Gay Marriage Ban Going Down In California

There is one simple truth about gay marriage: When subjected to the time-tested maieutics of rational thought among educated and unemotional people, the premise of marriage equality for gay people is always undeniable. It is only under the rubric of ignorance, tradition, demagougery, religion, and rudimentary distaste that the arguments against gay marriage can gain traction.

To wit: Votes for gay marriage always lose. Court cases for gay marriage always win.

Read this recent wrapup of the court challenge to the recent passing of a constitutional ban on gay marriage in California. Even though it is written by a gay-marriage supporter, it's roseate summary is so overwhelming that even the most ardent supporters of a gay marriage ban would have to admit that their position was not well-represented in court.

What stands out the most after having seen all the witnesses on both sides is how overwhelmingly one-sided the evidence in this case turned out to be. The plaintiffs, represented by some of the most skilled attorneys in the country, laid out a well-crafted, meticulous case, backed by the testimony of half a dozen of the most respected historians, psychologists, economists, and political scientists who study marriage, sexual orientation, and child development. Using the Prop 8 proponents' own outrageous and inflammatory words, ads, and emails, the plaintiffs powerfully demonstrated that Prop 8 was a direct product of hostility, fear-mongering, and demonization of lesbians and gay men. And through the deeply moving testimony of the plaintiffs and other members of our community, they proved beyond question that denying same-sex couples the right to marry causes great harm to LGBT people and their children.

Stacked up against this mountain of facts, scholarship, and science, the Prop 8 proponents - though represented by fine attorneys - were not able to come forward with a case of their own. Before trial, they dropped nearly every witness they had planned to present and relied entirely on two poorly qualified, ill-prepared expert witnesses, neither of whom was able to establish that banning same-sex couples from getting married has any rational or legitimate purpose relating to procreation, child rearing, tradition, or any of the other justifications that have been offered in the past in support of anti-gay discrimination. In fact, nearly all of the defendants' experts agreed with the plaintiffs that marriage equality would benefit same-sex couples and their families in many real, tangible ways.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.