Raymond Marshall finishes. Marshall, an African-American, compares this phony argument about an oppressed minority, homosexuals in this case, puts other opprressed minorities at risk of losing their equal protections.
There has also been talk with the first two petitioners about Revision (via Article 18) vs Amendment.
Michael Maroko, Tyler Petitioner, up. Talk of domestic partnership... one justice (Chin) says Prop 8 did not affect that status. Talk of religious origins and definition of terms, marriage vs something else. Maroko continues the equal protection nonsense. Article 1, Section 1. If gay couples don’t have the right to marry, then neither should heterosexual couples.
Justice Kennard asks Maroko to cite one case; cites Mulkey case (prop 14). Prop 8 is unique. Maroko has tendency to say “heterosexual” when he means “homosexual.”
Another Justice (female, didn’t catch her name): The answer is no, there has been no case of a constitutional amendment taking away “rights” from a minority. This is a unique case.
Chief Justice George: Prop 209 (”on affirmative action”), bussing written into equal protection clause. Maroko argues those cases were “remedies.”
Maroko makes phony anti-inter-racial marriage proposition hypothetical.
“Suspect class” often refered to in these arguments today regarding perported oppressed minority.
Justice Kennard asks about Validity of marriages perform before passage of Prop 8. Only a marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California. Maroko claims Prop 8 wouldn’t void the homosexual marriage already performed. But the language is ambiguous regarding this.