Marriage Arguments Heard in California

I have just finished listening to arguments as to why Proposition 8 in California should or should not be repealed.   As anticipated, I found a great deal of posturing, and a severe lack of presentation as to why this measure should be invalidated.

With the exception of California Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, who of course was speaking in support of a repeal on the same-sex marriage ban, most were well spoken, and made concise points for opening arguments.  Krueger on the other hand, spoke as though he was a nervous college student giving a first time public speech.  He simply appeared to be out of his league.

Kenneth Starr, is leading the case for Proposition 8, who opposes same-sex marriage, threw out such rhetoric as; all we are asking is to “restore the traditional definition that has been in place since the beginning”, “opinions have integrity” and “let us protect the integrity of the structure” and of course,  “rights are ultimately defined by the people”.

Starr also stated it is not the court’s place to determine what marriage is or isn’t.  He attempted to compare allowing same-sex marriage rights to the right of being able to scalp tickets??  (I’m not sure what that was about!)  Starr was asked by the justices whether or not Prop 8 invalidates the marriages that took place prior to the passing of Prop 8, and he said “no, is doesn’t invalidate, it simply just doesn’t recognize” those marriages.  But then he turned around and said yes, Prop 8 does make those marriages no longer valid.   So I’m not sure what he was really trying to say other than he supports bigotry and inequality.

Two points I would like to make…even though there was nothing new brought up today that was groundbreaking or unequivocally convincing, there were two points not brought up.  I feel they are very important points and should not have been overlooked.

One, unless I totally missed it, it wasn’t mentioned that this is a civil rights issue and because of that, such decisions should not be left up to the vote of the people.

Secondly, it was mentioned that this was the will of the people.  However, it was not once mentioned that not all people in the state of California voted, therefore, unless you have a 100% turnout, I don’t see how you can truly claim it to be the will of the people.  I am well aware that a majority of those who did vote made the decision, but I am stand firm that unless you have 100% voter turnout, then you can not say it was the will of the people.  All you can say is that was the will of the majority of those who did vote.   Yes this is a grey area, but the fact remains, it’s only the will of a majority (small majority) of those who actually voted, not the people.  I feel strongly there is a difference.  Some may say I’m just mincing words, but if I’m guilty of that, I’m not guilty of doing anything different than those who are working to prevent all people from having equal rights.

Either way, if Proposition 8 stands, the court system has failed, as civil rights and equality, should never be left up to a vote.

What’s your opinion?