I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
As closing arguments ended Wednesday in the trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban of same-sex marriage, the judge in the case wanted to know why defenders of the initiative put up only one witness during the first phase of the trial, reports the San Jose Mercury News.
By comparison, the plaintiffs in the case — those who want Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional — put on two weeks of testimony; According to the Los Angeles Times, opponents of Proposition 8 called 16 witnesses, including the emotional testimony of the four plaintiffs, evidence from eight experts and “122 years of Supreme Court decisions.”
According to the San Jose Mercury News, Proposition 8 lead attorney Charles Cooper and other defenders of the initiative have relied on an argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples because the purpose of marriage is procreation. It is reasonable to deny opposite-sex couples marriage rights, they add. But during the first phase Cooper put on one witness “whom the judge is considering disregarding altogether because his credentials as an expert are in question,” the Mercury News reported.
And that one witness did not testify on the procreation argument, the paper added.
That gave Walker pause on Wednesday.
“What testimony in this case supports the proposition?” Walker asked.
“You don’t have to have evidence of this,” Cooper replied.
The judge then asked Cooper why it’s OK for the state to allow infertile couples to marry, but not gays and lesbians, according to the Mercury News.
Cooper answered that it’s not the same, saying that even infertile straight couples “further the traditions of marriage,” the paper reported.
Cooper’s proposition — that the purpose of marriage is for procreation — and his decision not to give any expert testimony to defend the argument brought a vigorous response from Olson.
“You have to have a reason,” Olson said of denying same-sex couples marriage rights. “I don’t know, and I don’t have any evidence, doesn’t cut it.”
