This morning, Prof. Chauncy gave back a lot of ground by admitting that the historical incidents of discrimination and harassment that occurred against gays and lesbians to which he had earlier testified, and upon which the plaintiffs are calling him as an expert, are long in the past. He testified that society in general and California in particular passed those days decades ago. In fact, he recalled just one incident in the past 10 years where gays and lesbians were harassed by law enforcement in a bar, noting that the facts of that case are disputed.
In his own words, he said “there has been a significant shift in public opinion in acceptance of and support for gays and lesbians.” It was also interesting that Chauncey agreed with President Obama that one can be against same-sex marriage without that position reflecting any moral disapproval of homosexuals.
After viewing a video featuring a husband and wife in Massachusetts who objected to the subject of gay marriage being forced upon their second grade son without their permission, Chauncey said he believed the teaching about homosexual marriage was, in fact, an appropriate subject for young children to be taught, even if it is over the objection of their parents.
Finally this morning, Chauncey tried to recharacterize Prop 8 to make it about issues it simply is not. It is not about homosexuality, the adoption of kids by same-sex couples, or a continued iteration of former campaigns to prevent gay rights. In fact, Prop 8 is solely and exclusively about the definition of marriage. This case is about the right of 7 million California voters who reasonably concluded that marriage should be between a man and a woman, plain and simple.
We also just got great news from the US Supreme Court: they granted a stay to prevent televising the Prop 8 trial! We have argued from the start that there is no precedent for Judge Walker’s decision to allow the proceedings to be televised and posted on YouTube, that it impedes a fair and impartial trial and that it subjects Prop 8 supporters – by way of having their images streamed worldwide – to harassment for their views. We are gratified by the high court’s decision.
