http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8452859.stm

 

The first US federal court case to determine whether states are allowed to ban same-sex marriages has opened in San Francisco, California.

 

Any ruling reached is expected to be challenged, possibly taking the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.

 

A Supreme Court ruling would determine the fate of gay marriages nationwide, without the possibility of appeal.

 

The suit, filed by two gay couples, challenges Proposition 8 - a ban on gay marriage in the state of California.

 

The law amended California's constitution to restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

 

Supporters of the challenge are comparing it to landmark cases which ended segregation in US schools and overturned a ban on interracial marriage, the BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani reports.

 

They say the Constitution enshrines the right to marry but, by limiting it to heterosexual couples, it discriminates against gay people.

 

'Social fabric'

 

Backers of Proposition 8 say the federal case is the latest attempt to overturn what they say is the will of the people as expressed by the 52% who backed the amendment in a 2008 referendum.

 

Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker will have to decide whether the ban on same-sex marriage in California is constitutional.

 

The case is being argued by high-profile lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies.

 

Proceedings opened on Monday with testimony from two plaintiffs in the case, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, who wed in California 2004 only to have their union later declared invalid.

 

Ms Stier said that being allowed to wed her partner would "provide me with a sense of inclusion in the social fabric of the society I live in".

 

"I want our children to feel proud of us," she told the court. "I don't want them to worry about us."

 

Kristen Perry said: "I want it to happen to me. The state isn't letting me feel happy."

 

Paul Katami and his partner Jeffrey Zarrillo described slights in gay life that ranged from being pelted with stones and eggs in college to the awkwardness of checking into a hotel and not being able to clarify the relationship.

 

 

"Being able to call him my husband is so definitive," Mr Katami said. "There is no subtlety to it. It is absolute."

 

Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against the gay community, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.

 

"This lawsuit is an attempt by Judge Walker to put the voters of California on trial, and it's wrong," said Brian Brown, director of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage.

 

"I think our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that the constitution guarantees the right to redefine marriage," he told AFP news agency.

 

'Media circus'

 

The pros and cons of broadcasting the proceedings have become an issue of debate.

 

People backing both sides of the debate gathered as the trial began

 

Less than two hours before the trial was started, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a plan to post video of the proceeding on the internet site YouTube.

 

The Supreme Court complied with an emergency request by lawyers who had argued that broadcasting the trial would turn it into a media circus.

 

The court has blocked the broadcast until Wednesday afternoon to allow for further consideration of the arguments brought by both sides.

 

Judge Walker had agreed to the taping after a recent rule change allowed for televised coverage of some civil cases.

 

He said the case was appropriate for wide dissemination because it dealt with an issue of wide interest and importance.

 

 

I totally support them in their cause against the Man. Gays of California: Fight the power!

And if they win it will be a milestone for gays and lesbians and of course everyone will celebrate for a few weeks. Then everything will go back to the way it was. Which makes me wonder why there is such a need for court case for gays to get married apart from getting attention.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES.

 

This makes me extremely happy. I'm an avid supporter of gay rights, and I'm crossing my fingers.

VIVE LA REVOLUCION!

 

(go gays!)

 

If african americans can fight for their rights, and be recognized as human beings, than homosexuals can fight for their rights and be recognized as wed lovers.

 

Hopefully we won't need a civil war over this one though.

Spiffy. :)

 

Now we just have to hope it turns out well!

You know, when they say this must make the founding Fathers of the U.S. roll in their graves, I wonder...Is it because they value the freedom of marriage, or because they were homophobes? When you consider what society was like then, it's quite possible they grew up with prejudice originating form society's hatred towards homosexuals.

 

Not that anyone can probably ever know for sure, but its food for thought.

 

Personally I see no reason to disallow it. If they're living together, marriage is only a technicality anyways. *(In my opinion,)

You know, when they say this must make the founding Fathers of the U.S. roll in their graves, I wonder...Is it because they value the freedom of marriage, or because they were homophobes? When you consider what society was like then, it's quite possible they grew up with prejudice originating form society's hatred towards homosexuals.

