Guest Post: Is it any wonder

As some of you are aware, a few months ago there were a number of high profile cases involving gay teens committing suicide. This included Tyler Clementi, a college student that jumped off of the George Washington Bridge after two of his peers humiliated him by videotaping him having sexual relations with another man. This prompted many prominent members of society, including President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and many others to participate in the “It Gets Better” campaign. The idea was to send a message that it is possible to have a happy life while being a member of the LGBT community.

Ultimately, even though I am straight, I had no problem understanding why a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered teen would want to kill themselves. All I had to do is think back to elementary and middle school days. “Gay” was used as a derogatory slur the other kids would call each other. Throughout high school, and even every so often in college, the word “gay” was used as a synonym for stupid. Growing up in the 90s, I thought being gay was something sinister. And to think, I was by no means living in a conservative household or in a conservative part of the country.

High profile religious leaders have blamed gays for terrorist attacks. Many choose to practice selective literalism and hide behind passages in Leviticus to justify their intolerance and sheer hatred for the LGBT community. Gays are currently not able to get married in all but a handful of states, and those marriages are currently not recognized by the federal government. The LGBT community is not covered by the Fair Housing Act, and is not immune from employment discrimination by federal law and 30 states. Is it any wonder that some gay teens can’t picture a happy life for themselves?

What I believe is most telling is not a single prominent Republican produced an “It gets better” public service announcement. I would like to think that we would all be on the same page and believe that it is a bad thing for people to be committing suicide, regardless of who they are. It is important to remember that silence is acceptance, and that we must condemn not only those who perpetrate the hatred, but those who remain silence and allow the hatred to live and fester in our society. Martin Luther King Jr. often remarked that “the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” Unfortunately, some have taken it upon themselves to prevent others to share the same rights that heterosexual couples already enjoy; this opposition baffles me. I have yet to hear a single good reason as to why we should not legalize gay marriage, and eliminate any law that actively discriminates against the LGBT community.

For starters, it seems that the attempt to stop gay marriage is futile, and I do not see how it could be stopped from becoming an American institution. Although most point to Biblical scripture as the reason for their opposition, last time I checked we were not a theocracy, but a constitutional republic. The American Constitution clearly defines a separation between church and state. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment prevents any person from being “…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Also, section 1 of the 14th Amendment states “…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It should be noted that the 5th Amendment applies directly to the federal government, whereas, the 14th Amendment applies to the states. In a modern context, that could easily include the right of marriage.

Social conservatives often grumble that allowing gay marriage would be “redefining marriage.” The fact of the matter is, if we hadn’t redefined marriage Catholics would be unable to marry Protestants, Christians would be unable to marry Jews, and blacks would not be able to marry whites. Marriage is something that has been in flux over the years; changing to reflect the social changes of the era.

Another issue people should think about is “Why do you care if two people you don’t even know of the same sex want to marry each other?” How exactly would this affect your personal life? The answer is little to nil. I have to say that it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if same-sex marriage became the law of the land. Some may worry that their church may be forced into recognizing those marriages. This fear is unfounded. The separation of church and state works both ways; other than laws like not killing the parishioners, and abiding to building codes; the state has no business in the affairs of the church.

Some may worry that allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt the sanctity of marriage, since Americans are all about upholding the sanctity of marriage. That is why 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce, according to the Kinsey Institute 50% of men and 26% of women have engaged in extramarital sex at least once, and Britney Spears’ 72-hour just for fun marriage is allowed to happen. I am not saying that marriage should not be respected. What I am arguing is that when so many do not respect the love and commitment that corresponds with marriage; why not allow marriage to a group that does?

History tells us that when ever there is some social change that becomes obvious to the mainstream, there is always a group that will fight it until the very end. I am convinced that the LGBT community deserves full and equal protection under the law. In that sense, 30 years from now when they make the documentary about the gay rights movement and they need a bad guy that fought it every step of the way, that person certainly won’t be me.

Matt

They Pledge Allegiance...

...to a myth,
About the founding of our nation;
And to their beliefs,
Which are unsupported;
One religion's,
Superstitions;
With theocracy and conformity for all.

