Gay People Cannot Be Allowed To Marry Because Straight People Cannot Be Trusted?

The past few days, much of America has been focused on the closing arguments of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial examining the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8. Prop 8, the 2008 voter-approved amendment to California's constitution, states, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Like you, of course I've been following the trial since day one. Tuesday night, I read (and wrote about) the questions the Judge, Vaughn Walker, had asked both sides to answer, and later, I read the answers from both sides. Then, Wednesday, during the closing arguments, as did many, I had several Twitter lists and searches running, and Facebook open, all while reading the almost real-time transcript updates via The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER.)

What I got from all this was one simple realization: the proponents, the anti-marriage equality side, have based their entire case on a few concepts that are so foreign to this century, and to this country, that I cannot imagine how they could win. And to boot, they have only one witness, whose own credibility is in question.

In fact, Judge Walker at one point during Wednesday's closing arguments rebuffed Charles Cooper, the attorney for the anti-marriage equality side, saying, "If you have got 7 million Californians who took this position, 70 judges, as you pointed out, and this long history that you have described, why in this case did you present but one witness on this subject? ... And I think it fair to say that his testimony was equivocal in some respects."

The witness in question, David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, during the trial that began in January, made many statements supporting the plaintiffs, weakening the case for the anti-marriage equality side. In fact, Ted Olson, the attorney for the plaintiffs, closed by quoting Blankenhorn's testimony, stating, "we will be more American [the day we permit gay marriage.]"

As for Wednesday's closing arguments, here's what I heard Cooper really saying. My thoughts follow, italicized.

Throughout history, marriage has been between a man and a woman. (Of course, we know this is false. There are ancient paintings indicating same-sex couples as married.)

Throughout history, the primary reason for marriage has been for procreation, and the raising of children. (Actually, centuries ago, marriage was more about property.)

Children do better when raised by their biological parents. (Two long-term studies just published prove this to be false.)

A mother and a father are required to raise a child. (Of course they are not.)

Without marriage, society will cease to exist. (Society will always exist, as long as man exists. And every society has had some form of marriage. Marriage will never not exist.)

Same-sex couples cannot get married because only opposite-sex couples can procreate naturally. (The logic here eludes me.)

Marriage must be confined to a man and a woman because without it, there is the "threat of irresponsible procreation." (I agree marriage plays an important role in society. I'm sorry if the anti-marriage equality side feels it cannot trust straight people to make smart choices.)

Marriage must be confined to a man and a woman because for "millenia," the state has had to "channel naturally procreative sexual conduct" because straight people cannot be trusted to not cheat. (Again,  I'm sorry if the anti-marriage equality side feels it cannot trust straight people to make smart choices.)

Marriage must be confined to a man and a woman because "every society for the millennia ... has attempted to channel naturally procreative sexual conduct between men and women into an enduring union, an enduring stable, union for the sake primarily of those children," because straight people are not responsible enough to raise children without the institution of marriage. (And again, I'm sorry if the anti-marriage equality side feels it cannot trust straight people to make smart choices.)

Because we don't know what will happen if same-sex couples marry, we cannot allow it. (See: space travel, computers, the Internet ...)

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

The anti-marriage equality folks seem to be saying that if gay people are allowed to marry, children will no longer be raised by their biological parents. As if, somehow, once married, we were going to steal them.

Bottom line, the lawyer for the proponents, Charles Cooper, spent much of his time during the closing arguments essentially saying that because straight people cannot be trusted to stay faithful and responsibly raise children without the institution of marriage, gay people cannot get married.

I believe in marriage. I believe marriage benefits society and, for those who choose to enter into it, I believe marriage makes us better. But the idea that straight people can hold marriage hostage because they cannot be responsible is beyond the pale. Of course straight people, and gay people, can be trusted. It is not for the state to preemptively decide who can and cannot be trusted. Marriage, like any other institution, is a choice. As is fidelity. As is raising a family.

All of which gay people have been doing successfully for "the millenia."

There you have it.

I rest my case.

Photo credit: blmurch