« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
03/04/2008
Audio: West Coast oral
If you weren't able to watch the live webcasts as the oral marriage arguments played out today in California, never fear. We have recorded fairly comprehensive audio clips from the historic Supreme Court debate. Go have a listen:
PRO-GAY ARGUMENTS:
In the first two clips, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney, Therese Stewart, argues in favor of marriage equality:
In this clip, NCLR attorney Shannon Minter ably argues for our side:
Here's a brief clip from attorney Michael Maroko, who's arguing on behalf of the plaintiff couples:
And here's a snippet from attorney Waukeen McCoy, who's arguing on behalf of another plaintiff couple:
ANTI-MARRIAGE EQUALITY ARGUMENTS:
And now for the other side. Here is Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, who is leading the state's defense of current marriage law. If one's propensity for getting tongue tied is analogous with the merits of their words, then victory is well within our grasp:
More opposition, this from Schwarzenegger's attorney (first part begins at end of previous clip):
And now we'll hear from Glen Lavy of the rabidly anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund:
In this one, one of marriage equality's biggest foes, Mat Staver, tries his best to present a rational case. We are admittedly biased on the subject, but we totally think he failed:
PRO-GAY (again):
And now for the final part -- Ms. Stewart and Mr. Minter offer their brief rebuttals and closing thoughts (sorry that the beginning is cut off):
Your thoughts
OK, well from what I have heard here, it doesn't seem to be going well. My experience in court is severely limited, so I may not fully understand, but it seems the court is fairly biased against gay marriage. I realize that the questions may have to be asked to ensure all avenues of inquirely are covered, but I am not getting my hopes up so far... :-(
Posted by: Todd | Mar 4, 2008 3:59:29 PM
Oh no, Todd, after listening to the whole thing, I didn't get that impression at all. They certainly pressed our side, but often this only allowed Minter, Stewart, etc. to articulate their points.
And the other side was, at points, comically weak.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 4, 2008 4:02:46 PM
Chaos as an argument.
Emphasis mine *sigh*:
JUDGE: But you’re not suggesting that the 32 percent of lesbian couples mentioned in that survey of a few years ago are per se, unfit parents?
MAT STAVER: No, no we’re not, we’re not saying that at all, it’s not part of our argument. But we are saying that the state has a compelling interest in -- what happens differently in opposite sex relations vs. same sex relations, is the offspring of children. That is inevitably a difference that no matter whether we have artificial or reproductive assistance, we can’t get around. The state has a compelling interest to be able to channel that into responsible procreation, to channel that into having these children protected in a way that, same sex relations would not produce. SAME SEX RELATIONS WILL NOT ACCIDENTALLY, UNINTENTIONALLY, IN AN UNPLANNED FASHION, PRODUCE CHILDREN. But opposite sex relations, does have that as an incident of the natural relationship between a man and a woman.
--
Go nuts Jeremy! :)
Posted by: Emproph | Mar 4, 2008 6:01:17 PM
OK, I had only listened to one side at that point and then you posted more links, so I agree that the court was being argumentative in their questioning to both sides, which I hoped would be the case. So I will hold onto hope here...
Posted by: Todd | Mar 4, 2008 6:21:43 PM
I heard exactly as you did Jeremy, and thank you so much for the clips.
Minter was ON! Emphasizing that marriage is state constitution enshrined fundamental right of an individual to chose if and whom they will marry. This provides specific benefits to the couple and society as a whole. It is in the states interest to uphold and enforce this right, ...and restricting that right to anyone..based on any discriminatory trait is invalid and unconstitutional...PERIOD.
That's the gist I got...and I agree and applaud.
MD S4E California
Posted by: Orion45 | Mar 4, 2008 7:52:08 PM
wait, accidentally creating kids is a good thing? Since when is unplanned pregnancy the ideal circumstance?
All this indicates is that homosexual relationships have a certain advantage -- that same-sex couples raising kids are raising kids because they WANT to raise kids, and considering the hurdles for adoption and surrogacy -- they may even be BETTER parents in some respects than your average straight couple simply because there's a screening process beforehand that your average straight couple doesn't have to deal with.
Additionally, you're not going to see a gay couple with 7 unruly monsters for kids. We've all seen or known those straight couples that are as ignorant to birth control as they are to common sense, hygiene, respect, grammar, honesty, etc.
So straight couples can have their kids taken away if they do a really awful job, but gay couples have to start off ahead of the game. Sounds like a better parenting model to me.
Thanks Matt.
Posted by: Jason D | Apr 27, 2008 10:56:13 AM
comments powered by Disqus