The following poem has been passed around the internet for the last decade; it claims to be a new “Pledge of Allegiance.” I’m not sure how this is a pledge to the United States, it is certainly not a pledge to any principles of democracy or plurality. All together it is an example of the cultural fight over Christian Privilege and Christian Supremacy in America.

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
False. Any student can pray in school so long as it is not disruptive, like praying when the teacher is is instructing the class. It is simply prohibited that teachers or faculty can lead students in prayer as part of a school function. As a taxpayer funded institution, this is a simple measure that keeps schools from violating the Establishment Clause.
For this great nation under God
Some Americans agree with that statement, but many do not. Christians have no more claim on this country than any other citizen. Arguing otherwise is equivalent to arguing that non-Christians should be considered second-class citizens.
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
If the class is “reciting” scripture as part of religious instruction, damn right it violates the Bill of Rights. How else would the author have it? Every teacher instructing students on their personal religious beliefs? Does the author want public school teachers who are wasting time in their Math and English classes by instructing students on Baptist doctrines, Catholic doctrines, Muslim doctrines, Mormon doctrines, or Scientologist doctrines. How is that useful for public education, or right for the teachers to do? Or is it that the author would like to force schools to teach all students in the United States his own particular brand of religion? Again, this is a gross demonstration of how many Christians are not fighting for their religious freedoms, but for their Christian Privilege because they don’t like that its legitimacy has been challenged.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
This is simply an untrue and inflammatory remark.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
Why would that be an offense? Is the author arguing that dying your hair is immoral or corrupt? As long as students aren’t dying their hair in class I am baffled at how one would think it hurts students.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
Only if they are disrupting the class. Arguing otherwise is another dishonest attempt to inflame the audience.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
And another lie. The only thing that is prohibited is for the school to sponsor or lead a prayer. Students can pray, aloud, or in silence, to any deities they wish.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
I don’t know any teachers that allow cussing in their class room. And it is simply untrue that cussing in school is protected by any regulations or laws.
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
Outlawed guns? Why does the author feel the need to continuously lie? And such easily disproved lies as well. The Second Amendment still stands, people can still own guns. No one has been trying to change that. Though if he means that they’ve banned guns from schools, then that’s true, but I feel no sympathy for that grievance. And it's an outright lie that the Christian bible has been outlawed from schools.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
No, but this lie might.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
Can’t say that I’ve ever heard of this happening, so first I’d like to demand evidence. Second: So? Like the hair and piercings, I fail to see how this is relevant to argument. Unless, (as implied by the next line) the author wants our public institutions to be used to turn people into social pariahs for not fitting traditional family categories.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.
Another outright lie. Right and wrong are taught in school all the time. You have history, and literature, and the history of the sciences. All of which are filled with lessons of right and wrong. Does the author really want teachers to teach students to judge on perceived morality of life choices? What if their ideas about moral lifestyle conflict with his own? Of course he doesn’t want them to teach any set of ideas about moral lifestyles, he wants the schools to teach his beliefs. Privilege and Supremacy rearing their ugly heads again

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
The most proven method of reducing the rate of unwanted teen pregnancies is good sex education and access to birth control. If you care about helping teens, then you should be for this.
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
I’m sorry, but is the author making the claim that schools teach witchcraft, etc.? Evidence please. Otherwise, students can study whatever they want outside of class.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
Again not true, the Ten Commandments are taught in schools in the context of their historic place in Western Civilization. It only crosses the line when the teacher tries to preach about them to students. Also, I wonder, which religion’s version of the Ten Commandments does the author want indoctrinated into his children? There are multiple versions in the Old Testament, and different groups enshrine different versions.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
Chaos, really? I hope the author is simply ignorant of the ever increasing stringency of No-Tolerance policies at public schools. Otherwise, he is yet again being purposely dishonest to his audience. Schools are monitored like prisons, and more schools across the country are trying to exert control and disciplinary jurisdiction over their students even when they are not in school. We have the laptop webcams spying on students in their homes, and students being thrown off sports teams for “suggestive” pictures on their Facebook pages that were taken over summer break. Schools are not falling to chaos, they are becoming police states.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Hey wait a minute; I thought the author was upset that guns were banned from schools!
Amen
I would call this a prayer, but really this is a pledge to Christian Supremacy in the form of a poem. It is only disguised as a prayer, and no benevolent god would be pleased by a prayer riddled with so much dishonesty.

