Attorney Ted Olson gave the plaintiffs’ opening statement in the Prop 8 trial yesterday. He said some spot-on things about same-sex couples and parenting (my bold):
Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California. The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals. The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart. . . .
There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination. Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest. All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.
The only thing I would add is that it stigmatizes and hurts our children as well.
The Courage Campaign has the transcript of their liveblogging from the trial. It’s all fascinating, but readers here may find yesterday’s testimony by lesbian mom Sandy Stier of particular interest. Among other things, she said:
The [Prop 8] campaign was very focused on “protection:” protect marriage and children with the subtle implication that you have to be protected from gay people. The constant references to children felt harmful. I felt that great harm was being done by this campaign, that we are the great evil to be stopped, but as a mom of four kids, there’s nothing stronger in parenting than the desire to protect your children. I was sickened by the yes campaign.
More on the parenting angles as the trials go on. Please share your own thoughts in the comments.
I like the emphasis on the hatefulness of the campaign. I’m leery of the argument, which we often slip into, that not being married, in itself, is bad for couples or kids. Instead, the problem is inequality, which is allowed to persist because of a widespread animus against gay people.
I absolutely agree, Theresa. From a tactical standpoint, however, I can also see that in order to win this case, Olson will need to argue that children benefit from having married parents. To your point, though, I hope he emphasizes the positive things about married parents, not the negative things about unmarried ones.
Yes, I didn’t mean to gloss over the fact that being married confers many concrete advantages under our current system, and many of these directly benefit children. One reason I got married was to provide these benefits to my kids (or at least signal to the government that I would be interested in them if they were ever available).
Anyway, I’m rooting for the “odd couple” attorneys and am delighted to see these issues being raised in a thoughtful way on the national stage.