As I type this, the final hearing in US District Court is being held concerning Perry v. Schwarzenegger AKA the Federal Prop.8 Trial. There is a live feed of the statements (in the form of a up-to-the-minute transcript) on Pam’s House Blend, and the full court-authorized transcript will be available by the end of the day.
It is expected that Judge Vaughn Walker, who is openly gay himself, will rule that Prop.8 is unconstitutional. This will begin the process of achieving nationwide marriage equality. That said, both the plaintiffs and defendants have vowed to take this case to the US Supreme Court, and that will be the final word, and, if favorable, will result in federally-recognized marriage equality in every state, regardless of votes or state laws. With DADT, ENDA, and SNDA also about to be decided, it is certainly an exciting time in history for the gay rights movement!…
UPDATE – Closing Argument
“Now, you can have a religious view that this
is not acceptable. You can have a religious view. It
was true in the loving case. The argument was made that
it’s God’s will that people of different races not be
married. It’s in the briefs and it was in the testimony
in this trial, that people honestly felt that it was
wrong to mix the races, that it would dilute the value
of the race and do all of these terrible things. People
honestly felt that way. But they were — they were —
they were permitted under the constitution to think
that.
“But they are not permitted under the constitution
to put that law, that view, into the law, and to put
that view into the constitution of their state in order
to discriminate against individuals.
“I think, Your Honor, that this law is
discriminatory. The evidence is overwhelming that it
imposes great social harm on individuals who are our
equals. They are members of our society. They pay
their taxes. They want to form a household. They want
to raise their children in happiness, in the same way
that their neighbors do.
“We are imposing great damage
on them by the institution of the State of California
saying they are different. And they cannot have the
happiness, they cannot have the privacy, they cannot
have the liberty, they cannot have the intimate {SOERBS}
in the context of a marriage that the rest of our
citizens do.
“We have demonstrated during this trial that
that causes grave and permanent irrelevant reppable and
totally unnecessary harm. Because we are withholding
from them a part of an institution of marriage that we
hold — one of the language of one of those Supreme
Court decisions is intimate {PHAES} to the point of
being sacred, that right of marriage in the context of
the intimate relationship. We are withholding that from
them, hurting them. And we are doing no good. If we
had a reason, a really good reason for inflicting all of
that harm that might be another matter. But there is no
reason that I heard.”