I know that as a Christian, it is difficult to see Christian Privilege, the same as it is difficult for me to see white privilege or male privilege. My wife and I didn’t see how pervasive Christian Privilege was until after we found ourselves on the other side, and then we were amazed that we’d missed it before. I’m certain that many who agree with or express the sentiments found in this pledge are not actually bigots, they simply haven’t stepped back to consider how much special treatment has been given to Christians in this country.

If this is the case for you, I understand completely. But I hope that now you’ll take a moment to consider the views of the other 70 million American citizens who are non-Christians (approximately 22%), and stop pushing the idea that you entitled to privileges and recognitions from our government that non-Christians don’t enjoy.

In search of reason,

Mike

FCKH8

"No Description Needed"



While in some parts of the country LGBT individuals and communities have nearly succeeded in winning the same legal rights that their heterosexual neighbors enjoy, the fight isn't over yet. There are still too many people pushing back, allowing a miasma of homophobic attitudes that lead to bullying and harassment. Ultimately, too many innocent children and teens suffer because of this.



Organizations like Americans for Truth about Homosexuality are part of the problem. They deny it, they say that they want to help these people. But let's look at some of their own words.

• It is immoral to “mainstream” homosexuality to children in schools in the guise of teaching tolerance and diversity.
• “Bullying” in any form is wrong and must be stopped. But it can be addressed without promoting acceptance of homosexuality.

They actively attack any effort to teach about diversity and tolerance. They consider it an infringement on their rights to have their children told in school that it's okay if a classmate is gay, or - heaven forbid - if they are. They want "Homosexuals are abominations" and "Fags are going to burn in Hell" to be protected religious speech in the classroom. They believe it is a sin, so they should be able to tell the fagot to his face how evil they think he is. Somehow, this is different from bullying.

I also see some very familiar hate rhetoric, re-purposed for this cause: "The liberal media – which is now practically an arm of the homosexual movement." Hello antisemitism, I see your stereotyping tactics have found a new home.

These people are actively demonizing our LGBT friends and neighbors. And any of us who support the right to marry the one you love.

"Many homosexual activists are anti-religious bigots"
"Their aim is to silence all opposition."

They call us the "militant" ones, but when was the last time you saw a bunch of gay rights activists beat up a homophobic Christian who was minding their own business? Or drag them behind a car? Or tie them to a fence to leave them to die? Or hang them? Or bully them everyday until they take their own life? And we're the ones supposedly "driven by hatred."

FCKH8,

Mike

P.S. Support FCKH8 if you want to look good and can spare the cash. Let's make LGBT respect mainstream!

Final Thoughts on Proposition 8

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

There isn't anything new for us in Judge Walker's Conclusion and Remedies sections, but I found it gratifying to read. My own thoughts on Proposition 8 are below.

CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

[PAGE 135]

REMEDIES

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[PAGE 136]

To pass Prop 8, its proponents spent millions fueling homophobia in California. They alluded to threats against many groups. Businessmen were threatened by gay marriage because with its legalization they would not be able to discriminate against gay clients. What they didn't tell you is that regardless of Prop 8, discrimination against gays is as illegal as a business discriminating against any other minority. Churches were threatened, because if Prop 8 wasn't passed then they would be forced to hold services for gay weddings. This was a straight up lie, no church or clergy are required to recognize or officiate any marriage, religion is not a prerequisite for the civil institution of marriage.

