Gay Haters File Brief in Support of Proposition 8

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 26, 2013, in the appeal of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholding the striking down of Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.  Since the parties seeking the appeal file their brief first, a group of attorneys representing the anti-equality, gay hating petitioners today filed their legal brief with the Supreme Court.  The full brief can be found here.   Taken as a whole - and in an attempt to avoid face the fact that religious belief alone is what motivates their anti-gay animus - the anti-gay forces focus on the procreative aspects of marriage and, arguably make the case for eliminating marriage rights to the infertile and those past child bearing age.   Here's a summary of this argument:

Throughout human history, societies have regulated sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society.  In particular, an animating purpose of marriage is to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by their own mothers and fathers. Because relationships between persons of the same sex do not have the capacity to produce children, they do not implicate this interest in responsible procreation and child rearing in the same way. The Equal Protection Clause does not require the State to ignore this difference.

The proponents of Proposition 8 likewise make it clear that they prefer majority mob rule which, if expanded to minorities besides gays, would leave the rights of minorities completely subject to the whims of of a hostile majority:

Redefining marriage would affect not only same-sex couples but all members of society. By adopting Proposition 8, the People of California demonstrated their belief that this matter is best resolved by the People themselves, not by their courts. The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the People of California – or of any State – from making this choice. To the contrary, it leaves them free to do what they are doing – debating this controversial issue and seeking to resolve it in a way that will best serve their families, their children, and, ultimately, their society as a whole.

And they are really pissed that the lower courts looked at the animus that motivates the drafters and proponents of anti-gay legislation and constitutional amendments like Proposition 8:

[T]he [9th Circuit] panel majority clearly erred in concluding that the People of California restored the traditional definition of marriage to express official “disapproval of [gays and lesbians] and their relationships.”  .  .  .  .  Nor does reserving the designation of marriage to committed opposite-sex couples “dishonor a disfavored group” or proclaim the “lesser worth [of gays and lesbians] as a class.”  .  .  .  .  .  The Ninth Circuit’s charge thus “impugn[s] the motives” of over seven million California voters and countless other Americans who believe that traditional marriage continues to serve society’s vital interests, . . . .

Let's be perfectly clear.  By their campaign in support of Proposition and the lies and animus that dominated the ads and propaganda in support of Proposition 8, the proponents of Proposition 8 made it abundantly clear that hate and animus motivated their actions.  Indeed, testimony in the district court trial underscored that religious based hate and bigotry were in the final analysis all that motivated the enactment of Proposition 8.  The arguments of these attorneys is little more than a sophisticated lie to protect religious based bigotry.