Prop. 8 Trial Begins: 'Roe v Wade' of Marriage Battle

Homosexual activists ask court to find California's Proposition 8 protecting marriage violates Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

SAN FRANCISCO (LifeSiteNews.com) - Monday morning the highly-anticipated Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial began, a case that some have said could be the "Roe v. Wade" in the conflict between supporters of gay marriage and of same-sex "marriage."

Homosexualist activists hope the case will determine that California's Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution to clarify that marriage is only be between a man and a woman, is a violation of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection beneath the law.

Should the court rule that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, it could ultimately lead to the overthrow of dozens of state amendments and laws passed defending traditional marriage and to the erasure of years of effort by traditional marriage activists.

"It's impossible to overstate the importance of this case to the future of marriage in America," said Ron Prentice of ProtectMarriage.com. "Not only is the constitutionality of California's Prop 8 at stake, but so are the marriage laws of 45 other states and the federal Defense of Marriage Act."

Homosexualist activists have attempted to paint the issue in the colors of the civil rights movement. David Boies, a lawyer for the two homosexual couples that are plaintiffs in this case, has written that "Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing." He calls homosexuality "a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination."

Similarly, in his opening statement in the case, his fellow attorney Theodor Olson said that "this case is about marriage and equality. The plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry and equality under the law." He also said that that Proposition 8 adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination in America.

In their opposing brief, lawyers representing California argued that "the traditional definition of marriage does not reflect animus against gays and lesbians -- in California or anywhere else. Nor is it in anyway arbitrary or irrational."

They continued: "Rather, it simply reflects the fact that the institution of marriage is, and always has been, uniquely concerned with promoting and regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women to provide for the nurture and upbringing of the next generation. ... This understanding of the central purposes of marriage has been repeatedly and persuasively articulated by leading lawyers, linguists, philosophers, and social scientists throughout history up to and including the present day."

Although Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown are named as defendants in the suit, both have refused to defend the constitutionality of the amendment. Private citizens, therefore, have had to step up to defend California's own constitution; attorneys with the pro-family Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com have risen to the task.

Witness the Words of Jesus Come to Life

Aside from the case's importance, the manner in which District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has decided it will proceed is also notable. Edwin Meese III, former U.S. Attorney general, describes the difference between Judge Walker's decisions and the decisions of judges who have previously scrutinized marriage laws.

"In those [previous] instances," he writes, "the courts have decided legal challenges to state marriage laws based on legislative history, scholarly articles and testimony by social scientists and other experts. They have, in some cases, looked for evidence of legislative intent in the statements published in official voter information pamphlets."

He continued: "But in this case, Judge Walker has ruled that things like TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers' statements are also relevant evidence of what the voters intended. ... 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."

As Andy Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, has written, "as the trial begins, there is no question that virtually every ruling 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."

Judge Vaugn had also previously decided that the proceedings of the case would be broadcast over Youtube; this decision received strong criticism from advocates of traditional marriage, who have in the past been subject to threats, harassment, and violence because of their beliefs. Less than two hours before the trial began, however, the United States Supreme Court intervened and ruled that the trial may not be broadcast over YouTube until they have further considered the issue.

---

LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. It was launched in September 1997. LifeSiteNews Daily News reports and information pages are used by numerous organizations and publications, educators, professionals and political, religious and life and family organization leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally.