Meet Gay Professionals.com Provides Commentary on Prop 8 Argument

Meet Gay Professionals.com Provides Commentary on Prop 8 Argument

The oral arguments took place today at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There were two issues being argued by some of the best lawyers in the country. First, there was a question about whether or not the official proponents of proposition 8 or the Deputy County Clerk of Imperial County had standing to appeal the lower court's decision in federal court. Second, there was the issue of whether or not the enactment of Proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The first issue began with the Attorney for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of proposition 8. Although he admitted that there was no specific case law granting the proponents' standing to appear in federal court, he argued that the unique circumstances of this case warranted a decision in their favor. The judges seemed to be receptive to these arguments and will likely rule to allow the appeal to move forward.

Then, the attorney for the Deputy Clerk of Imperial County began his argument (or lack thereof). The judges dismantled his argument, and his clients' standing in the case, at every single step. They even went so far as to admonish him for refusing to admit he didn't know the answer to some of the questions. Undoubtedly, Imperial County will no longer be a part of this case.

The plaintiffs in this case then argued against ProtectMarriage.com's right to appeal the case. Some excellent arguments were made, but by the end, the judges appeared to have already made up their minds that they were either going to allow the appeal or ask the State Supreme Court to determine whether ProtectMarriage.com has standing.

Finally, the merits of the case were argued. In legalese, this means that the two sides had a limited amount of time to debate the issue of whether there is any rational reason to deny the right to marry to gay couples.

Arguments began with the ProtectMarriage.com Attorney again whose argument centered on one key concern, that reserving the title of marriage to only those who can reproduce furthers the interests in society by preventing children from being born in unstable homes.

However, the plaintiffs were quick to point out the absence of logic in this argument as were some of the judges. After all, how does preventing two people from getting married encourage two other people not to have children out of wedlock and in unstable homes? One judge even stated "It sounds like you are making a very good argument against divorce but not against same-sex marriage."

After all of the arguments were over, it appeared as if the judges favored the plaintiff's case. It seems as if they are prepared to narrowly rule that it is unconstitutional to take away a right that once existed without any rational basis, or reason for doing so. Pundits will argue the issue online and in the media for days. But after all is said and done, three judges will try to make logical arguments to support their own opinions. Sometimes our justice system is beautiful. Today was one of those times.

For more information visit Meet Gay Professionals

POST COMMENT

Vocational Opportunities In China Increased Channel Bottleneck Coveted Foreign Universities - Graphic Design Jobs And Careers Working Out To Lose Weght Will Help You Starbucks Job Application – A Prospective Guide for Future Applicants What Type Of Professional Makeup Artist Do You Want To Be? Benefits of Hiring Professional Movers Translation Professionals: Expertise in giving Best Professional Translation Services Air Purifiers Biozone 2000 Air Purifier for Larger Purification Jobs Certified Nursing Assistant - A Job Opportunity to Serve People Invest Time Into Research Before Using Your Investor Green Card at a Regional Center New Job Search? Keep It Positive! Honest And Professional Etoro Forex Broker Professionals That Will Buy Your Car