EDITORIAL PAGES WEIGH IN ON PROP. 8 TRIAL
The editorial boards of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, as well as Maureen Dowd, Richard Socarides, Lt. Dan Choi, George Skelton, Margaret Hoover and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, weighed in during the first week of the trial on the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8.
Their writing included support for every American’s right to equality under the law; the appropriate role of the courts to uphold the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; and rejection of defendants’ claims that they want these proceedings to be held as secretly as possible because of intimidation from a community that is (and has historically been) subject to pervasive private and public discrimination, including widespread violence.
Below find excerpts from and links to several of these pieces. The full texts can be found here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/editorial-and-op-ed-roundup-for-week-1-of-perry-v-schwarzenegger/
Editorials
Los Angeles Times: ‘The Public and Prop. 8’
January 11, 2010
“Arguments against televising the trial are either flimsy or self-serving… Some Proposition 8 supporters also say that witnesses might be intimidated by the presence of cameras. That’s a plausible scenario in a criminal case, but it has no merit in this context. Academic experts are experienced in articulating their opinions to audiences. And Proposition 8 advocates who will be testifying already have inserted themselves into a highly public controversy.
The New York Times: ‘Discrimination of Trial, but Not on TV’
January 14, 2010
“The trial that started on Monday in San Francisco over the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage could have been a moment for the entire nation to witness a calm, deliberative debate on a vitally important issue in the era of instant communications.
There have been claims that televising the courtroom proceeding would somehow be unfair to defenders of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage. They are hazy and unsubstantiated and vastly outweighed by the strong public interest in the airing of a major civil-rights issue.
…there is a strong legal case that California voters trespassed on the Constitution when they approved Proposition 8. The courtroom battle now unfolding bears close watching, and the Supreme Court should not stand in the way of Americans viewing it and reaching educated judgments.
Los Angeles Times: ‘The marriage test. There isn’t one for heterosexual couples, and there shouldn’t be one for same-sex couples either’
January 15, 2010
“Same-sex couples shouldn’t have to prove that their marriages would be as “normal” as those of heterosexuals or meet some kind of artificial bar — a bar that many heterosexual couples fall short of — for an ideal marriage…
Op-Eds & Opinion
Huffington Post: “Exactly Why We Have Courts, Why We Have the Constitution and Why We Have the 14th Amendment.”
By Richard Socarides, Attorney and former Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton
January 11, 2010
“This trial, a landmark of civil rights for our time, is sure to draw the eyes of the world. The stakes could not be higher, but as Olson said today: “this is exactly why we have courts, why we have the Constitution and why we have the 14th Amendment…That is why we are here today.”
Los Angeles Times: ‘Prop. 8 backers’ procreation argument doesn’t right true’
By George Skelton, Capitol Journal
January 14, 2010
“The notion that baby-making is the principal purpose of marriage in 21st century America is plain absurd…
“The voters sometimes get it wrong. One example: In 1964, Californians voted to continue racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. They passed Prop. 14, an initiative that repealed legislation banning the bigotry. Fortunately, the Supreme Court overturned the voters’ will.
“We say that the central and defining purpose of marriage is to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing and raising the next generation,” Cooper told U.S. Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco.
“Well,” the judge replied, “the last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity.”
The New York Times: ‘Into the Closet’
By Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer Prize-winning Supreme Court Reporter
January 14, 2010
“Has anyone noticed that now that lesbians and gay men have left the closet to assert their equal rights as citizens, their adversaries seem to be running for a closet of their own?
The Huffington Post ‘We Need an Open Debate on Prop. 8’
By Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles
January 14, 2010
“The greater harm to the public, however, is keeping from them the facts on how homophobia has fueled the testimonies of the defense’s witnesses. The public deserves to see the true face of intolerance and prejudice behind Proposition 8…
“It is incumbent upon the courts to right this wrong as well as grant equal rights to all Californians – and all Americans – to marry.”
The Huffington Post: ‘Injustice Anywhere Is a Threat to Justice Everywhere’
By Lt. Dan Choi, prominent equality advocate; Iraq war vet/Westpoint grad
January 15, 2010
“Why enter the fray? Because, as with DADT, I believe that, at its core, Proposition 8 is the product of ignorance and discrimination against a group of people who are entitled to the same equality that the Constitution, and, as one of its defenders, I, uphold…
“Remember those great words of another veteran warrior for civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
The New York Times: ‘An Odd Couple Defends Couples That Some (Oddly) Find Odd”
By Maureen Dowd, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist
January 16, 2010
“..Olson reviewed the case: “We’re going to explain why allowing same-sex couples to have that same right that the rest of us have is not going to hurt heterosexual marriages. It has no point at all except some people don’t want to recognize gays and lesbians as normal, as human beings…
“…[Boies] spoke intensely about the gay and lesbian plaintiffs, who offered poignant testimony about their loving relationships and about wanting to be liked and accepted: “These people are people you would want your child to grow up and marry. You can be a child molester and get married. You can be a wife beater and get married. You can be a child-support scofflaw and get married. The importance of that emotional relationship is so vital to the pursuit of happiness that even prison felons, who aren’t really procreating, have a right to get married.”
…“I’ve got a grandson who’s a senior in college, and he can’t imagine fighting over this issue,” Boies said. “It’s like explaining to my daughter that there was a time when women didn’t have the right to vote and couldn’t own property.”
FOXNews.com
‘Why I’m Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality’
By Margaret Hoover, conservative great-granddaughter of President Hoover and FOX contributor
January 17, 2010
“If you are uncomfortable with gay marriage, I encourage you to pay attention to this trial, the plaintiffs, the defense and the spectrum of experts, historians, psychologists, economists, political scientists, who will testify as to the effects and detriment of Proposition 8. In the words of NAACP chairman Julian Bond, “The humanity of all Americans is diminished when any group is denied rights granted to others.”
“That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed “miscegenation.” How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
###
