A federal court turned to historians Tuesday as it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, an amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California.
Harvard professor Nancy Cott told a federal court in San Francisco that child rearing was only one of several purposes of marriage, not "the central or defining purpose," the Los Angeles Times reports.
She noted that that divorce rates rose steeply in the 1960s and marriage continued to be viewed negatively in the 1970s as heterosexuals advocated "open marriages" and "swinging." But divorce rates hit a plateau in the 1980s, and marriage is now held in high esteem in the U.S., she said.
She attributed the higher status of marriage to advocacy by the Christian right and the growing clamoring of gays and lesbians to participate in it.
During cross-examination, lawyers for the Proposition 8 campaign noted that racial restrictions on marriage in the U.S. were never as "uniform" or widespread as the ban on same-sex marriage. He also asked Cott if it was possible to predict the consequences same-sex marriage would have on society.
The Alliance Defense Fund has been posting regular Twitter updates of the trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court overruled U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker Monday and blocked video coverage of the trial on YouTube, according to the Los Angeles Times.
This is the second time in recent months in which the high court has intervened on behalf of the defenders of "traditional marriage" and granted an emergency appeal.
In October, the justices blocked officials in the state of Washington from releasing the names of 138,000 people who signed ballot petitions seeking to overturn a state law giving equal benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Under Washington law, the names were considered public record.
Meanwhile, a group of conservative leaders gathered in Washington, D.C. yesterday for a press conference lobbying congress to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. Leaders included Maryland pastor Harry Jackson, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
“This right has been illegally taken from the people by the Council and it is the responsibility of Congress to restore it,” Jackson said.
The group also wants Congress to veto a bill passed in December that legalized same-sex marriage marriage Washington, D.C.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey on January 13, 2010 12:31AM
Comments
“This right has been illegally taken from the people by the Council and it is the responsibility of Congress to restore it,” Jackson said.
Exactly what "right" has been illegally taken away? The "right" to deny other people "rights?"
Posted by: Robert at January 13, 2010
==The "right" to deny other people "rights?" [sic]==
What Rights that others have are being denied?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 13, 2010
Sarah Pulliam Bailey, you and Pat Robertson have clearly not found your calling.
You are no more a journalist than Pat Robertson is a 'Christian.'
This is a one-sided account that perpetuates a lie of anti-gay marriage folk as victims.
Any credibility you may have had on this site (and I say 'may') is lost by mentioning Harry Jackson, an extremist bigot wing-nut who can hardly form a sentence in the English language.
Educate yourself, Miss Bailey, unless you want to be in a crap job @ Christianity Today for the rest of your dishonest, short career.
Posted by: Marge at January 13, 2010
Hey Marge! Tell how you really feel about SPB.
Posted by: Dan at January 14, 2010
==Pat Robertson is not a Christian...==
How do YOU know? What test, following 1 John 4:1, have you performed to be able to say, conclusively, that he is not a Christian?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 14, 2010
==I myself attempted to post the full testimony from people who are giving play by play blogs of the proceedings and my post has been deleted.==
It's probably, preceisely, cuz you wanna post OTHERS' comments rather than your own. Posting their "play by play" would bog this site down and not be conducive to discussion; but those who choose to claim that they are homosexual, their supporters and activists don't want discussion anyway, of course.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 14, 2010
Where's the discrimination in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that everybody, including those who choose to claim that they are homosexual, is either male/a man, or female/a woman. There is no third sex. Everybody is included. Nobody is excluded. Everybody is treated alike. Nobody is denied.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 14, 2010
==You are no more a journalist than Pat Robertson is a 'Christian.'==
Pat Robertson doesn't need YOUR endorsement.
==This is a one-sided account...==
So is your post. So, what's your point?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 14, 2010
==The "right" to deny other people "rights?" [sic]==
What Rights that others have are being denied?
I really love that married woman down the street. The law stops me from marrying her. It hinders my love. Where are MY Rights?
I really love my dog. The law says that I cannot marry my dog. All that should matter is "love." I demand my Rights!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 14, 2010
There is also no "right" for adults to marry children or for people to marry their immediate family members. Guess a lot of people are being denied their rights...
Posted by: Julie at January 14, 2010
==There is also no "right" for adults to marry children or for people to marry their immediate family members. Guess a lot of people are being denied their rights... ==
Gee willikers, things are just tuff all over, huh.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 14, 2010
What hate denies me my Right to marry my stereo which I love!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible at January 14, 2010
Marge -
Treat everyone with respect. If you disagree with someone's point of view, argue ideas rather than attacking individuals or groups. Derogatory statements about Christian denominations, practices, or beliefs, and individually aimed insults or threats that cause any participant to feel discomfort will not be tolerated.
Thank you,
BJ
CT Community Manager
Posted by: BJ at January 14, 2010
@Courtney: "And for the people who think marriage means marrying inanimate objects, do you really think you're making your side look intelligent or informed?" Not so fast C. Read the following article and then tell Mr. I. you are sorry for your snide comment! See the link here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/sal-9000-man-to-marry-vir_n_367579.html "A Japanese man has just married his girlfriend, Nene Anegasaki.
Here's the catch: Nene is a video game character from the Nintendo DS game Love Plus." The happy couple were wed in Guam - where apparently you can marry inanimate objects.
Matt. 7:13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Posted by: Dan at January 18, 2010
Great article. The church has got to stand on the Word of God and declare what it says about homosexuality, and then love the people that struggle with it.
Posted by: Maximize Your Leadership at November 20, 2010
Sorry, meant "Great Discussion". Article has good info as well. Lol.
Posted by: Maximize Your Leadership at November 20, 2010
Post a comment