In the Proposition 8 trial verdict, Judge Walker indicated that the evidence presented in the trial focused on three broad questions. In today's blog I am going to summarize the evidence on the third question: Whether the evidence shows Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest.
In regards to this question, Judge Walker synthesized the evidence presented at trial. Below I substantially quote from the verdict to summarize the main argument, but I encourage interested readers to examine it in full themselves. You can download his full verdict on the IMPACT Program's webpage.
According to the verdict: The testimony of several witnesses disclosed that a primary purpose of Proposition 8 was to ensure that California confer a policy preference for opposite-sex couples over same-sex couples based on a belief that same-sex pairings are immoral and should not be encouraged in California.
Yale Historian George Chauncey testified about a direct relationship between the Proposition 8 campaign and initiative campaigns from the 1970s targeting gays and lesbians; like earlier campaigns, the Proposition 8 campaign emphasized the importance of protecting children and relied on stereotypical images of gays and lesbians, despite the lack of any evidence showing that gays and lesbians pose a danger to children.
Chauncey noted that stereotypes of gays and lesbians as predators or child molesters were reinforced in the mid twentieth century and remain part of current public discourse. Psychology Professor Lamb explained that this stereotype is not at all credible, as gays and lesbians are no more likely than heterosexuals to pose a threat to children.
Stanford political scientist Gary Segura provided many examples of ways in which private discrimination against gays and lesbians is manifested in laws and policies. He identified religion as the chief obstacle to gay and lesbian political advances. Political scientist Kenneth Miller disagreed with Segura's conclusion that gays and lesbians lack political power, pointing to some successes on the state and national level and increased public support for gays and lesbians, but agreed that popular initiatives can easily tap into a strain of antiminority sentiment and that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 because of anti-gay sentiment. Plaintiffs objected that Miller lacked sufficient expertise specific to gays and lesbians and the Judge agreed.
Proponent Hak-Shing William Tam testified about his role in the Proposition 8 campaign. Tam spent substantial time, effort and resources campaigning for Proposition 8 and was one of the official proponents, making him a leader in the Prop 8 campaign. Tam testified that he is the secretary of the America Return to God Prayer Movement, which supported Prop 8 on the grounds that it "will cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan's hands." We are fortunate that we can hear Mr. Tam's arguments directly as they have been posted on YouTube.
The couples who were the plaintiffs in the trial testified that the campaign advertisements negatively affected their wellbeing. For example, Katami explained that he was angry and upset at the idea that children needed to be protected from him. Stier, as the mother of four children, was especially disturbed at the message that Proposition 8 had something to do with protecting children.
Economist Egan testified that Proposition 8 harms the State of California and its local governments economically. Egan testified that San Francisco faces direct and indirect economic harms as a consequence of Proposition 8. Egan explained that San Francisco lost and continues to lose money because Proposition 8 slashed the number of weddings performed in San Francisco. Egan explained that Proposition 8 decreases the number of married couples in San Francisco, who tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer provided benefits.
Based on all of the testimony presented across the three main questions, Judge Walker concluded that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. He stated, "For the reasons stated in the sections that follow, the evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8. An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
