Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
CA voters taken to task in Prop 8 trial
Share:
by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | January 28, 2010 at 06:16 am
319 views | 54 Recommendations | 10 comments
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.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Related Stories
Recommendations (54)
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke
Redwater, Alberta, Canada
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (10)
at 06:53 on January 28th, 2010
"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. "
Gee, no kiddin'.
All 7 million of them.
at 07:13 on January 28th, 2010
Go guys and and gals.
at 09:29 on January 28th, 2010
In a democracy majority rules and the majority has a right to make the wrong choice. This is limited only by rights of the minority stated in the constitution. This trial should determine if there is a constitutional right to a form of marriage the majority does not approve of.
at 10:47 on January 28th, 2010
The question is, does 7 million represent a majority of those eligible to vote, out of a state with a population of near 37 million, or does it represent a majority vote win by those who cared enough to vote?
In any kind of referendum type poll, those who feel that the subject does not affect them will usually not bother.
I fully agree that due process, and abiding by the decision, is essential to avoid chaos within society, but as has so aften been the case in the past, one decision will not see the matter resting on a case like this, until the whole question and debate can be settled without interference by religious beliefs and doctrines it will run for a long time yet.
at 12:08 on January 28th, 2010
So now we get to pick and choose you gets a voice, and who doesn't?
My, my, my. That kind of a statement says a lot about a person.
Hope that kind of attitude stays across the pond.
at 13:06 on January 28th, 2010
I don't get that at all Hugh, what are you talking about?
at 15:04 on January 28th, 2010
"......until the whole question and debate can be settled without interference by religious beliefs and doctrines...."
Anyone that thinks that way is truly a danger to a democratic society. Yet we are constantly told that the religious fanatics are the real danger.
at 13:23 on January 28th, 2010
There is one simple thing to look at look, same-sex marriage - does it affect you? yes/no, if it does affect you do you agree with it? yes/no.
Had you put it in such simple terms about the issue to the electorate, and they were perfectly honest.....what would the result have been? would there have even been a vote?
I suggest that you (Roy and Hugh, and anyone else who feels this way) take a look at what it has taken historically in America to get equality on soooooo many issues for so many people.
And by the way, the question I asked was about majorities.
And we don't have these problems our side of the pond to the degree you do, but we are far more secular.
at 16:20 on January 28th, 2010
Simple answer(s)?
Yes
Yes
Speaking of majorities, you might want to read your history, and ours. See if those evil Christians had anything to do with the abolition of slavery in your country, and ours - since you wonder why it took soooooooo long for some.
at 17:55 on January 28th, 2010
Touche. However, even if religious institutions do not perform the marriage ceremony and thus voice their disagreement why must that bode on a marriage union recognized by the government for the purposes of benefits and right etc that a married couple employ? Government recognition and acceptance does not neccesitate religious condonation.