The worst was the vague threats that gay marriage supposedly made against children. The implications were that children would turn gay if they were told about gay people in school. Or that it is religious discrimination for schools to have zero tolerance policies about gay bashing. Or that it infringes on a parents rights to have to acknowledge to their children that there are people that they disagree with in the world. But Proposition 8 didn't address any of these so called problems anyway. With the passing of Prop 8, there were still gay individuals in California, still gay couples, still gay parents, still gay teens in the schools. They do not suddenly disappear because you take away their rights.

Proponents tried to argue that Prop 8 was not about homophobia, that it was about defending traditional marriage. That is a lie of course, allowing someone else to marry can never impede your own right to marry. Proposition 8 was really about the notion that homosexuals are inferior. Go onto YouTube and listen to their commercials. These people consider it to be an infringement on their rights when they have to acknowledge the existence of gays and lesbians. Proponents of Prop 8 feel it does them harm to treat homosexuals as equals in public life. That's it.

As far as the wild accusations that Judge Walker should have decided to recuse himself, I have two quick points to make:

1. It is not a "well known fact" that Judge Walker is openly gay. He has never publicly stated his sexual orientation. And don't you think if this were true the Religious Right would have been shouting from the rooftops from the moment he was selected from the case? No, the accusation came out the day that he ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.
2. It shouldn't matter what his sexual orientation is. To paraphrase another commentator of the decision, to say that a gay judge is unqualified to rule on a case concerning gay rights is like saying a black judge is unqualified to rule on a case concerning civil rights, or a female judge is unqualified to rule on a case concerning women's issues. To say that only someone from the majority is impartial enough to rule on a discrimination case against a minority group is ridiculous.

So there it is, a breakdown of the 136 page decision. I hope you found this valuable. As always, I welcome any thoughts or questions pertaining to the subject.

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Equal Protection and Proposition 8

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is designed to help progress the American promise of equality through expansion of federal powers. The Federal government has both the power and the responsibility to overturn any State or local laws that infringe on the equal protections of our citizens. Laws that discriminate against certain classes of citizens must only do so in a way that promotes a legitimate and rational interest of the state. Judge Walker reviews each of the arguments of rational basis that proponents of Prop 8 presented, and found that none of them were credible.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

[PAGE 109]

This is (one of the reasons) Why I Won't Be Quiet.

This article from the Washington Examiner showed up on my Facebook news feed the other day. I'm not sure why it was posted, or why I went to read it. But I did, and it angered me enough to leave a comment.

The "Opinion Article" is basically just a summary of the longer article linked from another newspaper, but check out this part:

The Paine Foundation is part of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, a tiny nonprofit (annual income: $14,000) seeking to purge religion from private life.

I've spent a lot of time in the past year investigating and interacting with nontheist groups. Everyone that I've met has been friendly and accepting, and while they may not agree with religion, they'll fight harder for everyone's right to practice it than anyone else I know. Not one group that I've seen is fighting to purge religion from private life. We tend to be the strongest supporters of "Do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's ability to do what they want." David's statement is a hateful stereotype based entirely in ignorance, and I was compelled to tell him so.

My comment:

Okay, you generally did a good job summarizing The Morning Call article, but you got one thing very, very wrong. The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia has no interest in "seeking to purge religion from private life." Their mission statement is on every page of their website and impossible to miss. But, since you obviously did, let me quote it here for you: "The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia (FSGP) was founded in 1993 by Margaret Downey. Today, FSGP's community outreach efforts have changed the hearts and minds of many citizens who never met or talked to an atheist. FSGP sponsors activities, events and speakers to educate the public about the nontheist life stance. FSGP's efforts to keep religion out of government and government out of religion ensure Constitutional protection for theist and nontheist citizens alike."

Did you notice that last part? It's important. Please think before you go spouting off hateful stereotypes.

When Mike and I first dove into the world of non-theism, I was torn between being excited about all of these new ideas and wanting to just be quiet about it and not upset anyone. We could just keep pretending to be Christian, after all we'd already been doing it for a while and a 'bad' Christian is better than an atheist. Our families wouldn't have to know or be upset. It was difficult to make the decision to tell our families, knowing that it would drive an uncomfortable wedge between us and them that would likely never completely go away. We chose to go ahead for two reasons:

1. We wanted to be true to ourselves, and we love our families enough that we didn't want to spend the rest of our lives lying to them.

