The opponents of prop 8 said they were satisfied that the testimony of both sides validated their argument that gay marriage was not a threat to the present day traditional institution of heterosexual marriage.
The opponents of prop 8 said that the testimony of both sides established their contention that children of same sex couples suffer from not being allowed the security of being raised by married parents.
The testimony of the proponents of prop 8 established they did not do analytical research to validate their contention that same sex marriage would threaten “traditional” heterosexual marriage and their their own testimony established that prop 8 was conceived, organized and funded mainly by religions that have homophobic histories dating back thousands of years.
My opinion: I beleive the only tradition being threatened is the institutionalized right of religion to hold people of it’s choice to positions of vulnerability and subservience.
The opponents of prop 8 appeared to be satisfied that their case for overturning prop 8 was won on all counts by testimony from both sides.
Source San Francisco Chronicle 01-27) 17:51 PST SAN FRANCISCO — “Testimony in the federal court trial over California’s Proposition 8 ended Wednesday in San Francisco with an advocate of male-female marriage maintaining that the rights of gays and lesbians must give way to society’s interest in promoting traditional families.
Sponsors of the 2008 constitutional amendment called David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values, to make the case that allowing gay and lesbian weddings would weaken marriage – a potentially decisive issue in the clash over the ballot measure’s constitutionality.
In two days of testimony, Blankenhorn predicted fewer heterosexual marriages and more divorces and one-parent households if marital rights are extended to homosexuals.
But a lawyer for gay and lesbian couples challenging Prop. 8 confronted Blankenhorn with his declaration in a 2007 book, “The Future of Marriage,” that “we would be more American” if same-sex marriage were legalized. Blankenhorn sought to reconcile his statements Wednesday, saying gay and lesbian couples and their children would benefit but marriage as a whole would suffer.
Although same-sex partners deserve “equal dignity,” Blankenhorn said, their interests conflict with every child’s right to have a mother and father.
As he wrote in his book, he said, “the rights of gays and lesbians should take second place to the needs of an existing social institution,” traditional marriage.”