with #5
"Defending and nurturing the institution of marriage by avoiding the creation of a social understanding that begetting and rearing children is not inextricably bound up with the institution of marriage"
62.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 9:12 am
They responded with #6
"Defending and nurturing the institution of marriage by creating legal structures that make it more likely that children will be raised by parents of both sexes"
63.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 9:18 am
Well they could have said the same thing in 1967 in Loving vs Virginia. Let's keep the races apart in marriage as we do not know the consequences. Gender neutral marriage has been around long enough Massachusetts since 2004, Canada has had it since 2005, that they can no longer claim that the consequences are unknown. We know the consequences there is no affect on heterosexuals and gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and transgender citizens fall in love and marry.
64.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 9:20 am
Preserving the public fisc at the expense of minority groups is not going to fly. Basically they are saying well it will cost the Federal Government more money to recognize these marriages so let's just not do it.
65.
Ronnie | August 3, 2011 at 9:25 am
Antigay Group Sends Misleading Absentee Ballots in Wisc. Recall Elections http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/08/0…
The religious right trying to fix the recall elections in Wisconsin. An Anti-gay group with ties to the FRC (Fascist Research Council) sent out misleading absentee ballots lying about the deadline for return of the ballot, two days after the real deadline…..Sorry, but the "It was a typo" argument (yes they did use this argument) is not going to fly. Typing "09" is nowhere near typing "11"…….lol….It was such a "typo" that neither of numbers in the real date was typed by them……lol……FAIL!!!….. A 3rd grader on their first day of typing class knows that much.
It is also noted that the return address is owned by the same liars who sent out the ballot. One wonders how many of those ballots voting for the opponents of the Republicans being recalled will wind up in the shredder uncounted as if they never existed.
It is interesting how far the religious right will bend their so called "morals" & "ethics" to get what they want…… just saying….. : / …Ronnie
66.
Mtnbill | August 3, 2011 at 9:41 am
I guess the question is now whether the Court will ask them to prove their assertions. I don't know if they will be able to find other witnesses that didn't already appear or were cited in Perry vs Brown (orig Swartzenegger). From what I saw of the brief, they just cite some articles–I don't know if they have any expert witnesses. And the Court will have to define what constitutes an "expert".
67.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 11:27 am
Actually DOMA does the exact opposite of this
Actually DOMA does the exact opposite of this
Gill vs Office of Personnel Management
Judge Tauro
July 8, 2010
More importantly, however, the pursuit of consistency in the distribution of federal marriage-based benefits can only constitute a legitimate government objective if there exists a relevant characteristic by which to distinguish those who are entitled to receive benefits from those who are not.137And, notably, there is a readily discernible and eminently relevant characteristic on which to base such a distinction: marital status. Congress, by premising eligibility for these benefits on marriage in the first instance, has already made the determination that married people make up a class of similarly-situated individuals, different in relevant respects from the class of non-married people. Cast in this light, the claim that the federal government may also have an interest in treating all same-sex couples alike, whether married or unmarried, plainly cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.138
68.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 11:29 am
Gill vs Office of Personnel Management
Judge Tauro
July 8, 2010
And finally, Congress attempted to justify DOMA by asserting its interest in the preservation of scarce government resources. While this court recognizes that conserving the public fisc can be a legitimate government interest,116 “a concern for the preservation of resources standing alone can hardly justify the classification used in allocating those resources.”117 This court can discern no principled reason to cut government expenditures at the particular expense of Plaintiffs, apart from Congress’ desire to express its disapprobation of same-sex marriage. And “mere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable [by the government]” are decidedly impermissible bases upon which to ground a legislative classification.118
69.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 11:31 am
Gill vs Office of Personnel Management
Judge Tauro
July 8, 2010
Since the enactment of DOMA, a consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.106But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,”107 when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.1 Indeed, “the sterile and the elderly” have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states.109 And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.
70.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 11:32 am
Gill vs Office of Personnel Management
Judge Tauro
July 8, 2010
Similarly, Congress’ asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not “grounded in sufficient factual context [for this court] to ascertain some relation” between it and the classification DOMA effects.110 To begin with, this court notes that DOMA cannot possibly encourage Plaintiffs to marry members of the opposite sex because Plaintiffs are already married to members of the same sex. But more generally, this court cannot discern a means by which the federal government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses might encourage homosexual people to marry members of the opposite sex.111 And denying marriage-based benefits to same-sex spouses certainly bears no reasonable relation to any interest the government might have in making heterosexual marriages more secure.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But to the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it “only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law.”112 And this the Constitution does not permit. “For if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean”113 that the Constitution will not abide such “a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”114
71.