2. There is a lot of hate for atheists in this country. Statements like the one above are common. Senators can call atheists "anti-American" and presidents can say that we shouldn't be citizens. News stations and newspapers can twist a message of hope and acceptance from atheists for atheists into one of hate (here, here, and here). There are so many more examples out there, but I won't take all of your time. All of these things are talking about me, my husband, and many of my close friends, who are all some of the most accepting, tolerant, and moral people I know. How would you feel? Would you stay silent in the face of such undeserved criticism? I won't.

Never stop questioning,

Valerie

Due Process and Proposition 8

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS

Two more posts and then we will get to the verdict (not that you don't already know) and my concluding thoughts on the matter of same-sex marriage and the campaign for Proposition 8.

The Plaintiffs challenged Prop 8 on the grounds that it violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protections Clause. Either charge, being true, is enough to force a responsible judge to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Judge Walker found both charges to be true, and examined each in detail in his Conclusions of Law section. I'll look at Due Process in this post, and Equal Protections in the next one.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

[PAGE 109]

DUE PROCESS

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978).

[PAGES 109-110]

Findings of Fact for Proposition 8 Part III

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST

The final section discussing the facts of the case. In this section of the Proposition 8 decision, Judge Walker is exploring whether or not there is any legitimate secular or government interests that are addressed by Prop 8. Why is this important? Because we are a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Laws that are passed solely to enforce private moral or religious views, and in doing so infringe upon the rights of other citizens, are unconstitutional.

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8
ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT
ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST

57. Under Proposition 8, whether a couple can obtain a marriage license and enter into marriage depends on the genders of the two parties relative to one another. A man is permitted to marry a woman but not another man. A woman is permitted to marry a man but not another woman. Proposition 8 bars state and county officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It has no other legal effect.

58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

[PAGE 85]

59. Proposition 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.

60. Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.

[PAGE 86]

61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage.*
[*Previously in the decision we saw how the facts show that these "distinct and unique" gender roles are outdated, and have no other legal recognition or enforcement outside of the Prop 8 amendment.]

[PAGE 87]

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

[PAGE 89]

63. Proposition 8 eliminates the right to marry for gays and lesbians but does not affect any other substantive right under the California Constitution. Strauss, 207 P3d at 102 (“Proposition 8 does not eliminate the substantial substantive [constitutional] protections afforded to same-sex couples[.]”) (emphasis in original).

64. Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.

[PAGE 90]

65. CCSF would benefit economically if Proposition 8 were not in effect.

66. Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same-sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs.

[PAGE 91]

67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

[PAGE 93]

68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.

69. The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources. Tr 1010:13-1011:13 (Lamb).

70. The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

71. Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted. Tr 1014:25-1015:19; 1038:23-1040:17 (Lamb).

[PAGES 94-95]

72. The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. Tr 1040:22-1042:10 (Lamb).

73. Studies comparing outcomes for children raised by married opposite-sex parents to children raised by single or divorced parents do not inform conclusions about outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in stable, long-term relationships. Tr 1187:13-1189:6 (Lamb).

74. Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination.

[PAGE 96]

75. Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States.

[PAGE 97]

76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.
[The case against these stereotypes takes nearly four pages of facts revealed during the trial.]

[PAGE 98]

77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
[The judge takes an additional three pages citing evidence given during the trial to support this.]

[PAGE 101]

78. Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.
[Nearly three pages of evidence supports this fact as well.]

[PAGE 103]

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.
[Four pages of evidence]

[PAGE 80]

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.

[PAGE 108]

Proponents of Proposition 8 failed to demonstrate any government interest for denying civil rights to same-sex couples. The amendment did nothing to protect the rights of Christians or the safety of children, because the only thing it would have protected is a Christian's ability to discriminate against gays and lesbians, and possibly forestall explaining homosexuality to their kids. Bigotry and denial are the only religious "rights" that Prop 8 is protecting.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs clearly showed how Prop 8 works against several legitimate government and social interests. It also legitimizes government and public discrimination of gays and lesbians by enshrining false stereotypes as legal justifications. These charges alone would be enough to overturn most laws targeting minorities, and coupled with the lack of legitimate state interest, Prop 8 is clearly in violation of our constitution. In the next post I'll review Judge Walker's explanation for why this is.

