QUESTION: At the Prop 8 trial, there seem to have been many arguments from both sides about the prejudices and/or political power gays and lesbians may face, as well as posturing about what marriage should mean. But all of these arguments (1) seem irrelevant, in light of the issue of standing, since they address generalized issues rather than a "particularized" interest for the particular plaintiffs, and (2) not really on point, that they don't address plaintiffs are harmed if they are denied married status. So is this testimony merely being admitted because of the widespread popular interest?
ANSWER: Actually, these arguments are quite relevant to what is at issue, but as you rightly point out, they are not relevant to whether the plaintiffs have standing. There are two points to understand in response to the question:
1. The parties at the Prop 8 trial have not been arguing about standing. The two sets of plaintiffs seek to be married, and they were denied marriage certificates by the State. Thus, the plaitiffs have an injury in fact caused by Prop 8 that would be redressed by having Prop 8 declared unconstitutional. In short, they seek the legal status of marriage, and the government is denying them this right. Standing law does not demand they show that what they seek will actually benefit them some deeper sense (life-long bliss, or what have you). So yes, the testimony is indeed irrelevant to standing, but that is because standing is clearly satisfied and thus not at issue.
ANSWER: Actually, these arguments are quite relevant to what is at issue, but as you rightly point out, they are not relevant to whether the plaintiffs have standing. There are two points to understand in response to the question:
1. The parties at the Prop 8 trial have not been arguing about standing. The two sets of plaintiffs seek to be married, and they were denied marriage certificates by the State. Thus, the plaitiffs have an injury in fact caused by Prop 8 that would be redressed by having Prop 8 declared unconstitutional. In short, they seek the legal status of marriage, and the government is denying them this right. Standing law does not demand they show that what they seek will actually benefit them some deeper sense (life-long bliss, or what have you). So yes, the testimony is indeed irrelevant to standing, but that is because standing is clearly satisfied and thus not at issue.
2. The testimony is relevant to a variety of factual points important in the case, the relevance of which you will only be able to fully appreciate once you have studied the Equal Protection Clause in some depth. One relevant factual issue is whether there was any "rational basis" for Prop 8 beyond pure animus (or hatred) directed towards gays and lesbians. Another relevant factual issue is whether gays and lesbians constitute a "discrete and insular minority" in our society such that laws discriminating against them warrant more searching judicial review. (Hence the relevance of the testimony concerning the political power of gays and lesbians.)
It is reasonable to ask whether these are truly "factual" questions in the ordinary sense -- case-specific facts to be resolved through trial testimony. They seem more to be broader conclusions about the current state of the world, the type of facts that judges decide on their own, rather than through the presentation of live testimony. But Judge Walker wants to create a trial record on these questions (perhaps -- by converting the relevant standard of revieiw on these matters to "clear error" -- to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn him?). And as the presiding judge, that is his prerogative.