Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: City and County of San Francisco files response brief to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Prop 8 trial Statements Trial analysis

By Eden James

The City and County of San Francisco, an official plaintiff in the Prop 8 case, just filed its response brief to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, per today’s deadline set by the court. Here is the document, as Scribd by Kathleen:

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is expected to file their response brief before today’s deadline as well.

Trial Trackers, please read through the City’s brief and let us know what you think in the comments. Any nuggets that stand out and are worth greater attention?

90 Comments

  • 1. Alan E.  |  October 18, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Waiting for the big guns to come out, still. (No offense to the fabulous Theresa Stewart and gang)

  • 2. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 9:42 am

  • 3. Alan E.  |  October 18, 2010 at 9:43 am

    dangit. Guess what I forgot.

  • 4. Ronnie  |  October 18, 2010 at 9:44 am

    ditto…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 5. AndrewPDX  |  October 18, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Ooo! More reading for my trip home.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 6. Ann S.  |  October 18, 2010 at 9:49 am

  • 7. Lodrelhai  |  October 18, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Subscribing. I'm reading it myself, but I really want to hear what those more fluent in legalese think.

  • 8. chamisaguy  |  October 18, 2010 at 10:13 am

    I like!!! Seems extremely cogent, focused on the right weaknesses of the Proponents claims, powerfully stated, logical, and (I hope) irrefutable arguments for sustaining Judge Vaughn's findings and verdict.

  • 9. Rich  |  October 18, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Well written and seems very sound. Somehow I forgot that the deadline for briefs is our 2-year anniversary!

  • 10. Sagesse  |  October 18, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Subscribing while reading.

  • 11. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 18, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Will catch up later. Just got home from our trip and getting ready to go to sleep.

  • 12. Richard A. Walter (s  |  October 18, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Forgot to subscribe.

  • 13. Dave A  |  October 18, 2010 at 10:53 am

    It is SOOO nice to finally read a well written brief filled with logical legal arguments, and not statements such as "the judge failed to consider the arguments that were not presented during the trial." This blows ANYTHING written in support of the proponents out of the water. And I expect an equally well written brief from Olsen and Boies. Any idea of when that will be posted?

  • 14. Rhie  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Watching

  • 15. Phil L  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:06 am

    I love how this so powerfully destroys the "responsible procreation" argument!

  • 16. Rhie  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Wait, what? I mean…What??

  • 17. Anonygrl  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Oh MY! We are SO winning this case, people. What a beautiful argument!

    Basically, the city and county argue that:

    1) the only ACTUAL effect that Prop 8 had was to remove the title of marriage from gays and lesbians relationships. It specifically did NOT remove any of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, just the honor of the title. It did not change the state's definition of parentage, nor any of the laws affecting procreation. It did not touch any laws about adoption or family structure, it ONLY stripped the title of marriage from homosexual couples.

    2) Prop 8 does none of the things the Proponents claim it does. Based on a great deal of case law, California does NOT prefer opposite sex or biological parents in favor of any other sorts, in fact, in some cases it specifically prefers the parents who are raising the children over biological parents, for the good of the children. Same sex couples are treated just the same as opposite sex couples when it comes to the issue of procreation (for instance, when an opposite sex couple chooses to use donor sperm, the husband is still considered the father, and in lesbian couples, the non-pregnant partner is still considered the mother both with the same ongoing financial responsibilities for the ensuing child even if the couple divorces), and thus the state has no interest in promoting one sort of couple over the other.

    Thus:
    Proposition 8 stripped the right to the honor of "marriage" only from same- sex couples, and enshrined that inequality in the California Constitution. Yet under California law, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples continue to be similarly situated in every respect that is relevant to intimate and family relationships. Proposition 8 serves no state interest other than to demean lesbian and gay relationships and classify them simply to make them unequal to everyone else. It cannot be sustained under the Equal Protection Clause.

    Lovely.

