The end of day three couldn’t have ended better for our legal team and the seven million Californians who voted for Prop 8. As I noted in my earlier blog, the morning was filled with cross examination by David Thompson of witness George Chauncey. Though he was selected by the plaintiffs because of his expertise in the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, not only were some of his admissions harmful to their case, but they were completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of Prop 8. Chauncey admitted, among other things, that times have changed and gays and lesbians do not face the discrimination they did in years past. In fact, he said gays and lesbians continue to come to California because of our accepting attitudes.
Their second witness of the day was UCLA social psychology professor Dr. Letitia Peppeau who opined that, among other things, same-sex couples are “indistinguishable” from heterosexual couples in terms of their relationships, and that legalizing same sex marriage would not harm traditional marriage. However, she could offer no studies to prove her contention that there would be no impacts on traditional marriage. On cross examination, she also admitted that the available studies do, in fact, show significant differences between gay couples and heterosexual couples. For example, one study reported that a significantly lower percentage of gay men think that monogamy is important in their relationships (only 36%) than do those in heterosexual relationships. Of those gay men who say that monogamy is important in their relationships, 74% still engage in sex with multiple partners. When pressed, she admitted that sexual exclusivity among gay men is the exception rather than the rule.
But the news that carried the day was the United States Supreme Court’s decision to stop the trial court from broadcasting the Prop 8 trial beyond the courthouse. Our opponents had convinced the judge that televising this trial is a great opportunity to “educate” the public about same-sex marriage. But as I’ve said over and over again, the courts are first and foremost the guardians of our right to a fair and impartial trial. The courts should never become a tool to help advocacy groups sway public opinion. That is what political campaigns are for.
Basing their decision in part on the well-established record of death threats, hostile phone calls and e-mail messages, lost jobs, Internet blacklists, boycotts, vandalism and physical violence that supporters have faced from anti-Prop 8 extremists, the high court recognized the harm that could come to our witnesses and supporters of traditional marriage as a result of broadcasting their testimony about their political and religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court’s decision also noted that the trial court improperly suspended the longstanding court rule against televising federal trials “at the eleventh hour” in violation of federal statutes. The highest court in the country took the position that we have held all along: this case is too high-profile, the stakes are too high, and the risks of harm to its participants too great to use it as a pilot project to experiment with televising federal trials, as Judge Walker and the homosexual activists have relentlessly insisted.
All in all, Wednesday was a successful day for our legal team, the integrity of the judicial process and the supporters of Prop 8.
On another note, please join us for our weekly “bloggers-only” update call on Friday at 5:30 PST, where we will talk about the week’s events and preview the coming week. Please contact Communications Director Carla Hass at Carla.Hass@protectmarriage.com or 916-834-9969.
