1- Since the Supreme court is hearing a case considering the constitutionality of California's proposition 8.
2- And since major fiduciary proponents of proposition 8 (as well as their money) came from Utah.
3- And since those moneys were invested in California's proposition 8 instead of local improvements.
4- I decided it was worthwhile to look over the oral arguments in favor of proposition 8.
One element of the whole marriage issue that has always puzzled me is what harm can possibly come solely as a result of the generic marriage of two people. There are most certainly many cases of two specific people who should not get married, but those are often matters of taste, and are not addressed by proposition 8.
It is not until page 18 of the transcripts that the attorney for the proponents of proposition 8 gets down to detailing what harm same-sex marriage will cause. Here is the section of the transcript where Mr. Cooper explains:
"The first one is this: The Plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences, and that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. And among those real-world consequences, Your Honor, we would suggest are adverse consequences. But consider the California voter, in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of -- of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. That is reason enough, Your Honor, that would hardly be irrational for that voter to say, I believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in Massachusetts, the oldest State that is conducting it, to say, I think it better for California to hit the pause button and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing."
And on page 20 he explains what the standard for knowing there is no harm should be:
"it is the Respondents' responsibility to prove, under rational basis review, not only that -- that there clearly will be no harm, but that it's beyond debate that there will be no harm."
So we can debate issues on the basis of not accurately knowing exacly what the future will be, and we cannot responsably prove that there will be no harm from something as long as we can debate it, and that is enough proof of harm for something to be defined as something that will produce harm. This logical scatology is the best reasoning the opponents of same sex marriage could come up with. Once one strips the "The Bible Says" out of the arguments there is absolutely no substance.
In an interesting exchange during the proponent's arguments it is suggested that the state supports marriage because of it's link to procreation, and that without the possibility of procreation the state is harmed by supporting marriage. Should the state be allowed to issue marriage liscenses to persons too old to responsibly procreate? No marriages for people over the age of 80, or maybe 70, or 65, or 60?
Maybe 55 will be the new gay?