Loading
Burden of proof to overturn Prop. 8 was unmet, backers say as testimony ends

.- The testimony period of the trial of California’s Proposition 8 ended on Wednesday. Backers of the measure claimed that those seeking to overturn it did not meet the burden of proof but had produced a “spectacular show trial of irrelevant evidence.” Opponents claimed it was based in discredited religious beliefs and prejudice comparable to racism.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker said he would review evidence before the closing arguments, which will likely be held in March or April.

Prop. 8, the contested 2008 ballot measure, passed by more than 52 percent of voters and restored the definition of marriage in California as a union of a man and a woman.

Backers of Prop. 8 have said there is a rational, nondiscriminatory basis for the voters’ action. Opponents have contended that a rational basis was unproven and that the measure must pass a higher standard.

They said that homosexual rights are entitled to the standard of legal protection as racial minority rights, claiming that homosexuals lack political power and have been discriminated against on the basis of a characteristic they claim cannot change.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had recognized marriage as a fundamental right and therefore there was no legal reason to deny marriage to homosexuals. They claimed Prop. 8 was a product of anti-homosexual prejudice rooted in long-discredited religious and psychological theories about homosexuality.

"We said on the first day of trial we would prove three things," commended plaintiffs’ lawyer David Boes after the trial testimony ended, cbs5.com reports. "Marriage is a fundamental right; that depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry hurts them and hurts their children; and there was no reason, no societal benefit in not allowing them to get married."

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Senior Lead Counsel Austin R. Nimocks reported on the ADF website that one of the defense’s witnesses was David Blankenhorn, a liberal Democrat who has historically supported homosexual political causes including domestic partnerships.

However, he believed marriage should be reserved to a union between man and woman.

Blankenhorn’s opposition to overturning Prop. 8 threw “a huge wrench” into the plaintiffs’ case, according to Nimocks.

Andy Pugno, general counsel of Prop. 8 backer ProtectMarriage.com, thought his team did a “remarkable job” in its defense.

He said in a statement that “sensationalism” should not excuse the plaintiffs’ burden of proof.

“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,” Pugno argued. “The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.”

Nonetheless, he said the defense had shown that the longstanding definition of marriage is rational because marriage “benefits children, not just the adults.” A household with a mother and a father is “best for a child” and marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that can “biologically serve that distinct purpose,” Pugno said.

“A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It's that simple.”

Pugno claimed the plaintiffs had produced a “spectacular show trial of irrelevant evidence” with assertions that recognizing same-sex “marriage” would increase tax revenues, help homosexual couples accumulate greater wealth, and improve their self-esteem.

He said these were social and political arguments, not legal arguments pertinent to the constitutionality of Prop. 8.


Ads by AdsLiveMedia(What's this?)

* The number of messages that can be online is limited. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages

RESOURCES »

Ads by Google (What's this?)
Ads by Google (What's this?)

Featured Videos

Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass and announces site of next World Youth Day
Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass and announces site of next World Youth Day
Pope Francis visits poor neighborhood and meets with young people from Argentina
Pope Francis celebrates Mass at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida
Denver rally draws hundreds in support of religious freedom
Pope Francis prays over a sick man in St Peter's Square
Denver women's clinic will offer natural, Catholic care
Interview Clips: Barbara Nicolosi speaks to CNA
US Cardinals press conference at North American College
Pope Benedict to retire to monastery inside Vatican City
Pope cites waning strength as reason for resignation
Hundreds convene in Denver to urge respect for life
New Orange bishop encourages Catholic unity in diversity
Chinese pro-life activist calls for reform, international attention
At Lincoln installation, Bishop Conley says holiness is success
Mother Cabrini shrine reopens in Chicago after a decade
Ordination of 33 deacons fills St. Peter's with joy
Cardinal says "Charity is the mother of all the virtues"
Augustine Institute expands evangelization effort with new campus
Bishops recall 'Way of St. James' as chance to trust in God
Los Angeles cathedral's newest chapel houses Guadalupe relic
Apr
16

Liturgical Calendar

April 16, 2014

Wednesday of Holy Week

All readings:
Today »
This year »

Catholic Daily

Gospel of the Day

Mt 26:14-25

Gospel
Date
04/16/14
04/14/14

Daily Readings


First Reading:: Is 50:4-9a
Gospel:: Mt 26:14-25

Homily of the Day

Mt 26:14-25

Homily
Date
04/16/14
04/14/14

Ads by AdsLiveMedia.com

Ads by AdsLiveMedia.com
     HTML
Text only
Headlines
  

Follow us: