After the first day of the trial, Andy Pugno posted these observations:
We’re off. The first day of trial is concluded and we are beginning to see the outlines of the plaintiffs’ case emerge. Emotion was the order of the day as our opponents took the stand to describe examples of “awkward” situations and social discomfort in their everyday life experiences. They also testified about how they experienced “hurt feelings” whenever they saw a Yes on Prop 8 campaign ad, bumper sticker, or sign.
I noticed that too. There was a lot of that during the campaign as well. No actual arguments, and certainly no engagement with the concerns about the long run impact of redefining marriage. The whole Prop 8 campaign, and now the whole Prop 8 trial, is about people’s feelings. as if protecting people’s feelings was the business of government. Andy continues:
One witness took particular offense by the campaign’s advertisements that encouraged voters to vote yes to “protect our children.” You’ll remember that the campaign had informed voters that legally recognizing same-sex marriage would interfere with the rights of parents to raise their own children according to their own beliefs. The witness actually admitted that he believes parents should have the primary responsibility for instilling moral values in children, but still couldn’t see that reasonable voters would feel the need to “protect our children” from laws that infringe on those parental rights.
What were conspicuously missing from the plaintiffs’ testimony were any examples of complaints that could be legally remedied by striking down Prop 8. It was quite apparent that striking down Prop 8 would not likely put an end to uncomfortable social experiences such as “puzzled looks” from people they meet.
Maybe not, Andy. But if we’re not careful, they will turn dirty looks into prohibited actions that can be remedied by lawsuits. ….
