A Great No Hate Prop 8 Update

California's Prop 8 gay marriage ban went before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit yesterday for oral arguments, and the pro-Prop 8 folks got nuked like a pizza roll in a microwave.

The first half of the hearing focused on standing. The same-sex marriage opponents argued that, as proponents of the Prop 8 ballot initiative, they have standing in the case, although according to Mercury News, a lawyer offered no case precedent for that.

Judge Randy Smith, the most conservative of the three judges, suggested the panel ask the California Supreme Court for an opinion as to whether they have standing. Smith argued, according to the L.A. Times, that Schwarzenegger and Brown had effectively vetoed the proposition by not appealing the case -- something they have no authority to do.

The second half focused on the constitutionality of the ban, with both sides making familiar arguments. Same-sex marriage opponents argued that the state has a "rational basis" on which to outlaw same-sex marriage because marriage is basically a vehicle for procreation.

Same-sex marriage supporters, lead by Ted Olson, argued that it's a civil rights issue and that sexuality is not a choice.

Other legal questions in the case include whether the deputy clerk of Imperial County has the standing to appeal the district courts ruling, and whether that ruling affects all of California or just the two counties where the two plaintiff-couples tried to get marriage licenses. 

Standing question aside, marriage is a vehicle for procreation?  That's the best argument you can make against gay marriage?  Are we legislating now that only married couples can produce children and have to do so?  That's the most asinine argument I've heard.  How does allowing same-sex marriage prevent other marriages from procreation?  Condom commando raids?  Drive-by IUD implantation?

Loving v. Virginia should have settled this question years ago.  There's just no rational, legal reason to uphold the ban.