( - promoted by Fong)
The case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a civil suit brought against the state of California by two same-sex couple who wish to marry in California, had its closing arguments on Wednesday. I read the last hour or so of the streaming transcript at Pam's House Blend. It was provided by the group American Foundation for Equal Rights, who have a link up to the official court transcript of the closing statements, with questions from Judge Vernon Walker (link goes to .pdf download).
As the three of you who read this know, i am not a lawyer. I love reading about the law and court cases, but other than that... So take the following comments for exactly what they're worth. |
| Mr. Charles Cooper, one of the lawyers for the defendants, did an ineffective job in the closing statements, in my personal opinion. A couple of things that stood out to me, which the judge questioned him about in detail:
Cooper made the argument that marriage is both designed for procreation only and to discourage "irresponsible procreation".
THE COURT:
to marriage to people their own.
MR. COOPER:
It does not insist --
THE COURT:
But the state doesn't withhold the right who are unable to produce children of their own.
MR. COOPER:
That's true, your Honor, it does not.
THE COURT:
Are you suggesting that the state should, to fulfill the purpose of marriage that you have described?
MR. COOPER:
No, sir, your Honor. It is by no means a necessary -- a necessary condition or a necessary requirement to fulfilling the state's interests in naturally potentially procreative sexual relationships.
THE COURT:
Well, then, the state must have some interest wholly apart from procreation.
MR. COOPER:
It doesn't necessarily follow that that is true...
Therefore, as an infertile woman married to a man, we should get a divorce immediately. Mr. Cooper, I thank you and my soon-to-be-ex-husband thanks you.
On the subject of marriage, and why it should only be for opposite sex couples (Cooper's point), I especially liked this quote from Judge Walker:
THE COURT: Parental responsibilities don't depend upon how the child came into the world. Parental responsibilities extend to adoptive parents who had nothing to do with the creation of the child physically. They extend to in-laws and grandparents and a host of other people who are not involved in any way in the -- at least directly, in the creation of this child as a human being.
Judge Walker asked a lot of questions, bringing Mr. Cooper continually back to the trial, to the witnesses, to defend his position. I was impressed enough to think at the time:
No mater what happens, at least it'll be fair.
The judge was equally inquisitive with Mr Olson, arguing for the plaintiffs. All of the judge's questions seemed, to me at least, to show that he was paying attention, that he took this case extremely seriously, and didn't consider his verdict to be a foregone conclusion - no matter what his verdict/written opinion turns out to be.
There was also the sense that they were all talking to the inevitable chain of courts leading to the US Supreme Court. As of 10:30 MDT today, Judge Walker has not issued his opinion and verdict.
Cross posted from my blog |
