Update on Proposition 8 Trial

The marriage neutering activists suing to remove the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, are calling a hostile witness to the stand – one of the previous defendants who asked to be dropped from the case. Associated Press writer Lisa Leff reports.

Lawyers for the couples said they planned to call San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam to testify even though he has asked to be dismissed as a defendant in the case, the first in a federal court to examine if state [marriage amendments] illegally discriminate against gay Americans.

Last week, the lawyers used footage from Tam's taped deposition to buttress their contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays.

I'll say it again: One need not disapprove of homosexual behavior, let alone be hostile towards homosexual people, to believe that the state has an interest in licensing marriage that it does not have in brideless or groomless pairings. I personally know a lesbian couple that believes marriage requires a groom.

If this kind of tactic by the plaintiffs works, then we know the way to kill any legislation is to say that you support it and cite some reason some will perceive as animosity towards a protected class of people. "Let’s pass health care reform now, or the Native Americans will expand their sinful casinos to our backyards!" There. Now if you pass health care reform, you are extending prejudice against Native Americans.

Oh look, Leff's Associated Press colleague, religion writer Rachel Zoll, has a story about how Muslims face more bias in the U.S. than people of other faiths. By the reasoning being used in this trial, we must legally recognize Muslim polygamy in our marriage licenses.

With each day of irrelevant testimony, I am growing more and more suspicious the plaintiffs aren't really trying to win this case at this level, but rather hope that their emotional appeal non sequiturs will aid in a subsequent battle. Seriously - I could make a better case for tossing Prop 8. Perhaps they're already confident that 1) Walker will rule in their favor, or 2) the appeals court will rule in their favor. It is probably option #2.

[More after the jump.]

Speaking of irrelevant, Senator John McCain's wife and daughter come out in favor of neutering marriage and federal courts messing with duly adopted (and popular and Constitutional) state constitutional amendments. Joan Lowy of the AP reports. I'm glad my wife understands the meaning of marriage. I wouldn't want to be married to someone who didn't.

Maura Dolan's most recent posting at the LATimes.com blog covers yesterday's testimony and submissions aiming to show that – GASP – church people supported the Prop 8 campaign!

Apparently there is a mistaken notion that it okay for churches, clergy, and religious institutions to oppose a ballot measure (some did oppose Prop 8), along with other groups like teacher unions, who automatically collect money to spend on such political causes from teachers who are automatically made union members simply by becoming teachers - but people who favor maintaining/restoring the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing aren't supposed to exercise their rights - enumerated in the Constitution (unlike the "right" to a state marriage license) - to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, voting, etc.