  • 18. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:20 am

  • 19. Dave A  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Was I somewhat unclear Rhie? :)

  • 20. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:31 am

    I agree, very nicely written and quite convincing. One of my favorite passages:

    ' And the importance of the title and stature of marriage is amply demonstrated by the $40 million that Proponents spent on a ballot measure just to "preserve" it from the
    taint of gay people and their relationships.

    Thus, there can be no question that the designation "marriage," which is unique in its history, traditions, meaning and prestige, is—by itself and even apart from the tangible rights and benefits associated with it—a right of constitutional importance.
    '

    As Anonygrl points out, aside from being called marriage, there were *no* other changes to California law regarding parentage or adoption, nor to any of the rights and responsibilities contained therein, regardless of the gender or biological relationship between a parent and child.

    California law makes no distinction between same-sex or opposite-sex families. After prop 8, it still doesn't :)

    Personally, I thought that was a pretty compelling argument. But then again, I am slightly biased :)

  • 21. Cat  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Hear hear. This brief calmly and convincingly maps out all the legal roads one could take, and shows that they all lead to Rome: Prop 8 is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and furthers no legitimate government interest. Great work! Many thanks to Herrera and his team.

    It's an interesting approach they take: they basically list many of the existing laws that would need to be changed before the Prop.8 proponents could actually achieve what they say they want. On one hand that's a scary thought (NOM might actually try to pull that off), but on the other hand I don't think a proposition that would be that blatantly discriminatory to anything other than families of both biological parents could pass.

  • 22. Tomato  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:52 am

    It's ours, too.

    Three cheers to the 18,000!

  • 23. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:53 am

    thanks ALL for opinions on this and for Kathleen uploading! Love it when we have an upsurge of enthusiasm! YAY!!!!

  • 24. Sagesse  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Meticulously reasoned.

  • 25. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    I sure wish Plaintiffs would file their brief. I've missed my nap waiting for it and I'm now at the 'propping my eyelids open' stage. I just know if I fall asleep, that's when they'll file. grrrrrr.

  • 26. eDee  |  October 18, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    since I'm scribe'n, thought I'd ask – how was the trip?
    {edeebracelet (at) gmail (dot) com}

  • 27. Bob  |  October 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    ditto Cat, I like it, and your explanation of the interesting approach re laws that would need to be changed, clarified it for me. what I was reading felt good, but I wasn't quit getting that interesting approach, woot woot

    ditto Anonygrl.

    the legal beagles can digest it, but I think it's taking us in the right direction

  • 28. Aaron  |  October 18, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    can't wait to read all the legal analysis….u people rock…

  • 29. Carol  |  October 18, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    It's elegantly reasoned and beautifully written.

  • 30. Jonathan H  |  October 18, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Wow, I read the whole brief without once screaming or pounding my head against anything. Didn't even need an aspirin! After the AC briefs I'd forgotten that legal documents don't necessarily equal throbbing headaches.

  • 31. Dave A  |  October 18, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    My opinion exactly. A very well written logical document which doesnt cause your head to spin while trying to follow the argument.

  • 32. Michael  |  October 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Does anyone know what time the cut off is for briefs tonight?

  • 33. Anonygrl  |  October 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    OK… where is the appellee brief? (I like that word.. appellee).

    It is past my bedtime! Take pity on us here on the east coast already!

  • 34. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    midnight

  • 35. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    i know, huh? i missed my nap today. that makes me really grumpy and half brain dead.

  • 36. Jonathan H  |  October 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Midnight Pacific time, in about three hours and twenty minutes.

  • 37. Anonygrl  |  October 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    On the other hand, I can go to bed now, knowing that we are in good hands, that there is no DOUBT that the brief will be a wonderful read, and that I can enjoy it tomorrow.

    Yeah. Sure I can. Because sleep is SURE to come.

    LOL See you all at 3am my time… goodnight folks!

  • 38. Alyson  |  October 18, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    Dave – was that quote sarcasm or did they REALLY write that???? That the judge failed to consider arguments that were not presented????

    Face in hands!

