Pacific Pride Festival 2010

Paul Wellman

Pacific Pride Festival 2010

LISTEN: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Case

Full 80-Minute Recording Now Available

Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. Below is the full 80-minute audio recording. In it attorneys for the plaintiffs, Theodore Olson and David Boies, face off against Dennis Hollingsworth of Olson and Boies represent Kristin Perry who, with her partner Sandra Stier, was denied a marriage license in Berkley. They’re challenging the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban.

LISTEN: Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments

Later today in Santa Barbara, Pacific Pride Foundation will host a Rally for Marriage Equality at 5:30 p.m. at the county courthouse. Expected to attend are Congresswoman Lois Capps, Mayor Helene Schneider, Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Second District Supervisor Janet Wolf, and a number of S.B. community members.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Thank you for that. I expect few listeners for the whole thing but probably one of the best and most significant oral arguments before the Court of all time. Olsen may be the best Counsel before the Supreme Court ever.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2013 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The issue may not be gay marriage itself but whether the plaintiffs have standing to file the complaint. Since the state of CA declined to appeal the lower court decision, the proponents of prop 8 decided to take the matter before SCOTUS itself. The plaintiffs case may be thrown out by SCOTUS because the court may find that the plaintiffs don't have standing to make the complaint. If that happens, it would invalidate prop 8 in CA but leave intact gay marriage bans that exist in other states.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2013 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is that marriage has a hybrid status in our society. On one hand, it is a religious sacrament, and Churches have the right to their dogma, no matter how bigoted.
On the other hand, marriage confers certain social privileges, including tax advantages, spousal benefits, etc..., and it is totally unacceptable for the State to withhold some rights from some of its citizens because they are homosexual. Sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a crime. As long as the relationship is between two consenting adults, the State has no business interfering.
Maybe we ought to remove the word "marriage" and "married" as a status from all government documents, and replace them by a phrase that has no religious meaning. Churches can then restrict marriage however they see fit, and we all can chose to worship with bigots or not, as we see fit.

blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2013 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Call it "garriage". The name does not matter.

"Marriage" is an intuition that originally had NOTHING to do with religions or the baseless whims of dogmatic delusionists. It was a means for forming alliances and handing down property.

What does matter is equal protection and equal legal status for ALL who wish to form civil and dedicated unions that are afforded ALL rights and privileges as currently extended to and enjoyed by those whose unions ARE recognized in the eyes of relevant state & federal entities.

Draxor (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2013 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am astonished that California, of all states, does not allow gay marriage. Iowa does, for cryin' out loud.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2013 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who signed DOMA?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2013 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The government should have no business defining marriage.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2013 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The conundrum is that government and private entities bestow privileges based on marital status.

Looking at it from that practical viewpoint, one conclusion might be that religions should not be defining marriage.

An alternative would be to bestow zero privileges based on marital status. But then your spouse would no longer be covered by your employer-provided health benefits (as an example).

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2013 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, BC, it was Clinton who signed it, and now he's proclaimed he was wrong and regrets it mightily. Yes, it's crazy California doesn't allow gay marriage when even states like Iowa do.
Agree with blackpoodles that it's the hybrid status of this term which creates this chaotic situation, and removing the ambiguous term from government's lingo might help. 'Life-partners' or some such term could cover the types of situations EB mentions.
Ronald Dworkin's latest (and last) book, RELIGION WITHOUT GOD, applies to some of this, particularly Draxor's point.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 27, 2013 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: