Southern Poverty Law Center SCOTUS Brief Exposes Anti-Gay Animus Behind Proposition 8

This blog has long maintained that the sole motivation behind Proposition 8 - and by extension, all anti-gay laws, including DOMA and Virginia's Marshall Newman Amendment - is religious based discrimination and anti-gay animus.  Oh yes, anti-gay opponents try to dress up their discriminatory actions and animus behind other claimed justifications, but as the 50 plus amicus briefs filed in the Proposition 8 case before the United States Supreme Court these claimed justifications are false and do not justify singling out gays for unequal treatment.   Last week the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") - the organization that monitors hate groups, including the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups - filed its own amicus brief  that focused on the real motives behind Proposition 8.  Sadly, these motives are identical to what was demonstrated here in Virginia in 2006 and, of course, back in 1996 when DOMA was enacted.  Here are some excerpts from the SPLC brief:

Summary of Argument

A law singling out one class of people only “to make them unequal to everyone else” cannot satisfy the Equal Protection Clause. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996). The evidence in this case amply demonstrates that that is exactly what Proposition 8 did and was designed to do. At trial, no one questioned that Proposition 8 sought to strip same-sex couples of rights enjoyed by others. Nor was there any real doubt why Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot. The trial record reveals a ballot campaign filled with hostility and fear-mongering against gay citizens, featuring vicious sexual stereotypes, warnings about a moral degradation of society caused by same-sex marriage, and attempts to stoke fear in the hearts of parents for the safety and welfare of their children.

Recognizing naked animus for what it is, the SPLC—based on its own decades-long history of

fighting discrimination born of hatred and ill-will—files this brief to spotlight key aspects of the record. Below, the SPLC identifies and summarizes four general themes that supporters of Proposition 8 used extensively in the course of their ballot campaign to engender fear and disgust towards same-sex couples.

First, the campaign featured arguments that accepting same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia, incest, polygamy, prostitution, and bestiality. In fact, a number of campaign materials openly suggested that legalizing sex with children is the ultimate goal of the “gay agenda.”   Second, the campaign played upon fears that any mention of same-sex marriage in school curricula would somehow erode the developing moral sensibilities of children and ultimately change their sexual orientation.  Third, the campaign relied on baseless innuendo and sexual stereotypes to argue that same-sex parenting presents a danger to stable family life and childhood development. Fourth, in much of its literature, the campaign stated openly and crudely that same-sex marriage is evil and that advocates of same sex marriage seek to destroy traditional marriage.

Together, these four campaign themes sent a clear and unmistakable message to California voters: Same-sex marriage is something to be feared, distrusted, and scorned.

If there were ever any doubt about the malignant purposes behind Proposition 8, what happened after its passage, in the course of this litigation, serves as confirmation. At trial, Petitioners had every opportunity to present evidence to show that Proposition 8 was promoted rationally and fairly during the campaign, without appeals to animus  .  .  .  .  They presented no such proof, which is why both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit made the inescapable determination that group animus was the most likely justification for the passage of Proposition 8. Sadly, the same pattern continues to this day, except now without any pretense. Many of the amicus briefs supporting reversal before this Court attempt to justify Proposition 8’s constitutionality by

echoing the same themes of fear, dislike, and moral condemnation that were so central to the Proposition 8 campaign.

Because the Equal Protection Clause does not permit a “status-based enactment divorced from

any factual context from which [the courts] could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests,” Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and the decision below should be affirmed.

ARGUMENT

I. The evidence presented at trial conclusively shows that the purpose of Proposition 8 was to single out gay men and lesbians based on animus and to label them as inferior.

Respondents introduced exhaustive evidence at trial about the Proposition 8 campaign and the content of the messages disseminated to the public by supporters of that measure. This evidence demonstrates that supporters of Proposition 8 relied on alarmist falsehoods, long-discredited stereotypes, and hateful language to make the point that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships and that gay men and lesbians should be disabled from enjoying a

social status available to all other citizens.

As one Proposition 8 advertisement warned, “if Prop. 8 fails, it opens up the door for all the other laws that the homosexual agenda wants to enforce on other people.”  PX0401 at 00:22-00:29; Exh. 86 (“Stand up for Righteousness. Vote Yes on Proposition 8” video, featuring Ron Prentice, Tony Perkins and Miles McPherson); see also PX2403 at 8 (Email from Kenyn Cureton, Vice President for Church Ministries with the Family Research Council, to Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, stating that “[t]he practical result will be force-feeding the homosexual agenda through public institutions, discrimination against those who reject homosexuality, and a loss of our First Amendment freedoms.”). 

But other complaints against the “gay agenda” were far more specific and plainly laden with animus. Supporters’ most common tactic was to link recognition of same-sex marriage to pedophilia, incest, polygamy, prostitution, and bestiality. According to Evangelical leader and Proposition 8 Proponent Bill Tam, “legalizing drugs, prostitution and polygamy are also the ultimate goals of the homosexual movement.” PX2343B; J.A. Exh. 187 (professional translations of “The Harm to Children from Same Sex Marriage” by Tam Hak Sing, a.k.a. Bill Tam).  .  .  .  .   Mr. Tam also wrote that gay people “lose no time in pushing the gay agenda—after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalizing having sex with children.” PX0513; J. A. Exh. 102 (Bill Tam, “What if We Lose”).

Another advocate in the video explained that if “sexual orientation or sexual attractions” were the basis upon which people were allowed to marry, “pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-7-8 year olds” and the “man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after marriage was instituted in Massachusetts [would] have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed.” Id. at 08:17-08:35; J.A. Exh. 97.

Advocates in favor of Proposition 8 expressly linked the proposition to their efforts to preserve animus against gay men and lesbians, by preventing society from learning about or accepting same-sex relationships. In a simulcast entitled “ABCs of Protecting Marriage,” a supporter argued that “[l]aws can have a tremendous effect on the way we view marriage and if we have same-sex marriage legalized, it’s really giving implicitly our political blessing to this thing.” PX1867; J.A. Exh. 160-61. “It’s an affirmation that it’s just as good. And then we’re going to have this society that eventually is going to come to believe it over generations.” Id.

There is much, much more in the brief that shows the abject ugliness of the "godly Christian" crowd.  It also underscores why the Christofascists fought tooth and claw to keep the video recordings of the trial away from the general public and the media - their entire campaign was one of hate, bigotry and outright animus.   Their campaign was reminiscent of what Goebbels' propaganda campaign did to Jews under Adolph Hitler.   Let's be clear - these are NOT nice people and their hate filled beliefs deserve no deference whatsoever.