Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

First witness called by Prop. 8 defenders says gays have broad support in California

A political scientist testified at a federal trial today that gays and lesbians had wide support in California among elected officials, unions and major corporations.

Kenneth P. Miller, who teaches political science at Claremont McKenna College, was the first witness called by defenders of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Miller said the Democratic Party in California was a strong ally of gay men and lesbians and was on record supporting the repeal of Proposition 8. He also testified that the California Teachers Assn. contributed $1.3 million to defeat the marriage ban, and leading industries in Silicon Valley joined the campaign against it.

Miller, whose testimony will continue this afternoon, took the stand after challengers of Proposition 8 rested their case. They introduced videos produced by supporters of Proposition 8 warning that same-sex marriage could lead to incest and other social ills.

"Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds," said a person in one of the videos. "The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse. ... He'd have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed."

In a webcast developed by pastors, an African American man said he was upset that discrimination against gays was being compared to discrimination against blacks and complained that people were comparing "my skin to their sin."

Lawyers defending Proposition 8 said the videos were not made by the Proposition 8 campaign.

-- Maura Dolan at the San Francisco federal courthouse

Comments () | Archives (15)

um excuse kenneth miller but where are these stats that you are making your claims on. you as a political scientist should know better than to speak without stats


Really? This is still the best argument they can come up with "Prop 8 will open the door to pedophiles marrying 6 year olds"? Let's just be out in the open here, you don't support prop 8 because you believe it is against the teachings of the bible. I'm not going to deprive you of that right, but trying to force your personal religious convictions into law is simply unconstitutional. Stop hiding behind flimsy logic and straw-man arguments to try to make yourself sound like something that you're not. And stop lying under oath.

How ridiculous! Marriage should be allowed between two CONSENTING adults who love each other! Where is the logic that explains how a pedophile should be allowed to marry a minor? That minor would NOT be a consenting adult. A horse would NOT be a consenting adult. Come on already. Gay marriage should be allowed... two people who are over the age of 18, who want to marry and have a life together, consensually, should be allowed!

Apparently the voting results for Prop 8 were useless in California.


Men also voted against womens' right to vote, against freeing black slaves and also voted to keep segregation of schools and public places as recently as 1965. There is a reason for the constitution and law.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"""""""wo people who are over the age of 18, who want to marry and have a life together, consensually, should be allowed!"""""""

Why should we stop at two? Why not three, four, or ten? Who are we to say this isn't good for society? After all, we shouldn't discriminate. Telling someone it's wrong to marry more than one person at a time is a hateful and bigoted statement. There are no laws currently in place to allow multiple spouses in a group marriage, but just like there were no laws in place allowing same gender to marry once upon a time, we should do the same and create laws allowing for multiple spouse marriage. If you don't agree, that's your business. No one should have the right to tell me to marry one consenting adult at a time. The five of us love each other and we want to get married so we can be a family and receive federal benefits like all other marriages. Don't force your morals on us. Our multiple spouse marriage is just as good as your tradional and gay marriage. If you don't give us rights to obtain a marriage license, We will sue the state of California and the nation.

Same sex marriage will soon be allowed nationwide. There is no justification to eliminate a persons right to marriage just because you are not comfortable or your religious freedom does not allow you to accept other persons happiness. Prop8 lawyers have no legal stand in this case they have not been able to prove to the federal court how same sex marriage violates or hurts heterosexal marriage other than the people have voted. How do we thank mr boise and mr olson for stepping into a fight that has been fought. I would say the Biggest Gay BBQ in san fransisco every person who believes in equality for all show up and celebrate a new world

People in California can move to put anything on the ballot provided they buy enough signatures. It is still up to the courts to prove the Constitutionality of the measure. Voters passed a law prohibiting the sale of homes to Armenians in the 40's. It, too, was eventually struck down, but it still did pass initially.

(And by 'buy' I mean hire someone to collect the signatures. Not exactly a movement by the people if you are paid to do it.)

The District Court judge is setting himself up for reversal on appeal in allowing all this evidence about the subjective motivations of Prop. 8 supporters. Under no theory of constitutional law is this relevant. I understand the plaintiffs are trying to make a Romer v. Evans-style "irrational animus" argument -- but in that case, what got the law invalidated was not evidence that its supporters had supported it "for the wrong reason," but rather that the law, *on its face,* purportedly could not have had any possible justification except mere animus against gays.

Next thing, you'll be telling me that national health care legislation's supporters' real main purpose is not to regulate interstate commerce, but to affect intra-state delivery of health care.

If you can't win by voting, then give it up!!

I do not care how many courts declare it legal, "marriage" between two men or two women is not right, full stop. It is perverted, sick and unnatural and always has been, except in decadent societies that have faded into oblivion. Wheather you believe in the religious argument or not, you WILL be judged for your actions and those who practice unnatural acts will suffer.

Whats with the Los Angeles Times BLATANT double standard?

Exhibit A is the difference in which this story is characterized and how the story that a Riverside County school district has decided to remove the current dictionaries from the classrooms for kindergartners through fifth graders because they include the term "oral sex." They will be replaced with age-appropriate ones, and district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the Press-Enterprise the reasoning behind the decision which is that the current dictionaries are ". . . just not age appropriate." The dictionaries in question will be used in classrooms for students sixth grade and higher.

The Los Angeles Times online ran a short, inflmmatory article about the district's decision and sought reader feedback. As expected, the responders equate the changing of the dictionary with a return to book burning and so-called "Puritanical" values. The readers, the few who are left, bray on about the horrific "censorship" by the (evidently) backwords people of Riverside County. Of course, these readers are correct; not wanting a seven-year-old to read about oral sex is worthy of hand-wringing, name-calling, and warnings against scary, evil Christians and Republicans.

The Los Angeles Times has been successful in stoking the Left-wing "outrage" over a non-story like this one.

Where was the L.A. Times and its legion of sympathetic, Liberal readers when parents objected to their elementary school children being shown graphic homosexual, "transgender" and transvestite propaganda with mandatory viewing of films such as The Boy In The Bikini?

Parents who object to such indoctrination are publicly condemned by taxpayer funded "thought police" in schools and our court system.

On December 1, 2009, a judge in Alameda, California slammed parents as “bigots” for seeking to excuse their elementary-age children from controversial pro-homosexual curriculum. Instead of upholding the law found in the California Educational Code, he decided to tell these parents, and the court, his view is not only the correct one, but the only one allowed. Out with the law, out with the First Amendment of the Constitution; in with a judge's feelings.

Pacific Justice Institute chief counsel Kevin Snider argued in Alameda Superior Court on behalf of parents seeking to enforce a provision of the California Education Code that gives parents the right to opt their kids out of health education. Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch lambasted the parents, repeatedly insinuating that they are bigots and insisting there can be no homosexual indoctrination because people are born that way. The judge equated a view contrary to his own with creationism and then called both false.

The legal battle over Alameda’s so-called "anti-bullying" curriculum, which focuses almost solely on homosexuality, has intensified in recent weeks. Attorneys for the school district grilled parents in depositions about their religious beliefs. Parents were asked numerous questions about church attendance, sermons they had heard against homosexuality, and whether they were aware that the Bible had allegedly been used to defend racism and oppression. The Times and its readers did not rush to defend the privacy and religious freedom of these parents. On closer examination, such a non-reaction does make sense because the Left believe only their favored groups are allowed privacy (Marxists, "revolutionaries," Obama donors, and anyone wearing a Che shirt) and religious freedom (Muslims --preferably radical-- animists, witch doctors, and New Agers).

Chief Counsel Kevin Snider commented on the hearing:
“We believe that this ruling against parents is inconsistent with the Education Code, and we are looking forward to continuing this battle until opt-out rights are restored on appeal, or the curriculum is changed.” Snider emphasized that the parents who filed suit support comprehensive anti-bullying instruction; however, they oppose the current elementary curriculum that focuses almost exclusively on homosexuality. School records released by Alameda Unified School District show that bullying based on race and gender is far more prevalent in AUSD than sexual orientation harassment. "

Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus stated, “Most parents do not want their first through fifth graders bombarded with pro-homosexual messages at school. If LGBT advocates really want to stop name-calling and bullying, they should start with themselves.”

Children are in greater moral, physical and spiritual danger than any time in our history. Democrats in Congress and the California legislature are trying to force public schools to celebrate such outrages as national "Gay Day" and California's pro-homosexual "Harvey Milk Day."

The Los Angeles Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC somehow ignored this freedom-destroying decision by .
a California judge.

The L.A.Times spikes this story, but runs one about a change of dictionaries in a school district in California. Sadly, such marginalization and distortion is to be expected from the Times. If the facts contradict their Leftist views, then they spike the story, as is the case with these parents not wanting their young kids force-fed homosexuality, transgenderism, and bisexuality.

In another case of conveniently omitting information contradictory to their lock-step views, the L.A. Times did not reveal who the Chatsworth Metrolink driver was. They spiked the fact that the driver was a homosexual and who it was that the man whose partner died of AIDS was obsessively text messaging (under- age boys) when he killed about 30 innocent people.

Why does the Times insist on protecting certain favored groups (violent illegal aliens, homosexuals) and deriding, mocking and simply distorting facts to destroy those groups it opposes (such a Christians, Conservatives, Conservative-Christians etc.)? What happened to dispassionate objectivity in journalism?

The "Husband of More Than One Wife" is well within his rights to file that lawsuit for his polygamous family. Unlike what you saw on Judge Judy yesterday, a lawsuit isn't just something with which you threaten or bully your neighbor, it's a perfectly valid way to challenge existing law. He should be warned, though, that the judge isn't going to be of such a simple mind to say, "Well, marriage isn't sacred anymore, we can't deny you anything!" And unlike allowing homosexual marriage, which requires no change to marital law except to allowing same-sex partners to sign, it's going to be a LOT harder to get a two-party contract altered to apply to multiple parties.

The system didn't fly apart as they said it would when the ban on interracial marriage was lifted, it's not going to break down now.

Listen up people! America is in deep trouble, in case you've had your head buried in the sand. Foreclosures are increasing daily, unemployment is at record highs, the mood is dire and for some there seems to be no relief in sight. Why then are you allowing the religious "right" to cloud your minds and scare you into worrying about something that is a non-issue. Believe me, whether or not gays and lesbians are allowed to marry should be the last thing on your minds! I live in Canada, where we've had equal marriage rights for everyone since June 28, 2005. NONE of the scary things that these nut-jobs are warning you about happened. Goats aren't allowed to marry Grandma, Mr. Jones isn't allowed to marry 6 year old Suzie and Johnny isn't allowed to marry the three Simpson sisters. If anything it's been a bit of an anti-climax and a tad annoying. My partner and I have been together for 21 years and everyone keeps asking: "When are YOU TWO getting married?"
After 21 years I think we're doing okay and don't need to tie the knot. But, I'm glad that we live in a country where we can if we so choose.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: