Prop8 - theater of the absurd #2

Oh !! The illogic of the ill logic !!

In the hearing yesterday on the defense petition to invalidate Judge Walker's ruling that Prop8 violated the U.S Constitution, the lawyers staked their claim of bias on their alleged fact that Judge Walker might want to marry the man he's been in a relationship with for ten years.

First, the Appeals Court judge holding the hearing sharply questioned the defense on whether they had any evidence that the judge wants to marry. They had none. So their whole case is based on a conjecture that might or might not be true.

Then -- to my ears -- this is really incriminating:

According to the New York Times article today:

Lawyers for supporters of the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, said the decision by Vaughan Walker . . . should be vacated. They maintain that he should have removed himself or disclosed his position on gay marriage in his own relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict.

Yes . . . that is true.

Anyone who has been denied rights and who suddenly gains them . . . is likely to benefit. As is the nation's soul and sense of fairness, as well as millions of children who can grow up in families with that stabilizing bond and all the tangible privileges and tax benefits that come with marriage.

It is also true that they are admitting that there IS a benefit to being able to marry.

I guess this proves once and for all that the old argument is dead -- the one that says that gay men and lesbians should be satisfied with civil unions because they provide the same benefits as marriage.

Yes, that one . . . is dead.

When your logic is screwy to start with, it's awfully hard to have it all come out making sense.

Ralph