{"id":210,"date":"2010-06-16T05:44:34","date_gmt":"2010-06-16T05:44:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.adamflanders.com\/blog\/?p=210"},"modified":"2010-07-09T09:34:12","modified_gmt":"2010-07-09T09:34:12","slug":"last-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/2010\/06\/last-day\/","title":{"rendered":"Last Day"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\t\t\t\tAs 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 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pamshouseblend.com\">Pam&#8217;s House Blend<\/a>, and the full court-authorized transcript will be available by the end of the day.<br \/>\n\t\t\t\tIt 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 <i>every<\/i> 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!\u2026<br \/>\n<font color=\"red\">UPDATE &#8211; Closing Argument<\/font><\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Now, you can have a religious view that this<br \/>\nis not acceptable. You can have a religious view. It<br \/>\nwas true in the loving case. The argument was made that<br \/>\nit&#8217;s God&#8217;s will that people of different races not be<br \/>\nmarried. It&#8217;s in the briefs and it was in the testimony<br \/>\nin this trial, that people honestly felt that it was<br \/>\nwrong to mix the races, that it would dilute the value<br \/>\nof the race and do all of these terrible things. People<br \/>\nhonestly felt that way. But they were &#8212; they were &#8212;<br \/>\nthey were permitted under the constitution to think<br \/>\nthat.<br \/>\n<br \/>\n&#8220;But they are not permitted under the constitution<br \/>\nto put that law, that view, into the law, and to put<br \/>\nthat view into the constitution of their state in order<br \/>\nto discriminate against individuals.<br \/>\n<br \/>\n&#8220;I think, Your Honor, that this law is<br \/>\ndiscriminatory. The evidence is overwhelming that it<br \/>\nimposes great social harm on individuals who are our<br \/>\nequals. They are members of our society. They pay<br \/>\ntheir taxes. They want to form a household. They want<br \/>\nto raise their children in happiness, in the same way<br \/>\nthat their neighbors do.<br \/>\n<br \/>\n&#8220;We are imposing great damage<br \/>\non them by the institution of the State of California<br \/>\nsaying they are different. And they cannot have the<br \/>\nhappiness, they cannot have the privacy, they cannot<br \/>\nhave the liberty, they cannot have the intimate {SOERBS}<br \/>\nin the context of a marriage that the rest of our<br \/>\ncitizens do.<br \/>\n<br \/>\n&#8220;We have demonstrated during this trial that<br \/>\nthat causes grave and permanent irrelevant reppable and<br \/>\ntotally unnecessary harm. Because we are withholding<br \/>\nfrom them a part of an institution of marriage that we<br \/>\nhold &#8212; one of the language of one of those Supreme<br \/>\nCourt decisions is intimate {PHAES} to the point of<br \/>\nbeing sacred, that right of marriage in the context of<br \/>\nthe intimate relationship. We are withholding that from<br \/>\nthem, hurting them. And we are doing no good. If we<br \/>\nhad a reason, a really good reason for inflicting all of<br \/>\nthat harm that might be another matter. But there is no<br \/>\nreason that I heard.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&#8217;s House Blend, and the full court-authorized transcript will be available by the end of the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":239,"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210\/revisions\/239"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adamflanders.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}