How very ... odd.
The judge who will decide the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage has refused to let San Francisco submit expert studies to counter their opponents' authorities, who contend that children need opposite- sex parents and that homosexuals can be cured.
The city fears that the presence of those declarations, without opposing evidence, might be used by an appellate court to justify the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a city lawyer said Monday. "We don't want that hateful stuff to go into the record without being responded to," said Deputy City Attorney Kathleen Morris, citing a declaration by a psychiatrist who described homosexuality as a mental disorder. Morris said the city still hopes to get its own declarations into the record reviewed by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer and the courts that review his ruling.
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. He said he intends to base his ruling on legal arguments, not factual disputes -- a signal that the judge may not think the statements already submitted contain anything that needs to be refuted. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Kramer or an appellate court will disregard the declarations. 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. The ADF represents the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of two organizations joining the state in defense of the law...
If the judge doesn't think that the statements contain information that needs to be refuted, and if he knows already that he doesn't plan to use them in his decision, then why would he allow them into the record? What would be the point?Posted by iain at December 30, 2004 04:05 AM