Feb 2012 | Getting What We Paid For on Prop 8

9th Circuit Court Decision — Proposition 8 Supporters Got What They Paid For

The recent 9th Circuit Court decision against the legality of Proposition 8 was, very unfortunately, deserved. It proves if your whole case hinges on a word — rather than substance — you are likely to lose even more than you went to court for. It also proves if you lie in court, you may just lose.

The court said:

It will not do to say that Proposition 8 was intended only to disapprove of same-sex marriage, rather than to pass judgment of same-sex couples as people. Just as the criminalization of ‘homosexual conduct… is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination in both the public and private spheres,’ so too does the elimination of the right to use the official designation of ‘marriage’ for the relationships of committed same-sex couples send a message that gays and lesbians are of lesser worth as a class — indeed, that they enjoy a lesser societal status.

Let’s face it. As a class — much like drug addicts — homosexuals ARE of lesser social worth. They go out of their way to disrupt society, cost more than they contribute, and disproportionately molest children rather than producing them as a result of their sexual activities. Proposition 8 stemmed from common knowledge of their lesser worth and push-back because of the disruptions they caused by demanding the same benefits as the married.

Remember the ‘smart folk’ from the conservative side who said ‘we have nothing against homosexuality, and we have nothing against homosexuals getting all the benefits of marriage. No, we just don’t want them to use the name “marriage” when they legally couple.’ That’s what the National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund, etc. said publicly for the press. But that was only ‘half true.’ The supporters of these organizations wanted to stop gay rights. That’s what the vote was actually about.

Critics might note that some advertisements run by the conservative side strove to celebrate mother-father marriage while not explicitly criticizing those who engage in homosexuality. But to get out the vote and raise money (as Judge Walker noted and our side admitted in court), the pro-Prop 8 campaign also claimed:

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.

Despite the underlying effort to stem gay rights, proponents of Prop 8 carried this ‘we’re not against homosexuality’ strategy into the courtroom, offering essentially no evidence about the harms caused by engaging in homosexuality or by homosexual coupling — both of which would be encouraged by putting society’s stamp of approval on gay marriage. Much of the evidence presented by those challenging Prop 8, including claims that homosexuals were no more apt to molest children, were not rebutted by our side!

Proponents, including their key expert witness, went on record with

We have never disputed and we have offered to stipulate that gays and lesbians have been the victims of a long and shameful history of discrimination

and also allowed that permitting gay marriage would make society “more fair.”

So the 9th Circuit Court logically concluded:

Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren.” (69)

And therefore:

Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.” (77)

Let’s try this again. Did the Circuit Court judges come to this conclusion merely due to their liberal and anti-traditional bias? Well, consider what our side claimed before Judge Walker in the original Prop 8 trial:

the inference of anti-gay hostility drawn by the district court is manifestly false. It defames more than seven million California voters as homophobic, a cruelly ironic charge, as noted earlier, given that California has enacted some of the Nation’s most progressive and sweeping gay-rights protections, including creation of a parallel institution, domestic partnerships, affording same-sex couples all the benefits and obligations of marriage.

In point of fact, pro-family groups sponsored ads in California back in 2000 promoting the view that domestic partnerships would be an OK alternative as long as gay marriage was not approved. Their attempt to cleverly navigate the political currents of gay rights back then has come back to bite them in this latest decision. For when you OK a parallel set-up that looks like marriage, with all the rights and legal privileges of marriage, but forbid use of the name ‘marriage,’ and then admit that homosexuals have been “victims of… shameful… discrimination,” why would a set of judges rule any differently than what the 9th Circuit just did?

As much as we might dislike it, the decision is merely the logical outcome of prior events in California, including key strategic blunders by pro-family activists and the Prop 8 legal defense team.

FRI has consistently said that you cannot ‘give away everything in the store but the sign’ and end up with a win. If you oppose gay rights, you might consider donating to FRI.