www.Prop8Case.com

Olson: We conclude this trial where we began. The fundamental right to marriage was taken away from plaintiffs.  There state has rewritten their constitution to place them in a special disfavored category where their most intimate relationships not valid, not recognized, second rate.  Their state has stigmatized them as unworthy of marriage.

The heart and soul of this case is marriage.  I will focus on marriage from four perspectives: as seen from the proponents of prop 8, the Supreme Court, the plantiffs, and the experts who came forward.

Proponents: in the words of their lead counsel: the central and defining purpose of marriage -- what it has always been -- is to promote procreation and narrow sexually procreatiove relationships between men and women in stable unions.  The child has a right to mother and father who brought him into the world.

Proponents of Prop 8 see marriage as institution of, by, and for the state to promote procreation and childrearing by their biological parents.  They see marriage as a product of the state.  Racial restrictions were never a definitional part of marriage.

You asked "How does permitting SS couples to marry in any way dimish the procreative function of marriage for heterosexuals."  Lead counsel responded: Your honor, because it will change the institution.  Changing the institution will likely lead to very real social harms, with more children raised outside the marriage and separated from at least one of their parents.

It is revealing that the de-instutionalization message is quite different from the main message of the Prop 8 question. That focused heavily on protect our children from learning that gay marriage is OK.

That was put into the voter guide by the proponents.  

The "gays is not ok" message was largely abandoned during the trial, and after promisng proof that people might stop marrying and cease procreating if prop 8 were overturn, the proponents switched course from that as well.  They argued they had no evidence their prognostications would come to pass.  From their counsel you will hear nothing but predictions in this trial; it is not possible to render reliable and certain judgments. 

Walker: Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, don't they?

Olson: Yes, burden of proof up to a point depending on standard of review.

Walker: And that standard of review is rational basis?

Olson: No, we believe strict scrutinty is required, the taking away of a fundamental right, putting plaintiffs in a suspect classification based on sex and sexual orientation, those two things under Equal Protection and Due Process clasuses.

Walker: Are you focusing on facts in California or the situation in the whole country? (i.e. how relevant is specific Prop 8 campaign?)

Olson:  Proponents have shifted from protect our children, to procreation and desinstitutionalization.

Walker: Does that make any difference?

Olson.  Yes.  (more talk)

Walker interrupts:  Supreme Court decision in Minnesota versus Clover Leaf, that was an equal protection case, any debateable proposition will support the enactment and one challenging on equal protection that the classification is irrational, if there is any debateable support in support of the classification.