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.

12:23

Response to that argument: That would be fine, because the state would not be allowing a majority to treat a suspect class (TEH GAYS) differently.

12:25

Mr. Marshall validating the argument that a majority of CA voters have altered the Constitution to change the rights of a minority. Is he bad guy or a good guy? I'm lost. STROBING ABC FEED NOT HELPING.

12:25

[Comment From Rev]
The "Married in a church" line is untrue as well. Churches don't do marriages, they perform weddings.

12:26

Rev: I guess my point is that you would go to a church to have a sacrement performed that would result in "marriage," but that the state only licensed civil unions.

12:27

[Comment From Jeff]
These accents make me feel like I'm watching a live feed from The Hague.

12:27

Isn't it weird? MICHELLE MALKIN HAVING HEART PALPATATIONS ABOUT THE FOREIGNERS.

12:27

[Comment From chicky]
i thought they each got 20min for their arguments -- seems like the judges are taking up an awful lot of their arguing time...

12:28

I think judges like to hear themselves talk. To be fair, they often know what they're talking about.

12:28

[Comment From HMS Nerd]
The issue of the constitutionality of a referendum that takes away the rights of a specific group is the central point the plaintiff will hammer. (e.g. prepare to hear: 'what if the people of California said black people couldn't marry? would that comport with equal protection?')

12:29

THANK YOU NERD. Seriously, very helpful. And it seems like a justifiable comparison to me, but WTF why are on death penalty now? If I were a gay person I would be worried...

Page 1 Next >