For the French soccer team, the World Cup swiftly became an international public embarrassment. Following the expulsion of one of the team’s players and a subsequent protest held by the remaining team members (who refused to practice), France left the World Cup last week without a single win.

Final arguments were given Wednesday in what may someday be known as one of the landmark civil rights cases of the 21st century: the Proposition 8-challenging trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Both sides presented their arguments and responses to a series of questions given to them by presiding Judge Vaughn Walker.

One of the most interesting things about the trial as a whole (not just the final arguments) is the way in which the defense noticeably struggled to find any evidence to back up their agenda of preventing same-sex marriage. While the plaintiffs’ arguments included testimonies from experts in sociology, political science, and marriage in addition to statements from couples explaining the emotional effects of the marriage ban on them and their children, the defense had only two witnesses. Neither of the witnesses are considered experts in any field remotely related to the case.

The defense’s entire argument against same-sex marriage was based on the fact that heterosexual couples have the ability to reproduce while two women or two men do not. So according to the defense, the sole purpose of marriage is reproduction.

This is a flimsy argument. We still allow infertile couples to marry—women who’ve had hysterectomies or have gone through menopause and men who have had vasectomies can marry without question. Furthermore, reproduction is not a requirement of marriage. When a couple marries they can choose not to have children, even if they are perfectly able.

If we deny same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage based solely on the fact that they cannot biologically have children, then we would also be obliged to prevent heterosexual couples from getting married unless they can and will have children. This would never happen, because the truth is marriage is about much more than procreation. It’s about legal and financial benefits, it’s about making two people feel like a cohesive “family,” and it’s about love, all things that affect homosexual citizens as equally as heterosexual.

The defense had one more supplementary argument that is equally unsupported. They asserted that children are better off with both a mother and a father, but had no evidence to back up this claim. Coincidentally, in the past couple of weeks scientific evidence was released that supports just the opposite.

A study conducted by psychiatric and behavioral science researchers indicates that children with lesbian parents “scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior …[and] scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”

I mention this study not to argue the opposite of Prop 8 defenders, that same-sex parents are better than heterosexual. More than anything, this study illustrates that the success of children likely has very little to do with the sexual orientation of their parents.

Children with two loving parents will probably have happy and successful childhoods, while children with neglectful or abusive parents will have a harder time regardless of whether they have two dads, two moms, a dad and a mom, or even a single parent. The invalid assumption that having same-sex parents negatively affects a child has no place in the marriage rights debate.

Essentially, the defense was grasping at straws throughout the trial. They used these two flimsy arguments and inexpert witnesses in an attempt to cover up the real reasons they want same-sex marriage banned: homophobia, prejudice, and fear. Judge Walker will likely not make his final decision for a few weeks, but here’s hoping he sees through the defense’s fabricated “evidence” and extends equal rights to all Californians. —Shea Connelly

Though the abortion debate is never far from political rhetoric, ELLE magazine recently featured an article that explores a much less debated but no less controversial aspect of reproductive rights—paternal responsibility.

It’s been weeks since the BP oil spill began and oil is still gushing into the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate. Opening a newspaper without being confronted by heartbreaking images of oil-covered wildlife is almost impossible these days. And what is BP doing about this environmental catastrophe? They’ve chosen to spend millions of dollars and hours of time on a new ad campaign.

“To all the volunteers and for the strong support of the government, thank you. We know it is our responsibility to keep you informed and do everything we can so this never happens again. We will get this done. We will make this right … [The oil spill is] a tragedy that never should have happened … [BP] has taken full responsibility for cleaning up the spill in the Gulf.”

Members of the University of Virginia community and the nation as a whole are reeling after news spread of the murder of fourth year student Yeardley Love, allegedly at the hands of fellow student George Huguely. Love’s body was discovered by Charlottesville police early Monday morning.

One of the main reasons this case has been receiving so much national attention is because both Love and Huguely were members of U.Va.’s highly-ranked women’s and men’s lacrosse teams. The case has been drawing many comparisons to the 2006 Duke lacrosse scandal.

This is, however, an inaccurate and unfair assessment. The only similarity between the two cases is that the people involved played lacrosse. In this new case, however, the fact that both the victim and the accused are lacrosse players is merely incidental.

The most important fact in this situation is that Love and Huguely had apparently been in a relationship. If Huguely is guilty of this crime, then Love’s death is a case of domestic violence.

On nearly every article and blog post about the tragedy, there have been people commenting with what ifs: What if Huguely was black? What if Huguely was poor? What if Huguely wasn’t a star athlete? How would he be treated differently? There are many unfair discrepancies in our criminal justice system’s treatment of low income and minority citizens. But to turn Love’s untimely death into a catalyst for a race or class war would be disrespectful.

An article on Slate, suggests that Huguely might be representative of the “big man on campus” mentality: “perhaps his status … made him feel like he was above the law and deserved to take whatever he wanted.” The details of Love’s death do not support this assumption. Huguely’s alleged actions indicate he was not thinking rationally. It seems doubtful that he was able to “feel” much of anything other than rage, and even more doubtful that he took the time to think, “I am an important lacrosse player. I can totally get away with this,” before he attacked. As in most cases of domestic violence, this was unlikely to have been premeditated.

This situation should not be viewed black vs. white or rich vs. poor. It shouldn’t be used as an opportunity to criticize wealthy private schools or star lacrosse players. The real issue is much simpler and sadly familiar: a young girl was murdered, possibly by a man with whom she had a romantic relationship.

Domestic violence affects people of all walks of life. Yes, these particular people happened to be star athletes and college students from well-to-do families, but that is irrelevant. This could have happened to anyone. The best way to honor Love’s memory, therefore, is to make sure the same thing does not happen to other women.

At this point, Huguely is only accused of murder and should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. His lawyer said Tuesday morning that Love’s death “was not intended but an accident with a tragic outcome.” Huguely’s own words in an affadavit obtained by a Charlottesville newspaper, however, paint a pretty gruesome picture of what may have happened.

If it is revealed that Love was a victim of domestic violence, then any discussion or debate her death inspires should be centered on the most effective way to teach young women (and men) how to escape abusive relationships, as well as how to recognize signs that a friend is in an abusive relationship. Making sense of tragedy is often impossible. The most we can hope for is to protect others from the same fate.—Shea Connelly