Prop 8 supporter fears the courts

With California's Proposition 8 looking very likely to be decided by the Supreme Court, supporters of it are not liking their prospects. Right now, the case is headed towards Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal:

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, suggests the Ninth Circuit judges will not side with supporters of traditional marriage.

"It doesn't look very good there," he warns. "Stephen Reinhardt, he's heading up this three-judge panel, he's the ultimate judicial activist." And Thomasson is not sure about how Justices Michael Daly Hawkins and Norman Randy Smith will vote on the merits of the case.

. . . Thomasson argues that this is an issue that should have never been taken to a federal court "because marriage is a state jurisdiction."

Ultimately, he says the court must decide whether the definition of marriage is something that should be decided at the state level.

We all know why Thomasson fears the courts. Probably because if the judges did look at the merits of case, Prop 8 supporters would continue to lose. At the very best, their case was weak. Many of those pushing for the law demurred when it came to testifying as to why the law was needed. They only could get two witness. One, David Blankenhorn, under cross examination made the case against Prop 8. Also, during closing arguments, proponents of Prop 8 said that they didn't need any evidence to prove their case.

Thomasson's whine speaks to what scares those against marriage equality the most. They like to sound the horn and cry "let the people vote" because they have the means and the money to manipulate that vote. They have enough pull to spread false stories about gays and children across any state, as well as cite junk science to prove their points.

In a court of law, however, things are different. In the words of David Boies, one of the lawyers who defeated Prop 8 in courts:

"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

Thomasson fears the simple fact that in the courts, where is there is no room for distortions or lies, the folks defending Prop 8 will continue to come up short.

And they deserve to.