-
이제 closing argument가 끝나고 판사의 판결만을 기다리고 있나봅니다.재판 중 일부입니다. prop8 defense측에서 아이 낳는 문제를 메인 argument로 삼는 것 같은데 판사가 정곡을 찌르는 질문을 했네요. 동시에 prop 8은 비이성적이고 적대적인 편견에서 나온 것이라는 원고측 변호사의 말을 prop8에 찬성한 다수 주민들에 대한 모욕이라고 일침을 놓았네요.어떤 판결이 나오든 결과에 격하게 항의하는 사람들이 많겠네요.어떻게 될지 흥미롭군요..
Walker continually pressed the sometimes flustered Cooper on just what marriage means and why the state should care about it. Why does the state regulate marriage, he asked. Do people get married to benefit the community? Why doesn’t the state just consider it a private contract?
Walker: “Why is it that marriage has such a large public role? What is the purpose?”
Cooper: “This relationship is crucial to the public interest.… Procreative sexual relations both are an enormous benefit to society and represent a very real threat to society’s interest.”
Walker: “Threat?”
Cooper: “If children are born into the world without this stable, marital union … both of the parents that brought them into the world, then a host of very important, very negative social implications arise…. The purpose of marriage is to provide society’s approval to that sexual relationship and to the actual production of children.”
Walker: “But the state doesn’t withhold marriage from people who cannot have children.”
Cooper: “It does not.”
Walker: “Are you saying the state should?”
Cooper took Theodore Olson, attorney for the gay and lesbian couples who filed suit against Proposition 8, to task for claiming that Californians could support the ban on same-sex marriage only “through irrational or dark motive, some animus, some kind of bigotry.”
He called Olson’s characterization a “slur” on the millions of Americans who voted for the ballot measure in 2008 and “a slur on 70 of 108 judges who have upheld as rational the decisions by voters and legislators to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.”
Olson’s viewpoint, Cooper said, “denies the good faith of Congress, of state legislature after state legislature and electorate after electorate.”
To which Walker responded: “If you have 7 million Californians, 70 judges and this long history, why in this case did you present but one witness? … You had a lot to choose from. One witness, and it was fair to say his testimony was equivocal.”
A ruling in the case is expected sometime this summerfrom LA times blog