Str8Grandmother | August 3, 2011 at 11:35 am
Gill vs Office of Personnel Management
Judge Tauro
July 8, 2010
This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA.
Since the enactment of DOMA, a consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents.106But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,”107 when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.1 Indeed, “the sterile and the elderly” have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states.109 And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.
72.
Trish | August 3, 2011 at 12:02 pm
It's an interesting argument re preservation of resources. If they are saying sexual orientation is not immutable, therefore gays and lesbians aren't actually prohibited from marrying, just from marrying a person of the same sex, then there's no rational reason to believe that prohibiting them from marrying a person from the same sex would prevent them from marrying altogether. If the supposed legitimate interest is encouraging opposite sex couples to marry so that children are raised by ma and pa, then the argument assumes that gays and lesbians will abandon their same-sex partner for an opposite sex partner to fulfill the interests of the State. Consequently, the same amount of resources will be used because the same amount of people will marry.
The only way the argument re preservation of resources flies is if the same sex couples would never marry, but then the DOMA/Prop 8 Supporters are recognizing that being gay is an immutable characteristic and such laws actually do result in an outright ban on marriage for gays and lesbians.
Interesting.
73.
Neil | August 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Quote "defending and nurturing the institution of marriage by creating legal structures that make it more likely that children will be raised by parents of both sexes."
I took this to mean they acknowledge same sex couples can raise children with no judgement of whether the result would be better or worse, but that they want laws that prohibit same sex parents. Reduced: they admit they want the law for reasons of animus.
74.
Str8guy | August 3, 2011 at 9:38 pm
"sent out misleading absentee ballots lying about the deadline for return of the ballot"
They sent out ballot APPLICATIONS. The actual ballots would be sent by the city clerk.
From the actual article:
"A Wisconsin antigay group with ties to the Family Research Council is accused of sending misleading absentee ballot applications to voters in the state’s recall election next week, The Minnesota Independent reports."
Get your facts correct.
75.
Str8Guy | August 3, 2011 at 9:41 pm
First thing is that the Plaintiff must make her case. And she has a long road to travel there.
76.
_BK_ | August 4, 2011 at 2:48 am
Wait… dumb question… that was actually said in the courtroom? I thought that was a satirical summary of what the proponents' argument was.
77. House Briefs Against Same&hellip | August 4, 2011 at 5:13 am
[...] Defense of Marriage Act. Adam Bink at Prop 8 Trial Tracker has posted both briefs: one is a Response to Interrogatories and the other is a Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. In this [...]
78.
Steve | August 4, 2011 at 6:00 am
It was said
Walker made another jab at it later when he said "I guess that goes towards your earlier premise that I don't need evidence"
79.
Leo | August 4, 2011 at 6:31 am
THE COURT: I don't mean to be flip, but Blackstone didn't testify. Kingsley Davis didn't testify. What testimony in this case supports the proposition?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, these materials are before you. They are evidence before you. But Mr. Blankenhorn brought forward, brought forward these authorities and that's — and that's these social scientists and anthropologists and sociologists and the others. But, your Honor, you don't have to have evidence for this from these authorities. This is in the cases themselves. The cases recognize this one after another.
THE COURT: I don't have to have evidence?
MR. COOPER: You don't have to have evidence of this point if one court after another has recognized — let me turn to the California cases on this.
80.
_BK_ | August 4, 2011 at 7:22 am
Wow, that's amazing. Worth quite a chuckle, too. Thanks, Leo.
81.
Ronnie | August 4, 2011 at 10:20 am
Ooooo…I left out one word….rolls eyes….does not negate the lies, the fraud, the laughable cover up argument of "I typed the wrong numbers on the opposite side of the keyboard of the real numbers that I should have typed"….the facts are correct………….. 8 / …Ronnie
82.
Str8Guy | August 4, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Well – it seems your side is not exactly choirboys either:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110…
"The Democratic National Committee has been placing calls giving the wrong date for the recall election against Republican Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse."
83. House Briefs Against Same&hellip | August 5, 2011 at 10:15 am
[...] States in federal district court in New York. Yesterday's post described the House's Answers to Interrogatories. Today's post summarizes the House's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for [...]
84.
Ronnie | August 5, 2011 at 4:45 pm
ROFL… Confusion with dates (that article doesn't really mention what date was given by the DNC…hmmm) is nowhere near typing the wrong numbers on the complete opposite side of the keyboard of the date that was supposed to be typed… There was no coverup or laughable immature excuse given by the DNC… side, what side, I have no side… never mind, the preceding is rhetorical… ok moving on…… OTIO… 8 / ….Ronnie.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.