The court case on gay marriage is as pivotal as Brown v. Board of Education

But the judge in the Proposition 8 case has a bizarre line of questioning for the litigants.

On Wednesday, we heard closing remarks in the landmark Proposition 8 case. Litigants in this case want to overturn Caifornia’s voter-approved ballot measure banning gay marriage. It’s not the final chapter in this case as it will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a history-setting case, no less important than Brown v. Board of Education. It is no less  pivotal than the national voting act. Regardless of which side you are leaning — in this case it is pretty clear that the judge appears to be leaning against gay marriage — he should at least be taking the case seriously.

But after hearing both sides present their case, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker introduced a superficial line of questioning, as if he had not been paying attention to the merits in the case at all.

Did he have to rule, he asked, that voters in favor of the proposition had “discriminatory motives” when they voted to amend the state Constitution and prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying? Isn’t domestic partnership sufficient for same-sex couples who want to spend their lives together?

And would the case before him now be different if gay marriage hadn’t been legal in California for five months, if an estimated 18,000 couples hadn’t legally married and remain legally married today?

OK, let’s begin with Stupid No.1: It is not necessary to prove motives but outcome. I may not intend to discriminate against disabled people, but if I operate a business that is not properly equipped with access for handicap people, denying them access to the business, that is against the law. You may not intend to discriminate against someone when operating a fraternal organization that bars women from entry, but the result is that women cannot be a part of your club. And you may not have intended to offend people of color by telling ethnic jokes in your place of business, but you created that outcome.

Motives are only important if they go to prove why someone perpetrated a crime or injustice, it cannot be used to determine whether a crime or injustice exist.

Stupid No.2) “Isn’t domestic partnership sufficient for same-sex couples who want to spend their lives together?” The judge is being disengenuous about domestic partnerships and utterly disrespectful.

In order to help him understand, here are some of the limitations of domestic partnerships:

• Domestic partnerships are not recognized in other states. Not all insurance carriers recognize domestic partnerships, nor are any employers required by law to recognize domestic partnerships in the same way they recognize marriage. Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.
• Immigration. A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
• Taxes. Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
• Benefits. The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, not all.

Gay marriage is undoubtedly a civil rights issue. Anyone who says differently is just an ignorant bigot. But more importantly, gay marriage, in my opinion, really seeks out clarity of the supposed separation of “Church and State.”

We, are a nation of people, yet even on our currency the words “Under God” are written. When we pledge allegiance, we again vow “One Nation Under God.”  We claim to have a clear separation of church and state, yet when it comes down to it, our judicial system gives precedence to how some “Christians” interpret God’s intent. Did God intend for a man to marry a man? Who cares? That’s not the point.

Marriage is a legal status. It’s traditional place in the church is entirely irrelevant. The fact that many religions view it as a religious ceremony is also entirely besides the point. Your interpretations about what God has willed, what God would sanction, and what is “holy in the eyes of the Lord” are also entirely besides the point.

The legal rights and privileges afforded married couples should not be denied to any U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens should not be forced into a separate class of people based upon religion, sex, gender, race, disability, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

If there really was a clear separation of church and state in this county, I think this issue would be much easier to litigate.

Read the story.