Proponent Hak-Shing William Tam testified about his role
in the Proposition 8 campaign. Tam spent substantial time, effort
and resources campaigning for Proposition 8. As of July 2007, Tam
was working with Protect Marriage to put Proposition 8 on the
November 2008 ballot. Tr 1900:13-18. Tam testified that he is the
secretary of the America Return to God Prayer Movement, which
operates the website “1man1woman.net.” Tr 1916:3-24.
1man1woman.net encouraged voters to support Proposition 8 on
grounds that homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest
children, Tr 1919:3-1922:21, and because Proposition 8 will cause
states one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands, Tr 1928:6-13. Tam
identified NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy
of Homosexuality) as the source of information about homosexuality,
because he “believe in what they say.” Tr 1939:1-9. Tam
identified “the internet” as the source of information connecting
same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest. Tr 1957:2-12. Protect
Marriage relied on Tam and, through Tam, used the website
1man1woman.net as part of the Protect Marriage Asian/Pacific
Islander outreach.
Katami and Stier testified about the effect Proposition 8
campaign advertisements had on their well-being. Katami explained
that he was angry and upset at the idea that children needed to be
protected from him. After watching a Proposition 8 campaign
message, PX0401 (Video, Tony Perkins, Miles McPherson, and Ron
Prentice Asking for Support of Proposition 8), Katami stated that
“it just demeans you. It just makes you feel like people are
putting efforts into discriminating against you.” Tr 108:14-16.
Stier, as the mother of four children, was especially disturbed at
the message that Proposition 8 had something to do with protecting
children. She felt the campaign messages were “used to sort of try
to educate people or convince people that there was a great evil to
be feared and that evil must be stopped and that evil is us, I
guess. * * * And the very notion that I could be part of what
others need to protect their children from was just —— it was more
than upsetting. It was sickening, truly. I felt sickened by that
campaign.”
For the reasons stated in the sections that follow, the
evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises
underlying proponents’ proffered rationales for Proposition 8. An
initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect.
The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified
scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the
voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must
find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when
those determinations enact into law classifications of persons.
Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will
the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice,
no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The
evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8
finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is
beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their
representatives.
Proponents called two witnesses:
1. David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for
American Values, testified on marriage, fatherhood and family
structure. Plaintiffs objected to Blankenhorn’s qualification
as an expert. For the reasons explained hereafter,
Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion
testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent
testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.
The court concludes that Blankenhorn’s proposed
definition of marriage is “connected to existing data only by the
ipse dixit” of Blankenhorn and accordingly rejects it.
My Latin's rusty, bit I think ipse dixit translates to "I said it".
Blankenhorn did turn out to be a valuable witness, though.
During cross-examination, Blankenhorn was
shown a report produced by his Institute in 2000 explaining the six
dimensions of marriage: (1) legal contract; (2) financial
partnership; (3) sacred promise; (4) sexual union; (5) personal
bond; and (6) family-making bond. When referring to the sixth dimension, a familymaking
bond, Blankenhorn agreed that same-sex couples could “raise”
children.
Really, the man could go into a profitable career as a gay-rights advocate. He's much better at supporting gay rights than he is at making it look bad.
Blankenhorn agreed that
children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents
were permitted to marry. Tr 2803:6-15. Blankenhorn also testified
he wrote and agrees with the statement “I believe that today the
principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian
persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this
principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted samesex
marriage than we were the day before.”
Blankenhorn stated he opposes marriage for same-sex
couples because it will weaken the institution of marriage, despite
his recognition that at least thirteen positive consequences would
flow from state recognition of marriage for same-sex couples,
including: (1) by increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage
might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions
and more children growing up in loving adoptive and foster
families; and (2) same-sex marriage would signify greater social
acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of samesex
intimate relationships.
Other fun bits:
Protect Marriage is a “broad coalition” of individuals and
organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints (the “LDS Church”), the California Catholic
Conference and a large number of evangelical churches.
a. PX2310 About ProtectMarriage.com, Protect Marriage
(2008): Protect Marriage “about” page identifies a
“broad-based coalition” in support of Proposition 8;
b. PX0577 Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, Passing Prop 8,
Politics (Feb 2009) at 47: “We had the support of
virtually the entire faith community in California.”;
c. Tr 1585:20-1590:2 (Segura: Churches, because of their
hierarchical structure and ability to speak to
congregations once a week, have a “very strong
communication network” with churchgoers. A network of
“1700 pastors” working with Protect Marriage in support
of Proposition 8 is striking because of “the sheer
breadth of the [religious] organization and its level of
coordination with Protect Marriage.”);
d. Tr 1590:23-1591:12 (Segura: An “organized effort” and
“formal association” of religious groups formed the
“broad-based coalition” of Protect Marriage.);
e. Tr 1609:12-1610:6 (Segura: The coalition between the
Catholic Church and the LDS Church against a minority
group was “unprecedented.”);
f. PX2597 Email from Prentice to Lynn Vincent (June 19,
2008): Prentice explains that “[f]rom the initial efforts
in 1998 for the eventual success of Prop 22 in 2000, a
coalition of many organizations has existed, including
evangelical, Catholic and Mormon groups” and identifies
Catholic and evangelical leaders working to pass
Proposition 8;
g. PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of
Proposition 8, Excerpt: Prentice explains the importance
of contributions from the LDS Church, Catholic bishops
and evangelical ministers to the Protect Marriage
campaign;
h. PX0577 Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, Passing Prop 8,
Politics at 46 (Feb 2009): “By this time, leaders of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had endorsed
Prop 8 and joined the campaign executive committee. Even though the LDS were the last major denomination to join
the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in
early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions
while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical
fundraising efforts.”
23. The states have always required the parties to give their free
consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered
property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity
to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation,
former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most
important new rights they had gained.
24. Many states, including California, had laws restricting the
race of marital partners so that whites and non-whites could
not marry each other.
a. Tr 228:9-231:3 (Cott: In “[a]s many as 41 states and
territories,” laws placed restrictions on “marriage
between a white person and a person of color.”);
b. Tr 236:17-238:23 (Cott: Racially restrictive marriage
laws “prevented individuals from having complete choice
on whom they married, in a way that designated some
groups as less worthy than other groups[.]” Defenders of
race restrictions argued the laws were “naturally-based
and God’s plan just being put into positive law, the
efforts to undo them met extreme alarm among those who thought these laws were correct. * * * [P]eople who
supported [racially restrictive marriage laws] saw these
as very important definitional features of who could and
should marry, and who could not and should not.”);
