Presentation of Evidence Concludes in Perry v Schwarzenegger Federal Trial (homosexual marriage)

Protect Marriage ^ | Jan 27, 2010 | Andy Pugno

[DesertRenegade]

Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.

What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.

[DesertRenegade]

Let's hope that traditional marriage is preserved in the court's decision. But it's not looking good since the gay judge Vaughn Walker has let homosexual activists game the legal system. Their threats caused some of the key witnesses for the defense to drop out. I pray that if the wrong verdict is rendered, the US Supreme Court will intervene and stop this madness.

[IrishCatholic]

Maybe they can overturn the “settled law” of Lawrence v. Texas.

Wouldn't that be a strike against the Socialists!

[Yossarian]

Prop 8 was an amendment to the state's CONSTITUTION.

What the h*ll is it being litigated in court for? The constitution is supposed to rule OVER the courts, not UNDER them!!!

[freedomwarrior998]

Homosexual Vaughn Walker has already made up his mind. He is going to overturn Prop 8.

[LauraJean]

The left are all in favor of gay marriage becuase it makes us all into interchangable parts. But this is not true.
Men and women have different parenting skills and weaknesses.
Boys need a man to help show them how a man behaves.
They need a man to show them how to treat a woman by way of how their father treats there mother.
This same idea apply to girls and mother.

This same reasoning also applies to boys and their mother and girls and their father.

Yes I know women and men can do a wonderful job as a single parent. It is just more difficult to do both parts of the job when that parent is missing the skills so easily provided by the other.

[goldstategop]

I've reviewed the summary of the proceedings in Penry and the gist of it is the plaintiffs have made an emotional and social argument about same sex marriage. They have not met the burden of proof under the law reserving marriage to opposite couples disadvantages homosexuals in California. And if there is justice, the US Federal District Court will uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[goldstategop]

It was litigated under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. But there is no violation of equal treatment under the law or violation of due process. And society does treat marriage in a privileged manner because of the benefits it offers for society. And I don't think the plaintiffs have made a case that it harms them.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[fwdude]

Maybe they can overturn the “settled law” of Lawrence v. Texas.

Wouldn't that be a strike against the Socialists!

That really is the only silver bullet that will be effective in this filthy tide of perversion. It was Lawrence that initiated the momentum for sodomites; reversing it would go a long way toward pushing it back. States might not reinstate their sodomy laws if it happened, but it would nevertheless be a bold censure on depravity by a society that ultimately claims the right to define and enforce morality.

[freedomwarrior998]

Vaughn Walker is rumored to be a homosexual. His bias has been incredible. He’s a raving maniac. I’ll be shocked if he doesn’t overturn Prop 8. Either way, Reinhardt and the Ninth Circus await next.