|
Ken Starr was representing the supporters of Prop 8, but it didn't seem to be going well for him. The justices kept saying (basically) "you want us (the court) to tell 18,000 couples that the marriage that we told them was legal and binding a year ago is no longer legal and binding?"
Then one of the lawyers who represented the opposition to Prop 8 opened by saying that "the will of the majority" in this case runs in direct opposition to the constitutional right to equal protection because there are built in prejudices in the voting body. Had you asked "the people" 50 years ago to vote on whether or not a black man could marry a white woman, what do you think the outcome would be? He also pointed out that if gender is a trait that can't be used to discriminate, then neither should homosexuality, especially with the separation of church and state.
It was very interesting to hear both sides. I'm not sure when a decision is expected.
|