(no subject)
Dec. 31st, 2004 10:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingSuperior Court Judge Richard Kramer, the judge who will decide the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage has refused to let the city of San Francisco submit expert studies about homosexuality.
He has, however, allowed "evidence" from the opposition that includes:
-- Jeffrey Satinover, a Princeton University lecturer and psychiatrist who specializes in "reparative therapy'' for gays, saying the American Psychiatric Association was misled into removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973.
-- Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas, leaders of a group called Exodus International, describing their "successful transformation from homosexuality to heterosexuality.''
-- Katherine Young, professor of religion at McGill University in Montreal, saying that "children need a parent of each sex'' because of inherent differences between men and women.
-- George Rekers, a psychologist and professor at the University of South Carolina, saying studies show children do better with heterosexual than with homosexual parents.
Morris, one of the city's lawyers, said the declarations were largely based on stereotypes and "contradicted by science.''
Last week, Kramer refused to remove the declarations by opponents of same- sex marriage from the case file or to let the city present contrary authorities.
A lawyer for opponents of same-sex marriage said the purpose of the sworn statements was not to establish facts about marriage or families but to show Kramer that there were possible rational grounds for the marriage law.
If the judge agrees with the legal test urged by defenders of the state law, "the city would have to show that all possible bases for the marriage laws were irrational,'' said Byron Babione, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, ruling that there are "rational grounds" for the marriage laws is easy when you ignore the facts and refuse to consider the evidence.
He has, however, allowed "evidence" from the opposition that includes:
-- Jeffrey Satinover, a Princeton University lecturer and psychiatrist who specializes in "reparative therapy'' for gays, saying the American Psychiatric Association was misled into removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973.
-- Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas, leaders of a group called Exodus International, describing their "successful transformation from homosexuality to heterosexuality.''
-- Katherine Young, professor of religion at McGill University in Montreal, saying that "children need a parent of each sex'' because of inherent differences between men and women.
-- George Rekers, a psychologist and professor at the University of South Carolina, saying studies show children do better with heterosexual than with homosexual parents.
Morris, one of the city's lawyers, said the declarations were largely based on stereotypes and "contradicted by science.''
Last week, Kramer refused to remove the declarations by opponents of same- sex marriage from the case file or to let the city present contrary authorities.
A lawyer for opponents of same-sex marriage said the purpose of the sworn statements was not to establish facts about marriage or families but to show Kramer that there were possible rational grounds for the marriage law.
If the judge agrees with the legal test urged by defenders of the state law, "the city would have to show that all possible bases for the marriage laws were irrational,'' said Byron Babione, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, ruling that there are "rational grounds" for the marriage laws is easy when you ignore the facts and refuse to consider the evidence.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-31 04:02 pm (UTC)Which is why single parent families are also outlawed.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-31 04:13 pm (UTC)She's worried about they gays reproducing ASEXUALLY - that would just make the kid warped, because producing a child without enough chromosomes would probably be bad for the kid.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-31 04:32 pm (UTC)This one's also pretty good in that my guess is that kids with homosexual parents don't do as well because they're facing an unreasoning public, not because homosexuals are inherently worse parents.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-31 05:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-12-31 05:21 pm (UTC)Such as, for example, that giving gay people pensions or hospital visitation rights will destroy the universe. That's a rational reason, in the eyes of the law, to deny those rights to gay people. "Because God said so" is not a rational reason.
The defense is attempting to make the standard of proof be that the pro-marriage people must show that *all* arguments in favour of hetero-only marriage are irrational.
Of course, all arguments in favour of hetero-only marriage ARE irrational. The thing is, the judge is denying the pro-marriage people the ability to refute these arguments because he is allowing only one side to present "expert" opinions.
In his defense, the judge has also *not* said that he is accepting the defense's claim about the standard of proof required, and he has said that he is uninterested in these claims on both sides, only in the legal matters. Of course, he's still allowed one side to present it's case and not the other, when he should have denied those arguments from *both* sides if what he's saying is true.
Who knows, maybe he's realised the first side was wasting his time, and doesn't want mroe time wasted. He'd be better off striking the irrelevant crap fro the record if that was the case, though, so it does not look good for his alleged impartiality.