5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Findings of Fact for Proposition 8 Part II

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS

More on the Findings of Fact from Proposition 8 today, I'll just jump right into it. You might notice that there are very few finding enumerated per page, there is a great number of supporting pieces of evidence for most of the facts in this section. If you want the full text of the decision to see the supporting evidence, click here.

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS

42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century.

43. Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives.

44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

[PAGES 71-72]

45. Proponents’ campaign for Proposition 8 assumed voters understood the existence of homosexuals as individuals distinct from heterosexuals.

[PAGE 73]

46. Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

[PAGE 74]

47. California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.

[PAGE 76]

48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

[PAGE 77]

49. California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.

[PAGE 78]

50. Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive.

51. Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.

[PAGE 79]

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

[PAGE 80]

53. Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in other states and are not recognized by the federal government.

[PAGE 81]

54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

[PAGE 82]

55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.

[PAGE 83]

56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

[PAGE 84]

California law does not make distinctions between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples in any area beyond the question of marriage. They can have families and raise children, but they must do so without the same rights and recognitions that opposite couples enjoy. So if you want greater social and family stability, allow them to marry.

Unfortunately there are some that either recognize this weakness in their argument, or are even more bigoted than the Alliance Defense Fund (the proponents of Prop 8). Some Christians are complaining that the anti-gay movement in California being too "soft" by only focusing on marriage.

The YouTube channel iloveJesus420 is compiling a large selection of anti-gay rights activists at work. These people thing homosexuality is by dirty by definition, and should be illegal. Would they advocate removing the children of gay parents from their homes and putting them in the foster system? Would they advocate prosecuting homosexuality with jail time? I hope not, but when confronted on the street with these questions they just say they defer to "god's word" or that they will "pray you see the evil of your ways," and walk away.

That's all they have folks. No arguments, no evidence. Just a moral compass calibrated on an old book's sense of cleanliness, and prayers.

4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Findings of Fact for Proposition 8 Part I

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8
3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX

From what I understand about the law (granted much of this I've only learned within the past couple of weeks, so please correct me if I am wrong) the most significant part of the Proposition 8 decision was the Findings of Fact section. Judge Walker enumerated 80 facts about the case that led to his ruling. The following section, Judge Walker's Conclusions of Law, will only hold as much weight with the Appeals Court as they want it too. The can essentially start from scratch in their interpretation the law if they wish.

The Findings of Fact will carry a lot of weight however. Unless evidence is given that one of the Facts of the case is incorrect, they must be used to weigh in on the appeals decision. Judge Walker took great care in listing and supporting many facts of the case that help to show the State has neither the interest, nor the authority, to discriminate against same sex couples.

EDIT: "appellate courts are required to review only the evidence in the court record and to give great deference to Judge Vaughn Walker's findings of fact. He was there, after all, presiding over the trial, and the appellate judges weren't." Tip of the hate to Lisa Bloom at CNN for giving a better explanation of why the Findings of Fact are significant.

There are three sections of Findings of Fact that are relevant (the fourth is non essential to discussions of law, like who the plaintiffs and defendants are). Each section is asking a specific question about the evidence, and how it does or doesn't support Proposition 8. I'll deal with "Whether any evidence supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex" today, and address the other two later in the week.

Nearly all of the facts listed had sub-points to them, so I've included page numbers in case you are unsure what one is, or why the evidence points to that fact. Full text of Judge Walker's decision can be found here. As usual, emphasis is added.

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO
RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX

19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

20. A person may not marry unless he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage.

21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

[PAGE 60]

22. When California became a state in 1850, marriage was understood to require a husband and a wife. See Cal Const, Art XI § 14 (1849); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 407.

23. The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained. Tr 202:2-203:12 (Cott).

24. Many states, including California, had laws restricting the race of marital partners so that whites and non-whites could not marry each other.