    Looks like the city and county strategy went right at the arguments that the xal supreme court needed to hear when they decided it was 'just a word' despite their earlier finding of the fundamental right. Good work.

    Anyone have a theory about why the cal supremes could argue as they did may 15, 2008. Only to NOT strike down prop 8 after nov 2008??? That seemed very inconsistent to me.

  • 39. Joseph Palmer  |  October 18, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    I do wish they'd post it soon. Stuff happens, and it'd be nice to leave time to run to a coffee shop for some open WIFI… Just in case…

  • 40. Ronnie  |  October 18, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Ok Trackers new comments that will be directly linked to NOM since they officially take ownership of the Facebook page "Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman"…

    Daniel Ashcroft ~ "The homosexual must be purged from this world by having them convert to the only religion proven to be right! These homo-rats must be purified!"
    about an hour ago ·

    (me) Hey NOM I thought you didn't support, advocate, & condone dictatorship & forcing people to be "Christian"….

    Daniel Ashcroft ~ "These so called "Freedom Fighters for Equality" must certainly be the agents of corruption of this world, pushing their filthy agenda down the throats of everybody else! Homosexuals are just attention wanting creatures that must be shown the way of God, lest they be consumed by his fiery might."
    about an hour ago · 2 people ·

    (me) the 2 people who like it Bonnie Parker (more from her later) which is a fake FB account created on September 24th & has specifically told me that heterosexuals own the word marriage & they have the right to force Gay people to accept whatever they(anti-gay heterosexuals) decide to give us…& Serena Nino…..interesting that comment by Daniel sounds like a threat…..

    Bonnie Parker ~ "They hang out in their gay nightclubs,smoking meth and have gay sex orgies. Marching in their raunchy parades and blogging about how evil and oppresive the hetero's treat them. Jeffery Dahmer is their leader."

    (me) so NOM you support posting that defamatory, slandering, libeling derogatory, propagated, speculative statements about innocent people on your pages attached to your name?……..

    Daniel Ashcroft ~ "These homosexuals must be taught through the power of the only God! These sinful creatures must be shown the light of the Almighty, otherwise they will burn."
    2 minutes ago ·

    (me) that can be construed as another threat of violence NOM….is that what you support?…You do know that there is a law that says I don't have to follow what "God" says? You know the first amendment, are you going to force me to be "Christian" NOM?…How about I report your page to police & the FBI as a credible threat of violence..would you like that NOM?…."we don't hate Gay people" NOM says…..bwaaaaaaaaaa…I beg to differ….You're failing NOM….keep it up NOMrades…keep it up….; ) …Ronnie

  • 41. Ronnie  |  October 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Can everybody just feel the "love" coming from NOM's Facebook page?….It just makes you want to hug them right?….yeah those things written above are something Martin Luther King Jr. would say in public….NOT!!!!….FAIL!!!….

    I am so tired of these self-rightous, pompous windbag liars….Brian Brown should be very proud to be "general manager" of that…yup…very proud…. : / …Ronnie

  • 42. Kim  |  October 18, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Whow, they killed the main argument of the proponents, namely "responsible procreation", in one hard blow. Excellent job.

  • 43. Bex  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Oy…. I am so excited for this brief to be filed… And so grateful to all of the trackers and the courage campaign for this fantastic and inspirational web site/community.
    Thank you eternally ;) it is now 10 pm pst

  • 44. Christian  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Wait… There's gay sex orgies in gay nightclubs?!

    Geez… I need to get out more. ;)

  • 45. Bex  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Lol Christian … ;)

  • 46. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Oh hell Ronnie, I don't know how you can even stand to read that crap.

    Even I have my limits (and I have definitely wallowed in some of the shit those kinds of people love to preach). Then I shower, very thoroughly afterwards :)

    As for the gay bar/meth/orgy stuff… Gee, old "Bonnie" sure digs those stereotypes. Someone should introduce her to reality.

    Oh, I'm sure there are meth fueled gay orgies going on out there somewhere, just as I'm sure there are meth fueled straight orgies going on out there somewhere.