 

Yeah. That was really the one thing that bothered me with the article. The Founding Fathers supported slavery and Indian Removal. Politics back then dealt with slavery and the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race. That's a different topic, though. I doubt that they would've supported gay marriage. That's just how it was back then.

I don't see why people want to be defined by an organization that discriminates against them, just to fit in. That said, I dont see why gays need the title of marriage... Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's the definition of it. Gaya should instead make a new super awesome type of bond and make it cooler and more important than that stupid "marriage" thing.

The institution of marriage has increasingly become more and more trash over the past 10 years. And its not just gays wanting to marry, its divorce, its premarital relations, its extramarital affairs, impure materials to impure actions.

 

 

I wonder how long it'll take for someone to try and marry their dog. Probably in 20 years.

 

Sorry if my beliefs aren't popular. No, actually, I don't apologize that my beliefs aren't popular, because I'm saddened that they're not. And don't try to tell me that I'm just intolerant, ignorant, or prejudiced. You who are politically correct offend me.

 

 

Anyhow, you know why the Supreme Court ruled that the court dialogues weren't to be put on YouTube? It's because they feared for the safety and the well being of those who testified. Keep that in mind if you chose to reply to me; I'd hate to see the highest court in the land be right for once.

Wow, there's a national organization for marriage. I'm just surprised this didn't happen sooner. People need to start seeing the world changes around them and just let it happen. They only passed the ban by 4%, that's a really small margin and i'd bet only 20% of that 53% were set in their beliefs.

 

I'm all for it, keep on fighting for your rights people.

This better go through. Gays are people too they deserve every little [bleep]ing right that anyone else has. Yeah this stupid issue pissed me off pretty bad.

We gays should be forging our own path, not trying to live up to the straight person's standards.

It just sickens me to see gay people trying achieve equality by showing themselves to be inferior to their straight counterpart.

I would be more impressed by the title 'Federal court overhauls marriage to be fair' OR 'Federal court allows religious groups religious freedom to marry whoever they want to.'

VIVE LA REVOLUCION!

 

(go gays!)

 

If african americans can fight for their rights, and be recognized as human beings, than homosexuals can fight for their rights and be recognized as wed lovers.

 

Hopefully we won't need a civil war over this one though.

 

1. Civil war was NOT over slavery. Public schools teach this, sadly. It was, in fact, over states rights, including taxation, etc.

 

2. Comparing an ethnic minority to a group of people with a different sexual behavior is asinine.

 

3. Although I believe that people are free to chose their sexual lifestyle, I don't believe this is "marriage". Honestly, there really is a huge difference. Call it something up, hell, invent some new name. But marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, among other things.

 

However, I will grant that marriage has lost much of its meaning, as it is. VERY high divorce rates, premarital sex, extramarital.

 

Another thing...I am not a homophobe because I disagree with the gay lifestyle. A phobia is an irrational fear, which I do not have of gays.

 

Sort of off topic, but activist judges really make me mad.

I agree that gays and lesbians should have the right to become a couple, but this makes marriage lose its purpose.

Marriage is supposed to be one male and one female, so that the two can become a family. Unless you adopt kids, this is simply not possible with two of the same gender.

 

Though, marriage has lost its original meaning now, with all this divorce, cheating on others, sex before marriage, etc.

 

But the saying goes, "Change is nature." We'll just have to wait and see.

I don't see why people want to be defined by an organization that discriminates against them, just to fit in. That said, I dont see why gays need the title of marriage... Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's the definition of it. Gaya should instead make a new super awesome type of bond and make it cooler and more important than that stupid "marriage" thing.

Gayriage?

 

It would be cool to stick it to the man like that. Make something better than marriage.

I like the people in this thread who argue that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, but admit that it's not.

I like the people in this thread who argue that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, but admit that it's not.

