COVERITLIVE.COM

12:06

Okay sorry to start late. ABC local feed giving me a seizure. Also I love that the Court asked to clarify, "right TO marry" or "right TO BE married."

12:10

Obv this is the plaintiff. The gays. Pushing the "second class citizen" line hard. Prop 8 denies standing "of equal stature and dignity." Judge asks how Prop 8 hurts gays if the proposition itself SAYS no rights are taken away. Plaintiff (his name, anyone?): Marriage is more than the mechanical sum of its parts. Mechanical sum sounds vaguely dirty. Which is good.

12:11

The constitutional aspect he's pushing -- divorced from the justness of the law, kind of -- is that the vote would "Establish [the precendent that] a majority can take away a right from a subset of group that is defined by a suspect class."

12:12

Who knew so many foreigners were on the CA Supreme Court? (Accents aplenty!)

12:13

Okay they're literally for some reason counting words. Apparently it matters when talking about changes to the CA constitution. Judge: "14 words do not alter the basic structure of the consistution."

12:14

I'm actually not so sure abou that. But she is hearing his argument that it is a significant QUALITATIVE change.

12:17

Bald judge says "what if the gay rights groups had succeeded" w/r/t Prop 8. I am immediately suspect. Marginalizing those who opposed Prop 8 as simply "gay rights" supporters. They were HUMAN RIGHTS supporters.

12:19

What I love about constiutional arguments? You hear words like "animating spirit" and "the genius of our founding documents." Another reason to love this country, IMHO.

12:20

Court pushing the idea that marriage is "just a word." I wish it were so.

12:21

A judge JUST made the argument that I love but will never come true: No one gets married by the state. We ALL have civil unions, you get married in a church.

Page 1 Next >