    Way to beat a stereotype to death bon-bon :)

    And poor Daniel. He sounds so lost. He also sounds like he's about 15. He'll learn when he grows up and comes out of the closet.

    'And they'll know we are christians by our love.'' Indeed.

    I feel sorry for real Christians, like the ones who participate here, who are nothing like the human trash posting the crap you quoted.

    And Ronnie, you should take a break from their site for awhile. It's mind-poison.

  • 47. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    'Geez… I need to get out more. ;) '

    My thought exactly :)

  • 48. Sagesse  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Some depth on Judge Phillips hearing today

    Judge refuses to waiver on Don't Ask, Don't Tell injunction
    http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1

  • 49. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    So agree with you, JonT. I know this stuff is out there, but I have to be careful with how large a dose I take at and how frequently I get exposed. It poisons the mind.

    And I can vouch for the fact that there are plenty of straight sex drug fueled orgies out there … I'll let you come up with your own theories as to how I know that.

  • 50. Jonathan H  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Well, they didn't say it quite that honestly. They just whined that the judge hadn't considered all the evidence while apparently hoping nobody would notice that they never presented any.

    Actual quote from proponents in their 9th circuit brief:

    Nowhere in its 136-page opinion does the district court even cite any of the evidence overwhelmingly acknowledging responsible procreation and child-rearing as the animating purpose of marriage. All of the evidence … is simply ignored.

    And here's a quote from Judge Walker's decision:

    During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage." When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents' counsel replied, "you don't have to have evidence of this point."

  • 51. Ronnie  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Yeah I think I'm going to do that…my appetite has completely diminished because of that page..I wanted to lose a few pounds but not like this….I am reaching my limit with them though….I'm going to stay away from that for a while…Good thing one of the greatest holidays is just 13days away….YAY HALLOWEEN!!!!!….<3…Ronnie

  • 52. Jonathan H  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Oh, I’m sure there are meth fueled gay orgies going on out there somewhere,

    Sure, wherever Ted Haggard has money to burn on a Friday night.

    (Yeah, it's a cheap shot, but somebody had to say it!)

  • 53. Elizabeth Oakes  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    I'm sorry, but Therese Stewart is a GODDESS.

  • 54. Ronnie  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    ROFL….<3…Ronnie

  • 55. Bex  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Nice aside Elizabeth… Indeed she is :)

  • 56. Jonathan H  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    "Jeffery Dahmer is their leader.”?! That has to be a troll, or an example of Poe's Law, right?

    Also, "the only religion proven to be right"? Is anyone else imagining a huge blackboard covered in equations with like "= GOD!" at the end? Daniel did you show your work? I want to double check your math. I mean, you'd hate to have the wrong one true religion just because you forgot to carry a one, wouldn't you?

  • 57. Rhie  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    No, you were perfectly coherent. The proponents on the other hand…

    It's rare for anything to leave me speechless but their audacity and ignorance is just breathtaking.

  • 58. Cat  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    On the "channeling procreative conduct into relationships" (an important, if not the most important, seemingly constructive argument of the Prop.8 proponents), the brief says: To the extent this argument can be credited at all, it must be taken a step further than Proponents are willing to admit: Because Proposition 8 does not bestow an honor on opposite-sex couples but instead removes an honor from same-sex couples, this "incentives" justification can be credited only if it is rational to believe that opposite-sex couples will be less likely to raise children in a marital family if the stature of marriage is also available to same-sex couples. In fact, [...], this is the actual justification that Proposition 8's Proponents relied on in their campaign to enact it: that the inclusion of same-sex couples somehow sullied marriage itself and devalued it in the eyes of heterosexual couples. Yet Proponents produced not a shred of evidence that any opposite-sex
    couple in California would be less likely to marry if same-sex couples could as well.

    Spock will agree: impeccable logic. Even if you accept that Prop.8 could be allowed to discriminate, it doesn't even achieve it's goal. Slam dunk…

  • 59. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    'Spock will agree: impeccable logic.'