Huh? No one's saying that. Maybe some might believe that two people of the same sex can have as meaningful a relationship as two of the opposite, but they're not saying that marriage can or should be defined as something it's not.

I like the people in this thread who argue that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, but admit that it's not.

People are saying that the word marriage is to define the union of a man and a woman, they aren't against the coupling of a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but are saying that it should be called something else. Which is also how I view the matter.

I wonder about the age bracket of the gay people who want to get married. It really seems to me that it's a dying institution that doesn't really figure in to the minds of the young. As a young straight man I don't think I have any friends who are particularly concerned with or even like the idea of getting married, and I've got to assume that this idea is even more prevalent in the gay community. Of course it's easy to say that everyone thinks this way when they're young, but I think statistics would be on my side. I can't help but feel as if they're fighting for a right that's going to be undesirable in the not too distant future.

 

Of course I still think they should be able to marry if they want to, I just wonder why people would want to.

I wonder about the age bracket of the gay people who want to get married. It really seems to me that it's a dying institution that doesn't really figure in to the minds of the young. As a young straight man I don't think I have any friends who are particularly concerned with or even like the idea of getting married, and I've got to assume that this idea is even more prevalent in the gay community. Of course it's easy to say that everyone thinks this way when they're young, but I think statistics would be on my side. I can't help but feel as if they're fighting for a right that's going to be undesirable in the not too distant future.

 

Of course I still think they should be able to marry if they want to, I just wonder why people would want to.

Marriage is a way of telling people "Back off, I have found my partner for life." It also shows your lover that you just want them, all you need is them. Also keep the misses happy. ;)

 

But hey, what would I know? I'm just an observant teen. (Not aimed at you Lateralus.)

Is the point of marriage to get the legal rights or to get a blessing from God?

Why can't we just form another "institution" that does the former (for gays too), then the religious people shouldn't have anything to rant about?

this is a point that has bugged me for some time

 

Good news

 

I wonder when polygamy will become socially accepted in the west.

I view "marriage" in two separate lights: The religious sense and the legal sense. The legal sense is all that matters to the federal courts, and I believe that gay marriage should be legally possible. After all, all it really does is provide two individuals with certain tax benefits because they choose to commit to live their lives together.

 

In the religious sense is where the "one man, one woman" thing comes up. I must say that when it comes right down to it, this is what I believe. However, in the legal world, I fully support the right of a gay couple to get a marriage license and all the benefits that go with it. Anything else would just be silly because the legal institution of marriage serves no real purpose.

This isn't about marriage, this is about being viewed equally under the eyes of the law; it's called the 14th amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause.

 

Lol @ "The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman." Bollocks, its definition has changed throughout history time and time again:

 

Regardless of the vastly shifting opinions of the past, even in your comic strip marriage has always been between a man and a woman, the only difference was who was allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. By allowing gays to take part in "marriage" you're not doing what each panel of that comic did, which was just altering the level of inclusion in the core heterosexual ceremony. No, what you're doing is destroying the core itself and changing the entire definition to an inclusion of any two people. That's what everyone is freaking out about, it's a technical redefiniton of a very important tradition in society.

Why do people want Gay Marriage?

Over the past 50 years, legislatures have worked hard to give benefits to the nuclear family - a mom, a dad, and kids. Tax benefits. Not having to testify against your spouse. Insurance benefits. Inheritance laws from wills. The list goes on; these rules have developed slowly. If gays are able to be married, they get all of these privileges in one fell swoop.

As much as they hate to say it, Its about money.

 

Of course everyone will say "We want equal protection under the law", or "We want the respect of others". Naming it marriage won't give you that. Newsflash, there are still bigots who are racist. It isn't illegal to be racist. Calling it marriage might not make it acceptable in everyone's eyes. Some people like to use the phrase - "You can't legislate morality" -- they'll usually use that argument when relating abortion to prohibition. As much as I hate that statement, it is to some extent true - you can't make a person believe things are right or wrong. But here's a phrase that's even better - You can't legislate respect.

 

edit:changed rights to privileges.