[PAGE 61]

25. Racial restrictions on an individual’s choice of marriage partner were deemed unconstitutional under the California Constitution in 1948 and under the United States Constitution in 1967. An individual’s exercise of his or her right to marry no longer depends on his or her race nor on the race of his or her chosen partner.*

26. Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the marital bargain.*

[*Both of these are examples of how marriage has been redefined as a legal institution since our nation's founding]

[PAGE 62]

27. Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines. Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.

[PAGE 63]

28. The development of no-fault divorce laws made it simpler for spouses to end marriages and allowed spouses to define their own roles within a marriage.

[PAGE 64]

29. In 1971, California amended Cal Civ Code § 4101, which had previously set the age of consent to marriage at twenty-one years for males and eighteen years for females, to read “[a]ny unmarried person of the age of 18 years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.” Cal Civ Code § 4101 (1971); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 408.

30. In the 1970s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses in California, relying on the amended language in Cal Civ Code § 4101. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 409. In response, the legislature in 1977 amended the marriage statute, former Cal Civ Code § 4100, to read “[m]arriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman * * *.” Id. That provision became Cal Fam Code § 300. The legislative history of the enactment supports a conclusion that unique roles of a man and a woman in marriage motivated legislators to enact the amendment. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 409.

[PAGE 65]

31. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Family Code violated the California Constitution to the extent the statutes reserve the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 452. The language “between a man and a woman” was stricken from section 300, and section 308.5 (Proposition 22) was stricken in its entirety. Id at 453.

32. California has eliminated marital obligations based on the gender of the spouse. Regardless of their sex or gender, marital partners share the same obligations to one another and to their dependents. As a result of Proposition 8, California nevertheless requires that a marriage consist of one man and one woman.

33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality.

[PAGE 66]

34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents. Tr 187:11-16; 188:16- 189:2; 201:9-14 (Cott).

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state:*

[*Judge Walker lists the many benefits, feel free to check Page 67 if you're curious]

[PAGE 67]

36. States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs.

37. Marriage creates economic support obligations between consenting adults and for their dependents.

[PAGE 68]

38. Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health. Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily. Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals.

[PAGE 69]

39. Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses.

40. The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity.

[PAGE 70]

41. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children.

[PAGE 71]

From this I gather that it is beneficial for the state to allow as many consenting adults to marry as possible, because it promotes health and economic stability for both spouses and their children.

Previous definitions of marriage are based on antiquated assumptions that genders are biological (rather than social constructs as anthropologists would argue) and therefore gender roles are in no way malleable. I can only assume that proponents of Prop 8 would be equally opposed to households where the father is the primary caretaker and the mother is the primary provider because of the reversal of traditional gender roles.

More significantly, while proponents want to stress the interest of children in passing Prop 8, by denying marriage to same-sex couples they are actually denying a more stable home life for the children of those couples.

Comments are welcome as always, especially for the next few posts because there is so much here and I can only bring up a small amount for a blog post.

3.WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX
4. WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
5. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8 ENACTED A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
6. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DUE PROCESS
7. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: EQUAL PROTECTION
8. CONCLUSIONS AND REMEDIES

Fighting for equality,

Mike

Proponents' Defense of Proposition 8

The LDS Church spent tens of
millions of dollars campaigning
for Proposition 8, and organized
the majority of volunteers.

1. PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8
2. PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8

Today I continue with the second part of Judge Walker's Opinion, with the case and witness testimony of the proponents of Proposition 8. Judge Walker takes note of the fact that the ballot proposal and campaign to pass Proposition 8 was justified on very different grounds than the case that proponents of Prop 8 used in court. This is significant because, as the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs note, much of the support for Prop 8 was built around discrimination and inaccurate stereotypes of gay and lesbian couples. Some sections made bold for emphasis, all-caps emphasis is from original.

PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8

The ballot argument submitted to the voters summarizes proponents’ arguments in favor of Proposition 8 during the 2008 campaign. The argument states:

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. * * * Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. * * * It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. * * * While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father. * * * If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok. * * * [W]hile gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

The key premises on which Proposition 8 was presented to the voters thus appear to be the following:

1. Denial of marriage to same-sex couples preserves marriage;
2. Denial of marriage to same-sex couples allows gays and lesbians to live privately without requiring others, including (perhaps especially) children, to recognize or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples;
3. Denial of marriage to same-sex couples protects children;
4. The ideal child-rearing environment requires one male parent and one female parent; 
5. Marriage is different in nature depending on the sex of the spouses, and an opposite-sex couple’s marriage is superior to a same-sex couple’s marriage; and
6. Same-sex couples’ marriages redefine opposite-sex couples’ marriages.

[PAGES 6-7]

Pay particular attention to numbers 2 and 3.

2. Proponents would "allow gays and lesbians to live privately" so long as no one is "required" to "recognize or acknowledge [their] existence." What right does a person have to prevent another human being from doing something on the sole basis that they don't want to have to acknowledge their existence? It is your right as a parent to teach your children that homosexual marriages are wrong, that non-Catholic weddings are not real, that arranged marriages are immoral, or that divorce should be forbidden. But you do not have a right to force others to believe as you do, to force others to refrain from actions that cause you no harm just because you don't like them, or to take away their rights as a way to express your "free speech."

3. Protect children from what exactly? In what way does allowing gay couples to marry endanger children? See what plaintiff Paul Katami had to say to this during his testimony.

Katami described how the Proposition 8 campaign messages affected him. (Tr 97:1-11: “[P]rotect the children is a big part of the [Proposition 8] campaign. And when I think of protecting your children, you protect them from people who will perpetrate crimes against them, people who might get them hooked on a drug, a pedophile, or some person that you need protecting from. You don’t protect yourself from an amicable person or a good person. You protect yourself from things that can harm you physically, emotionally. And so insulting, even the insinuation that I would be part of that category.”)

[Page 26]

In order to get people to vote for it Proposition 8 was vaguely worded to appeal to emotion and private moralities. When Prop 8 went to court, proponents changed their arguments to claim that the the State had an interest in banning same-sex marriages. Here is how Judge Walker explained it.

Plaintiffs' Case Against Proposition 8

Judge Vaughn R. Walker

Judge Walker's Opinion is a whopping 136 pages long, and I know there won't be many people that want to take the time to read such a long legal document. So for this series of posts I will try to condense the most important aspects of the ruling, and where I feel particularly strong, voice my own thoughts on the issues. For the most part I will only be explaining the context of each section, Judge Walker's opinion in totality does an excellent job of revealing how Prop 8 has no justification other than religious bigotry.

This post and the next will be summaries of the cases and witness testimony for the plaintiffs and proponents of Proposition 8. Following that will be the meat of the opinion, the huge list of Findings of Fact outlined by Judge Walker, divided into three categories. Finally I'll summarize the Conclusions of Law that explain on what legal grounds Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs for this case were two same-sex couples, denied the right to marry because of Prop 8. Domestic partnerships are legal in California, but they are not federally recognized, nor do they carry the same cultural significance.

Emphasis added in all following sections.

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Plaintiffs contend that the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and that Proposition 8 violates this fundamental right because:

1. It prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice;
2. The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment from the state’s unwarranted usurpation of that choice; and
3. California’s provision of a domestic partnership —— a status giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage without providing marriage —— does not afford plaintiffs an adequate substitute for marriage and, by disabling plaintiffs from marrying the person of their choice, invidiously discriminates, without justification, against plaintiffs and others who seek to marry a person of the same sex.

The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. According to plaintiffs, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it:

1. Discriminates against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice whereas heterosexual men and women may do so freely; and
2. Disadvantages a suspect class in preventing only gay men and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.

[PAGE 5]

It's a very simple argument, the citizens of California do not have the ability to vote for discrimination of a minority. The Fourteenth Amendment asserts that states shall not deny any federally recognized rights on the grounds of "states rights." Californians can no more vote to ban gay marriage than they can vote to reinstitute slavery.