Tag Archives: Prop 8

Podcasts

New Jennifer Roback Morse podcast on the California prop 8 trial

Leave a comment

Right now there is a trial going on in California in which some plaintiffs are challenging the result of the recent referendum on marriage. California voted to recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman, and some people are complaining about that. Jennifer Roback Morse was interviewed about this trial on the Christian radio show “Issues, Etc.”, and she explained some of the issues they are debating in the trial and what it all means.

Here is the MP3 file.

And here’s my summary of what she and the host talked about:

  • Rosie O’Donnell’s twelve-year lesbian relationship is over
  • How children are affected by unstable relationships between partners
  • what do the statistics show about the stability of same-sex unions?
  • what is the purpose of marriage?
  • what characteristics define child-centered marriage?
  • what characteristics define adult-centered marriage?
  • who gets custody of the children when same-sex couples split?
  • how are parental rights understood today under the law?
  • how would same-sex marriage change parental rights?
  • what is the agenda of family law radicals for marriage?
  • what are the consequences of this California trial?
  • why does the judge want to broadcast the trial on TV?

I find her a real delight to listen to! I would be delighted if more people learned to talk about these issues the same way that she does. I find her blog is very helpful as well. In fact, she has an interesting post up about some “expert” testimony from a sociologist who testified in favor of same sex marriage. (H/T Lex Communis)

She cites this post from Protect Marriage:

UCLA social psychology professor Dr. Letitia Peppeau opined that, among other things, same-sex couples are “indistinguishable” from heterosexual couples in terms of their relationships, and that legalizing same sex marriage would not harm traditional marriage. However, she could offer no studies to prove her contention that there would be no impacts on traditional marriage.  On cross examination, she also admitted that the available studies do, in fact, show significant differences between gay couples and heterosexual couples. For example, one study reported that a significantly lower percentage of gay men think that monogamy is important in their relationships (only 36%) than do those in heterosexual relationships. Of those gay men who say that monogamy is important in their relationships, 74% still engage in sex with multiple partners. When pressed, she admitted that sexual exclusivity among gay men is the exception rather than the rule.

My previous post on why people favor traditional marriage explored the research on the differences between traditional marriage and same-sex unions. If we agree that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the children, then it’s clear from the research that these two arrangements are not the same.

Related posts

News

Jennifer Roback Morse explains the California lawsuit against Prop 8

3 Comments

Great post by the admirable Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse on MercatorNet. (H/T RuthBlog)

Excerpt:

California’s high-profile federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, which begins in court on January 11, appears to be about creating a federal case for same sex marriage. But in fact, much more is at stake. Lurking in the shadows of this case is a breathtaking expansion of judicial interference with perfectly valid elections. Whatever your views about Proposition 8, we surely should be able to agree that special interest groups can’t go into court to overturn elections they don’t like.

Ted Olsen and David Boies want to convince the court that the alleged anti-gay bias of Proposition 8 supporters should invalidate the election. But first, they have to find some such bias. This is why Olsen and Boies sought the trial court’s permission to demand confidential campaign documents. They want free reign to rummage around through the Prop 8 campaign’s computers and filing cabinets, looking for evidence of this supposed meanness. The trial judge had ruled that Prop 8 proponents had no First Amendment privilege, and therefore had to hand over all communications among members of the campaign and their contractors.

[…]The motives of the seven million Californians who voted Yes on 8 are irrelevant. The election was about adding 14 words to the California Constitution. The entire state of California knew perfectly well what those words were. The point of the campaign was to discuss the likely impact of those words. Olsen and Boies don’t like what the voters decided. Sorry. Self-government is about abiding by the results of lawful elections, whether you like the outcome or not.

And here is an op-ed by former Attorney General Ed Meese III in the New York Times. (H/T The Corner)

Excerpt:

Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8. They’ll argue that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination.

To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube. This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.

The tolerance of the secular left. I hope some of my readers who believe in marriage are going to law school – and I want straight As on your transcripts, but keep a low profile! I recommend writing under a pseudonym, because the other side will go after anything you write to discredit you. Think about it.

My previous post about the threats and violence against Prop 8 supporters. And another post explains why prop 8 supporters favor traditional marriage.

By the way, comments on this post will be strictly moderated in order to respect Obama’s hate crimes law.

Commentary

MUST-READ: Study documents harassment and threats against Prop 8 supporters

2 Comments

The research publication is here, from the Heritage Foundation. (H/T ECM)

Abstract:

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

The executive summary is here.

The PDF version is here.

You may also want to refresh yourself on how this works out in practice by watching a debate on marriage between Dennis Prager and Perez Hilton.

My previous post on this topic is here.