    As a close friend of Spock, I heartily concur :)

  • 60. Spock  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Indeed, impeccable logic. So unfortunate that most humans lack that skill.

  • 61. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    There were a few years in my personal history when I was given the opportunity to fantasize about who my birth father might be. First choice: Jack Kerouac (and many way, so likely, knowing my mom), but a close second was the thought that I was Spock's love child.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Hi Spock! Don't worry. It just turned out to be an old geezer in Oklahoma.

  • 63. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Spocky! How's it hangin!? Missed you at my housewarming party last month!
    :)

  • 64. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Kathleen, according to ECF, the doc we've all been waiting for has arrived… :)

  • 65. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    UPDATE:
    Plaintiffs' (Appellees') Answering Brief in the appeal of Imperial County. Filed 10/18/2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/39643469

  • 66. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    It was actually filed under the case number for the Imperial County appeal. I need to figure out if it's the answer in both cases.

  • 67. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    It appears to be only the one for the Imperial County appeal. So we're still waiting for the other.

  • 68. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Ok, I'll read it anyway – the ECF notice didn't even mention Imperial County…

    My bad..

  • 69. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    They have different case numbers. I remember it by the fact that the main case is assigned an even number and the Imperial County case is an odd number.

  • 70. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    @Kathleen: '…and the Imperial County case is an odd number.'

    Yes, this seems appropriate, as they are an odd group. :)

  • 71. draNgNon  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    well actually IIRC they devoted quite a bit of the appeal to the concept of "legislative facts" – i.e., facts that are accepted by the court without supporting evidence – and how said legislative facts were entirely ignored by the judge. in fact they whined quite a bit at how shocking it was that the judge decided he wanted a trial with evidence at all, as they expected the case to be decided on the merits of legislative facts.

  • 72. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Yes they did. But of course there weren't any legislative facts, not in the way that is generally meant by that. It's true that in voter initiatives, the voters are standing in for the function of the legislature, but it isn't a process that allows for the same kind of fact finding and legislative record that you'd have from a legislative body.

  • 73. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    That's precisely the mnemonic I use. :)

  • 74. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Aside from their 5 month delay in attempting to intervene, I think the following pretty much sums up Imperial County's irrelevance in this matter:

    'The County contends that its Deputy County Clerk has a significant protect-able interest in Plaintiffs’ case because (1) she has admittedly ministerial responsibilities that relate to marriage and (2) the outcome of this action supposedly will
    “subject her to conflicting duties.” County Br. 17.

    The district court correctly concluded that Ms. Vargas’s ministerial responsibilities do not give her a judicially
    cognizable interest in this litigation and that there is no plausible basis for believing that a federal court order invalidating Proposition 8 would subject her to “conflicting duties.”
    '

  • 75. Dave  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    What happens if the plaintiffs miss the deadline to file a brief in the main case appeal?

  • 76. JonT  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    … forgive the failure to close the 'b' tag after '5 month delay'.

    PS: Really admins, provide an updated commenting module that at least provides an 'Preview' function, if not an edit function. I beg you, it's two thousand freaking ten!

  • 77. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    I think Eden is prepping a post, but for those who can't wait: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39644313

    Includes motion to file over sized brief.

  • 78. Kathleen  |  October 18, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Won't have to find out this time. :)

  • 79. Ed Cortes  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    IANAL, but I think that the Cal Supremes were asked to determine if the H8ers properly used the initiative process to implement it. The case was all about that, and not on the constitutionality of the prop itself. IMHO, if the case had been tried based on the earlier decision, the court might have struck it down.
    Eyes crossed, tea dotted, and box checked

  • 80. Sagesse  |  October 18, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Proponents like to say the CA Supreme Court reversed, or overturned its earlier decision; in fact they ruled that the initiative process (Prop 8) could be used to change the CA constitution in the way it did.

