Proposed Statements of Facts were filed in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California. According to California's CBS 13, the proponents of the ban added some new arguments:
In papers filed late Friday, lawyers for the sponsors of California's gay marriage ban offered new twists on their claim that allowing gay men and lesbians to wed could undermine man-woman unions.
The potential harms they cited included giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children.
The plaintiffs' lawyers said there was no evidence to support these new claims. In fact, the plaintiffs offered hundreds of pages of factual evidence in their proposed statement of facts that they argue disprove all of the defenses' claims about gay marriage's alleged harm to society. Brian Leubitz of the Courage Campaign neatly summarized the volumes of factual evidence:
Here's the gist:
The trial proved that:
- Prop. 8 does irreparable harm to Americans
- Marriage has shed discriminatory restrictions over time
- Gay men and lesbians are entitled to the full protection of the 14th Amendment
- There is no good reason for Prop. 8's denial of fundamental civil rights
Much of this information was laid out at the final courthouse press conference at the end of January. [...]
Look, what this comes down to is what we have known for years. Those who oppose marriage equality do it either out of fear, tradition, or religious reasons. We all disagree with that, but for many (but not all) these are sincerely held beliefs. And while I sincerely hope I will see that number dwindle markedly during my lifetime, I know that these people exist. If they choose to discriminate against gays and lesbians in their churches, that is their right. At your church, you need only marry those whom you wish. Heck, I'm not sure if an equality focused body like the MCC Church would want to be forced to marry two people any more than the Mormons would.
The plaintiffs' web site, The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), has provided tremendous transparency in the legal process by posting transcripts, briefs and other pleadings filed with the Court to support marriage equality. People wishing to read the defense's pleadings need to purchase copies from the Court's PACER system because the ProtectMarriage campaign does not provide the same access to information.
AFER also posted its response to various amicus briefs filed by the opponents of marriage equality (link opens to PDF file) which gives a good synopsis of the entire case. Among other things, AFER responded that the amicus parties did not demonstrate that a legitimate state interest was served by Proposition 8. Some specific responses included:
- The response refuted the American College of Pediatricians (ACP)'s claim that same sex marriage harms children. The responses notes that the organization was formed in 2002 in opposition to the American Association of Pediatrics' support of same sex marriage, and cites evidence that children of same sex couples are as as well adjusted as opposite sex couples.
- Claims by ACP and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that marriage equality would undermine opposite-sex marriage were addressed and disputed based on lack of empirical evidence supporting their claims. Data from European countries allowing marriage equality was cited evidence to the contrary of ACP and NOM's claims.
- The Becket Fund's claim that same sex marriage would undermine religious liberties was refuted, with reference to case law.
- ACER responded to the Family Research Council's claim that the fundamental right to marry acknowledged by the Supreme Court applied only for the purpose of procreation and child rearing with case law, as well as with practical arguments such as the fact that inmates are allowed to marry, even if they will not have an opportunity to consummate their marriages for years, if at all, and that through choice or infertility, couples do not always procreate.
- Although the defense's amicus briefs did not deny that gays and lesbians were discriminated against, they said that they were not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. ACER's response addresses the Ninth Circuit Court's finding that sexual orientation was not immutable, and that gays and lesbians face housing and employment discrimination, have had their rights publicly voted upon in 33 states, and are underrepresented in political office.
Closing arguments have not yet been scheduled.
Get our daily news and article headlines by email or RSS feed. 
