The U.S. Supreme Court dominated Wednesday's news with its 5-4
decision to continue the prohibition on the video broadcasting of the California marriage amendment trial in San Francisco. Federal courts have prohibited cameras for decades, and the Supreme Court halted the effort to broadcast the trial because the district court did not follow the procedures needed to change the rules to allow the unprecedented broadcast. The supporters of Proposition 8 praised the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that "putting Prop 8 supporters on the witness stand and broadcasting their testimony worldwide would virtually guarantee a serious risk of harm threatened by anti-Prop 8 extremists."
Wednesday began with the cross-examination of Yale history professor George Chauncey. In his direct testimony, he painted a dark history for people engaged in homosexual behavior in America. However, Professor Chauncey reluctantly admitted that he has also written that the environment for this group has improved markedly in America. He also admitted that people voted for Proposition 8 for a range of reasons—and that not all of them had invidious intent to "discriminate."
Professor Chauncey also had a frustrating habit of falsely linking the motivations of those who supported Proposition 8 to those who supported racial segregation a half century ago. He reluctantly agreed that there is nothing wrong with voters considering their individual moral values to decide how to vote on an issue, but then added that people supported racial segregation because of their moral beliefs. People also use their personal moral values to support environmental legislation or health care legislation. Does that mean those voters are just like those who supported racial segregation? The fact is
two-thirds of black Americans, many of whom personally suffered under segregation, affirm the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. If anyone would notice a civil rights issue when he saw one, it is a black voter. The truth is skin color is not a moral category, but demanding unquestioned public affirmation of certain sexual behaviors on society is an inescapably moral issue. The comparison is apples and sea urchins—a PR ploy—but unfortunately, it has fooled many.
A chilling moment came when San Francisco city attorney Therese Stewart had Professor Chauncey read official doctrinal statements from the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church that both generally restated what the Bible says about the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Professor Chauncey said those doctrinal statements reflect historic bias against those who engage in homosexual behavior. It's not hard to figure out what is so frightening about an attempt in federal court to attack and delegitimize the views of the two largest Christian denominations in America. This is further proof that this case, and the very definition of marriage, is about much more than the personal relationships and the inner feelings of people who choose same-sex relationships. It is about imposing a different and intolerant "morality" on America and eradicating opposing ideas.
The opponents of the marriage amendment will continue to call witnesses Thursday and for the next few days. The attorneys in favor of the amendment—Charles Cooper and others from his firm together with attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund—will continue to cross-examine those witnesses and prepare to present the case in favor of marriage and the marriage amendment sometime next week.
Stay tuned for updates throughout the
Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial at
www.Facebook.com/AllianceDefenseFund and
Twitter.com/AllianceDefense