The Embarrassing Truth of the Prop 8 Trial

The Federal Prop 8 trial produced plenty of drama and surprises, but nothing more shocking than the final self-congratulations of its own defense team. Andrew Pugno, the legal counsel for Protect Marriage, the organization which originally sponsored Prop 8 and then defended it in court when California’s Attorney General refused to do so, described the arguments on both sides as being “as refined as they possibly can be.”

He was speaking about the inevitable appeals and future rounds of this battle. And his take — which is shared by Chad Griffin, president of the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which backed the prosecution — is that nothing in those future rounds is likely to be much different from what was heard this year in Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom.

Really? The defense in this trial thinks they did a good job? Their case included only two witnesses, neither of whom was particularly credible and one of whom actually seemed sometimes to be arguing for the prosecution. In closing arguments, Charles Cooper, their lead attorney, offered no evidence for his main claims, couldn’t answer the judge’s questions, and presented an argument so twisted and nonsensical that the audience laughed out loud while the judge and opposing attorney admitted they couldn’t make heads or tails of it. This is “as refined as [it] possibly can be”? This was a mess.

If Cooper and Protect Marriage were some sort of fly-by-night wingnuts ranting about a far-fringe worldview, this would be annoying but ridiculous. But, in fact, they represent the mainstream and center of the anti-equality movement. Cooper was tapped specifically because of his mainstream rep, and he immediately worked to separate the group from fringier organizations and insisted on prosecuting this case alone specifically to avoid appearing unreasonable or extreme. Yet what they gave us was not only at odds with what many Americans believe, by the end it was slipping over into the nonsensical. Yet these are the arguments which Cooper and Pugno think are worth presenting over and over again, even before the Supreme Court when the appeals process eventually leads there. Is this really what our legal system, to say nothing of our public debate, has come to?

The issue of equality, and the sanctity of marriage, deserves more respect — even from those who are fighting against them. The sad truth is that the opponents of equality simply have no ideas, and can’t even defend their own convictions. This is pathetic, and it shames us all. Even if we disagree, we ought to be able to do so for good reasons, and to be passionate about it. The opponents of marriage equality in this case were loud, shrill, and insistent, but that doesn’t show honest passion — it’s a tantrum.

And maybe that really is “as refined as they can possibly be.”

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons