CA voters taken to task in Prop 8 trial
Statesman.com"Same-sex marriage is simply too novel an experiment at this stage," and opposition to it doesn't necessarily spring from "ill will" toward gay people, Charles Cooper, one of Proposition 8's attorneys, argued last week in court.
Day 12 of an historic federal trial: The defenders of Proposition 8 speak out in testimony and cross-examination
A majority of voters stopped same-sex marriage in California simply by casting a ballot for Proposition 8. This is the argument being presented in California's federal district court in San Francisco, in an historic and precedent setting trial about the ballot measure which made gay marriage illegal in the state of California in November 2008.
It is being argued that 7 million California voters were acting from irrational prejudice, animosity, and unconstitutional bias when they cast their votes for the ballot measure Proposition 8 during the 2008 Presidential election.
Attorneys challenging the measure have attempted to reveal in testimony that gay marriage poses no threat to the social order; defenders of the measure argue that their support of civil unions and LGBT rights measures proves that they have no irrational bias against same sex marriage, but are only interested in preserving the centuries-old institution of male-female matrimony.
Proposition 8 attorneys in this manner are working to establish that voters did have legitimate reasons to vote to make marriage only between a man and a woman.
Plaintiffs presented historians, plaintiffs and scholars of psychology whose testimony was intended to support the case for same-sex marriage rights.
An argument claiming that 7 million California voters were acting from irrational fear and prejudice is being presented in San Francisco's high court in the federal trial attempting to overturn Proposition 8.
Voters were able to make gay marriage illegal simply by casting a vote, it is argues. And this vote was based on animosity, resentment, and unconstitutional prejudice.
The trial is in its 12th day. Judge Vaughn Walker is expected to reach a decision this Spring, and then the losing side will appeal to the US Supreme Court, officials say.
Cambridge University psychology professor Michael Lamb testified that children in families with gay parents are no less well off than in families with heterosexual families.
Harvard historian Nancy Cott said interracial marriage prohibitions and legal limits on wives' rights were once defended as vital to the well-being of marriage and children.
George Chauncey, a Yale historian, described how unfounded accusations about gay people were used to justify, during various times in history, laws to purge gays from jobs and jail them. Proposition 8's messages, he said, echoed stereotypes used in the past to sow fear of gays.