  • 81. Ronnie  |  October 19, 2010 at 1:21 am

    So that Bonnie chick deleted the comment herself & attempted to apologize for it but stopped short of a full apology. Someone (an Equality supporter) was offended by the "Dahmer" comment & that is all she apologized for……

    never-the-less, it was said, people saw it, & people were offended by the entire comment. It goes to show you what the mindset is of NOM & the people who follow them. They don't care about who they hurt unless it is someone who falls lock-in-step with their beliefs & even at that they alienate Heterosexuals & Christians who don't go as far as she did or those other comments. They alienate those who are Heterosexual & Christian who support Equality as well…..

    Although she deleted her comment, it gave someone else the idea that he can continue with it. This is what is being proven about the anti-gay side. They fester, & enable this hateful & hurtful behavior. NOM is responsible for this & should be held accountable. It doesn't matter what Brian Brown or Maggie Gallagher say about "we don't hate". Their Fascist bigotry, discrimination, degradation, & dehumanization of LGBT people as well as Heterosexuals who support us (including children I might add) gives permission to people like that Bonnie chick & the Daniel guy to hurt & bully innocent people.

    If NOM does not hate Gay people their page certainly does not reflect their empty communique… ; / …Ronnie

  • 82. Wine Country Lurker  |  October 19, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Would be nice to be able to subscribe-by-email w/o having to post… Oh well…. Double-checking the checking of the box!

    Obligatory-on-topic: SF brief kicked ass. :-)

  • 83. yelocab  |  October 19, 2010 at 4:56 am

    @Anonygrl: yes, yes, yes, yes! Thanks for pointing those arguments out.

    All Prop 8 does is remove the title 'marriage' from gay and lesbian couples. It doesn't do anything else than that.

    All this time I have been thinking: CA offers Domestic Partnership to gay & lesbian couples. How is this any different than "marriage" other than not using the word "marriage"? All the arguments about kids being raised by opposite parents, marriage is for procreation, etc. are all nullified by the fact that CA ALREADY recognizes same-sex couples and allows them to form DPs and adopt and raise children. Allowing or disallowing them from using the word "marriage" will not change the fact that these couples still exist and that CA ALREADY recognizes these couples in a similar fashion to opposite-sex couples, and these couples will still continue to form and some will adopt or give birth to children and raise them.

    To follow through on the logic of proponent's arguments, however, CA would have to then stop recognizing DPs, and stop letting gays and lesbians adopt kids, right?

  • 84. Lodrelhai  |  October 19, 2010 at 7:50 am

    Make no mistake, that is exactly their goal. In the case that went to the CA Supreme Court, defenders of Prop 8 already tried to have the legal gay marriages dissolved. If NOM and their ilk can get it upheld in federal courts, they will use that as a basis to argue against domestic partnership and adoption by gay couples.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually went after gays and lesbians donating eggs/sperm or having fertilization treatments/seeking surrogate parents to give them natural-born children biologically related to them. After all, in the thought process they've displayed GLBTQ people are aberrant (and abhorrent) , and the state has a vested interest in preventing them from harming innocent children or spreading their sickness to others. Besides, GLBTQ people are by default single (if they have their way about it) and being raised by a single parent is bad for the children!

  • 85. JefferyK  |  October 19, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Folks, please don't forget that America hates gay people. Don't get your hopes up. The Supreme Court will come up with something.

  • 86. Ronnie  |  October 19, 2010 at 9:03 am

    That first part is not true….America doesn't hate gay people… : / …Ronnie

  • 87. fiona64  |  October 19, 2010 at 9:07 am

    And yet another member of the Who Would Jesus Hate Club is heard from …

  • 88. Ann S.  |  October 19, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Or maybe just a cynic. I'm pretty cynical about what the SCOTUS will do with this, too.

  • 89. Rhie  |  October 19, 2010 at 10:40 am

    So am I. But I say things like "I am worried that the SCOTUS won't rule properly." Not "America hates gay people." Those two statements are not synonymous.

  • 90. ICICI Bank&hellip  |  May 21, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    ICICI Money to India…

    [...]listed below are a few hyper-links to online sites we connect to seeing as we feel there’re definitely worth visiting[...]…

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!