« Military Chaplains Voice 'Intense' Views on Gay Ban | Main | Elizabeth Edwards Dies »

December 6, 2010

Appeals Court Hears Proposition 8

A federal appeals court began considering Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage today, reviewing Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that it was unconstitutional. The Associated Press reports that the Proposition 8 defense was less than stellar.

The defenders of California's gay marriage ban took a pummeling during the first federal trial to explore the civil rights implications of outlawing same-sex marriages. They summoned only two witnesses, one of whom left the stand looking thrashed. Even the lead attorney was left groping for words when pressed to explain how allowing gays and lesbians to wed would undermine traditional unions.

If the courtroom had been a boxing ring, the referee would have called a knockout.

Yet lawyers for the ban's sponsors say their side was on the ropes for a reason: They disputed that live testimony and reams of evidence were relevant to a lawsuit against the voter-approved Proposition 8, so they did not provide it. In their view, the proceedings were a "a show trial," and they were willing to invite the unfavorable verdict they eventually got while betting they would win in a later round where the ground rules would be different.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the the case could also be appealed again to Ninth Circuit judges or to the Supreme Court, which would consider same-sex marriage for the first time. Court proceedings were televised on C-SPAN.

Update: Several evangelicals joined an interfaith statement released Monday by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops describing marriage as "the permanent and faithful union of one man and one woman." The list of signers included the following:

Leith Anderson
National Association of Evangelicals

Dr. George O. Wood
General Superintendent
Assemblies of God

Dr. Richard Land
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Dr. Thomas E. Armiger
Dr. Jo Anne Lyon
Dr. Jerry G. Pence
The Board of General Superintendents
The Wesleyan Church

Dr. Gary M. Benedict
The Christian and Missionary Alliance

Glenn C. Burris Jr.
The Foursquare Church

The Most Rev. Robert Duncan
Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America
Bishop, Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh

Bishop Harry Jackson
Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church
Bishop, Fellowship of International Churches

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez
National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference


Hey guys,

How about a post on the Dream ACT which is scheduled for a vote any day now. Many evangelical Christian leaders have come out in support of it but Christians on the ground think it's about supporting illegal behavior. About 2 million lives are on hold and I think this issue deserves a conversation.

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn K. Hyppolite

An interesting thought on the topic of Prop. 8: Barack Obama was indirectly responsible for its passing. I remember a news article from 2008 (you're welcome to search for it if you want, because I'm not going to try) which discussed his campaign to get African-Americans who would normally not vote to go out and vote for him. This was very successful in California. However, an interesting effect of this was that once these new voters read about Prop. 8, most voted for it, resulting in this legislation becoming law.

The reason that proponents of prop 8 cannot make the case for how same sex marriage threatens conventional marriage is because it does not. I have been married for more than 58 years and no other marriage of any type has ever had a scintilla of effect on my marriage.

I suspect that those marriages that involve a homosexual individual who is in a heterosexual marriage (and we see them exposed frequently) would qualify as a traditional marriage that would be threatened by social, religious and legal acceptance of same sex marriage. Of course this would not be a valid reason to deny same sex marriage either.

The commentor that indicated that the presdent may have been responsible for the passage of prop 8 reminds of a joke going around that proports to describe the atmosphere under which the first African American president must work in. It demonstrates how many African Americans veiw their own "American experience." The joke goes something like this:

President Obama and the Pope are on a sailing cruise together and the Pope's hat is blown off into the water. The president then steps out of the boat, walks on the water, retrieves the Pope's hat, returns still walking on the water, gets back into the boat and gives the Pope his hat.

The next day ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX all carry the same headline: "Obama Can't Swim!"

@JG - It may be true that "no other marriage of any type has ever had a scintilla of effect on my marriage." Well, me either. But that doesn't mean we should just let whatever minority perversion gain constitutional approval. So let me ask you: would you object to polygamy? Or how about polyamorous marriage? Or how about if a dad wanted to marry his daughter? Or if a brother wanted to marry his sister? Or if a guy wanted to marry his pillow or a video game character? (both has happened in the last several years) Or how about someone wanting to marry his dog (this just did happen... a man in Queensland has married his dog...]
http://www.mcv.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/qld-man-ties-knot-with-dog-but-same-sex-couples-cant-wed-008243.html So is that okay with you? Is it okay that govt. legitimizes and then legalizes a perversion? Where does it end? I'll tell you this: any governing party in America that does this kind of foolishness will be out in one term or less.

@John Grayson, and the part about Obama walking on water could demonstrate how high of a pedestal the liberals have him on.