Judge sticks it to prop8 lawyers/supporters - lawsuit can proceed

[Bill]

This is funny - the judge in california demanded that prop 8 lawyers show how gay marriage harmed straight marriage.

They couldn't say. "I don't know, I don't know", the lawyer says.

Sounds like good news for our side.

The judge not only refused but signaled that when the case goes to trial in January, he expects Cooper and his legal team to present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.

‘Naturally procreative relationships’
The question is relevant to the assertion that Proposition 8 is constitutionally valid because it furthers the states goal of fostering "naturally procreative relationships," Walker explained.

"What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" Walker asked.

"My answer is, I don't know. I don't know," Cooper answered.

Moment later, after assuring the judge his response did not mean Proposition 8 was doomed to be struck down, Cooper tried to clarify his position. The relevant question was not whether there is proof that same-sex unions jeopardize marriages between men and women, but whether "the state is entitled, when dealing with radical proposals to make changes to bedrock institutions such as this ... to take a wait and see attitude," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33319490...me_and_courts/

[hdkbill]

Thank God someone is using some common sense within the judicial system in California.

Bill

[tim460]

Why doesn't anyone (lawyers in CA or anywhere) make the point that if it's all about procreation, then marriages between men and women who cannot have or chose not to have children need to be outlawed, too. Or for fertile couples, there would be a period before the date that their marriage would terminated because the couple remains childless, maybe fined, too. Perhaps then new jobs could be created by making a new government entity that overlooks this important matter and grants/sells extensions to heterosexual marriages that still do not bear children past the date of termination. The marriage terminations could be posted in the newspapers, too. Then various religious groups can hold vigils citing the number of potential lives that were not born because married folks did not fulfill their procreation (marriage) contract. After all, it's a legal and binding agreement, and often made with God. TV ads, news broadcasters, and billboards can cite actual data, the number of terminated marriages = number of lives never given a chance.

Pretty mad, hey? :hippy: :crazy: :develish: But fair to be said about same sex marriages, even those who have and raise children?