Judge's Questions Point to Absurdity of Prop 8 MarriageTrial

Make a tax-deductible donation to support CCGI's marriage advocacy education project, Stand with Children.

Get updates on this


Bookmark and Share

Preparations for Closing Arguments on June 16
Prayer Needed

by William B. May

SAN FRANCISCO, June 9, 2010 -- The Prop 8 trial in San Francisco took another bizarre twist yesterday as groundwork is being laid for closing arguments in the case that are scheduled for Wednesday, June 16. The Judge asked plaintiffs and proponents for responses to series of questions that only highlight the absurdity of putting marriage and the intentions of California voters on trial. Some of the questions are listed below to demonstrate the point.

To both the plaintiffs and proponents of Prop 8, Chief Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker asked:
"What purpose does a law requiring that a marital partnership consist of one man and one woman serve?” Specifically to proponents he asked, “What does evidence show the difference to be between gays and lesbians, on the one hand, and heterosexuals on the other?”

Pray for the
Prop 8 Marriage

If it pleases the court, there is ample evidence to suggest that relationships between heterosexuals commonly result in new citizens, not always, but sometimes unintentionally. There also seems to be ample evidence that relationships between people of the same-sex have no possibility of creating new citizens (hereinafter referred to as “children”). Your honor, it seems this difference is very significant and important to the state when considering the definition of marriage and considering that children and their welfare are important to the future of society. Marriage between a man and a woman who are committed to each other and to the children that come from the relationship is of immeasurable value to those children who cannot testify and represent their interests. They depend on grownups to do if for them.

To the plaintiffs he asked:
“Assume the evidence shows that Proposition 8 [defining marriage as between a man and a woman] is not in fact rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Do the voters’ honest beliefs in the absence of supporting evidence have any bearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?” Interestingly, to put this in context he referred to the New York Supreme Court opinion upholding traditional marriage in which they stated, “In absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the Legislature could rationally proceed on the common-sense premise that children will do best with a mother and a father in the home.”

Yes, your honor, the voters honestly believe, based on their own experience, their common desire for connection with the man and woman from whom they originated, a man and a woman committed to each other and committed to them in a relationship of love – something known as a family with a married mother and father – yes your honor, that experience is relevant in making public policy even if you were to conclude there is no legitimate state interest in protecting and promoting that primordial relationship.

Twelve questions were asked to each the plaintiffs and the proponents. Another 15 questions were addressed to both. See entire list if questions.

Prop 8 proponents were asked:
"Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination?" The question itself is an indictment of the voters of California. That is like asking, “When you beat your wife why is that not tantamount to spousal abuse?”

Your honor, homosexuality has nothing to do with protecting and promoting marriage between a man and a woman for our children and their future. People are free to adopt any lifestyle they like, but there is no justification for any special interest to redefine and undermine the very foundation on which the family and society are built.

Prop 8 proponents were asked:
“The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?”

Yikes! Blankenhorn was the main witness on our side testifying to the reality of marriage and its value to society. Again, this underscores the absurdity of determining the future of marriage for California and the country in any court room based on testimony of witnesses and presentation of evidence. Only the voters, drawing on their own experience, acting in the best interest of children and future generations, are qualified to make this decision. The voters of California and Maine and 40 other states have spoken. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

The outcome of this trial could go either way. Whatever the decision, the case is likely destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. Your prayers are needed.

Please pray for the Prop 8 Marriage trial, for the judge, Prop 8's attorneys, and the plaintiffs.

William B. May is chairman of Catholics for the Common Good

Copyright © 2004–2012 Catholics for the Common Good®
Permission granted for use of content with attribution to