Brody's Notes... Prop 8 Supporters: “This Kangaroo Court Is A Public Relations Coup For Homosexual-Marriage Advocates"

Anti-Gay Protesters In San Francisco  Photo By SF Weekly Blogs

By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) June 17 | Opponents of same-sex marriage weighed in yesterday after the closing arguments of the Prop 8 Trial in San Francisco expressing their vehement disapproval. Randy Thomasson, Executive Director of SaveCalifornia.com, said in a press release yesterday:

The lawsuit against Prop. 8 by Ted Olson and David Boies is more than an attack against natural marriage, it’s an attack against our republic and our democracy. Our republic, because a judge took this case and made a circus out of it, despite the word ‘marriage’ not being in the U.S. Constitution and the Tenth Amendment protecting states’ rights to define marriage. Our democracy, because the voters of California have twice passed ballot measures defining marriage, even defining marriage in the California Constitution. If the federal courts strike down Prop. 8, they will have declared war on the voters in 30 states that have defined marriage in their state constitutions. 

What will be the outcome of this case? Judge Walker, a homosexual himself, has been demanding answers to questions about issues that are not in the written federal or state constitutions, but are designed to set up the federal courts to unscientifically declare homosexuality an 'immutable' class, like race or sex. Doing this dirty judicial deed would trample religious freedom and free speech, which is specifically enshrined in the First Amendment.

This kangaroo court is a public relations coup for homosexual-marriage advocates, who want to keep their ‘gay marriage’ drum beating loudly in hopes of stirring up donors and volunteers to reverse Prop. 8 on the ballot in 2012 or 2014. But it won’t work, because the natural, beautiful relationship of a man and a woman, united in marriage, is a standard indelibly etched on the human heart.

Ultra Conservative Media Outlet WorldNetDaily reported the close of the trail in an article by staff writer Chelsea Schilling, with the headline reading:

QUEERLY BELOVED

Gay judge decides future of homosexual 'marriage'

Ruling may impact matrimony laws in as many as 45 other states

and  Schilling's lead paragraph opening with: 

SACRAMENTO – A San Francisco district court judge who is reportedly homosexual will decide soon whether to overturn the will of California voters and strike down Proposition 8 – the state's constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman – in a landmark trial that many say is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents religious and conservative groups that sponsored the 2008 ballot measure, countered that cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father."

"The plaintiffs say there is no way to understand why anyone would support Proposition 8, would support the traditional definition of marriage, except through some irrational or dark motivation," Cooper said. "That is not just a slur on the 7 million Californians who supported Proposition 8. It's a slur on 70 of 108 judges who have upheld as rational the decision of voters and legislatures to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."

Candace Chellew-Hodge who serves as associate pastor at Garden of Grace United Church of Christ in Columbia, S.C., writing for the website Religion Dispatches stated:

Often traditions—especially those that no longer serve us or bring us life—can be deadly, either bodily, or spiritually. A case in point: attorney; Charles Cooper, arguing in support of Proposition 8 for the Alliance Defense Fund, who made his entire closing argument from tradition. He told the judge that marriage is intended for procreation and specifically for the control of unintended pregnancies. He argued (seriously) that the state has an interest in marriage between heterosexuals because they have the ability to produce unintended children—so the state has to have a role in making sure those little mistakes are cared for. Gays and lesbians don’t have this problem since they need considerably more than low light and bottle of wine to conceive.