‘Marriage protection’ group behind Prop 8 cries â€˜foul’ over legal challenge
TOMORROW sees the start in California of an historic legal challenge to Proposition 8, which successfully overturned gay marriage in the state in 2008.
And ProtectMarriage.com – (motto: Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children) – the vicious “family values” group that spearheaded the campaign which resulted in the passing of Proposition 8, is already squealing “foul!”
Writing for The Baptist Press, the repugnant Andy Pugno, PM’s general counsel, claims that the federal case before Judge Vaughn Walker:
Is the first marriage case in the history of the nation where the thoughts, motivations and personal beliefs of an initiative’s sponsors have been put on trial to search for â€˜improper’ intent.
Pugno elaborates on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger hearing:
â€¦The trial will delve into the personal beliefs of the Prop 8’s sponsors regarding marriage and sexuality. What relevance, you might reasonably ask yourself, could that possibly have to whether Proposition 8 is constitutional? That is an excellent question.
According to Judge Walker’s rulings, our opponents could try to use these things to show that Proposition 8 passed due to animosity or bigotry toward homosexuals. Or that Prop 8 was adopted because of ‘improper’ religious views. Or that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination, in which case the traditional marriage laws may be presumptively invalid.
This is precisely what the plaintiffs in the Perry case are claiming. In fact, the plaintiff’s attorney, David Boies, told The Wall Street Journal that passing Proposition 8 to restore traditional marriage â€˜is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing’.
Pugno is also unhappy about the choice of San Francisco for the hearing:
San Francisco is undoubtedly the friendliest venue in the nation for a same-sex marriage lawsuit. This alone gives supporters of traditional marriage pause, realizing that the arguments advanced by our opponents will have a ‘home court’ advantage in terms of local receptivity.
â€¦As the trial begins, there is no question that virtually every ruling [by Judge Walker] so far has put traditional marriage at an increasing disadvantage. The consistency with which the judge has sided with our opponents is anything but comforting to supporters of traditional marriage.
But one thing is for certain: No matter how Judge Walker eventually rules in the Perry trial, this legal saga is destined for appeals and a final decision in the US Supreme Court. Ultimately, it will not be Judge Walker’s views on marriage that decide this case, but rather those of the nine justices on the highest court in the nation.
I have no doubt that the final outcome of the Perry case will conclusively determine the future of marriage for the entire United States. Our legal team is working as hard as possible to win the trial in the district court, and is prepared to fight with every ounce of energy all the way to the US Supreme Court.