Part One of this series cited courtroom testimony of two “expert” plaintiff witnesses in the San Francisco civil action brought by two gay couples in federal court who were miffed that Californians had seen fit to amend the state’s constitution by adding the words, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Shocking both the gay and normal worlds, voters in the very liberal Left Coast state approved Proposition 8 by a healthy margin of 52.5% to 47.5% in November 2008 and the matter should have been resolved, the people had spoken.
The next electoral quake of such magnitude wouldn’t occur until January 19th, 2010 when residents of liberal Massachusetts transferred the Ted Kennedy Memorial Senate Seat to a Republican in the person of Scott Brown.
The trial’s poster gays, lesbians Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley and homosexuals Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarillo of L.A., “were recruited to represent California couples who say they would get married were it not for Proposition 8 because they lead lives indistinguishable from those of other couples, gay or straight, who have jobs, children and a desire for the social stamp of approval that matrimony affords.”
That, of course, is a matter of opinion that the court must decide and may be the crux of the entire push for same-sex marriage.
The bestowal of “the social stamp of approval” effectively would mean society’s official approbation of homosexual relationships, the last rung on the ladder of normality for which gays have been striving for forty years.
Up until 1969 when the Stonewall riots in New York’s Greenwich Village launched the “gay revolution,” unorganized homosexuals had no such stated goal.
Following Stonewall, the “gay lobby” coalesced into the powerful gay organizations we see today which have succeeded in bypassing public disapproval–such as Prop 8–by seeking judicial intervention.
One result has been the permeation of homosexual characters on television, another has been the increase of homosexual violence.
Violence by gays against heterosexuals was a rarity in the past but Stonewall seemed to act as a catalyst to inspire such attacks. See http://bit.ly/4yATDr.
Another catalyst was the passage of Prop 8 after which–and demonstrating contempt for the constitutional process–gays immediately took to the streets and churches, condemning and threatening those who had voted for and organized the drive for the initiative.
Catholics were prime targets of the assaults and attempts at intimidation as were Mormons and the Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who had helped fund the campaign for Proposition 8: http://bit.ly/18cVJ
When those efforts failed to accomplish anything other than arouse antipathy toward them, gays again turned to the courts, a favorite last resort fallback for groups rejected at the polls. Their chances to accomplish their goals were much better with a judge who may empathize with their cause.
That may be the case with Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker who favors allowing the California proceedings to be broadcast on YouTube despite misgivings by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Gay Lobby is all in favor, Prop 8 proponents opposed precisely because of the probability of intimidation that would come with widespread, video, publicity: http://bit.ly/7h1xPI
Last Friday, anti-gay marriage activist, San Franciscan Hak-Shing William Tam asked to be removed as a defendant in the trial out of concerns that he and his family would be subjected to renewed harassment and violence by homosexuals.
As he said, “In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8. Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase:” http://bit.ly/8zzcdd
Mr. Tam has a regrettable but reasonable fear under the circumstances and considering the do-or-die commitment gays have toward repealing the gay marriage ban.
A Wall Street Journal article defined the main issue of contention in the trial: ”Whether . . . Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution by creating a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Defenders of Proposition 8 say it validly defined marriage in traditional terms by restricting marriage to people who could have children naturally:” http://bit.ly/5WFOuc
A significant peripheral issue is whether any group in America has the right to overturn the will of the people by using threats, scare tactics, and a show trial designed to exert public pressure by gays on the principals involved.
The trial and the battle continue. Should the homosexual lobby prevail, be prepared for more such legal actions nationwide and eventual mandated acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, including same-sex marriage, gay adoptions, and who knows what else?