Tag archives: Proposition 8

Supreme Court arguments suggest the end is not near in marriage debate

by Peter Sprigg

April 16, 2013

The mainstream media would have you believe that the decision to redefine marriage for the benefit of homosexual couples has already been made.

Time magazine ran a cover story under the title, “How Gay Marriage Won”—featuring cover photos of a male couple kissing or a female couple kissing—your choice. Pollsters claim that a majority of Americans now support legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and that among young people, that majority is overwhelming. Democratic senators (and a couple of Republicans) who previously opposed redefining marriage have begun falling like dominoes. Same-sex “marriage” is “inevitable,” we are told—it is only a matter of time.

Do not believe it.

In a country where 41 out of 50 states still define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and voters in a majority, 30 have placed that definition in their state constitutions; it can only be wishful thinking for the advocates of marriage redefinition to claim that it is imminent or inevitable. I suspect that some in the mainstream media are hoping that their prophecy will be a self-fulfilling one.

It’s particularly ironic that the theme of the “inevitability” of same-sex “marriage” seemed to gain ground in the mainstream media the week of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the case challenging Proposition 8, the California state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Unlike the case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which presents somewhat narrower issues, the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, and their lead attorney Ted Olson, assert that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of same-sex couples to “marry.” If accepted, this argument would mean that marriage would be redefined to include same-sex couples not just in California, but in all fifty states. Such an outcome would be comparable to Roe v. Wade—the 1973 decision that forced legalized abortion on all fifty states.

However, the tone of the argument in the case (known as Hollingsworth v. Perry) actually did not seem to point in the direction of such a sweeping decision. The justices’ gave very little indication that they are prepared to redefine marriage for all fifty states.

Following are some quotes from the justices. We in the pro-family movement have sometimes made a slippery slope argument—if we redefine marriage to eliminate gender restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner, it would be hard to maintain other restrictions—ones which prevent anyone from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married.

When conservatives raise this logical question, we are routinely vilified for “comparing” homosexuality to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. Yet one of the justices raised the exact same point, putting it this way (this is slightly edited for clarity):

If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people … that could get married, [with respect to] the incest laws, the mother and child [getting married], assuming that they are [both] the age [to marry]? I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest [in] protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?”

What’s interesting is that the justice who raised this was—Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee.

We have also raised concern about the impact of marriage redefinition on the institution of marriage and on children.

One of the justices warned:

[T]here’s substance to the point that [the] sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”

That same justice later elaborated,

The problem with the case is that you’re really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters; and you can play with that metaphor—‘there’s a wonderful destination,’ [or] ‘it is a cliff.’

When Ted Olson, the attorney for the homosexual couples in the case, claimed that there was an analogy between banning same-sex “marriages” and banning interracial marriages, the same justice cut him off and said,

[T]hat’s not accurate.”

The justice who made all those remarks was—Anthony Kennedy, universally viewed as the swing vote between the conservative and liberal factions on the court.

In fact, in the 9th Circuit ruling on Prop 8 (which found the measure unconstitutional, but on narrow grounds that would apply only to California) it was almost comically obvious that the opinion was written to appeal to Justice Kennedy, based on the supposed precedent of his opinion in a 1996 case called Romer v. Evans.

Yet one justice referred to that 9th Circuit opinion and said,

That’s a very odd rationale.”

The justice who said that was—Anthony Kennedy!

It is dangerous to make assumptions about the outcome of a case based on oral arguments—we learned that in the Obamacare case. But few observers now expect a Roe v. Wade of marriage.

That means this debate is probably not near an end. It is likely to continue for years to come.

Guest Post: Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

by Katie Yoder

March 29, 2013

Below is a guest post from Newsbusters that provides a brief overview of the past week’s media coverage on marriage.

Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

From networks to news sites, reporters set liberal agenda.

By Katie Yoder

As thousands trekked across the country this week to protest at the Supreme Court while justices heard arguments on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), the media did the same by voicing their own opinions. From the networks to online news sites, so-called neutral journalists twisted coverage in support of gay marriage.

CBS led the network pack and focused a one-sided light on Tuesday evening reports, the night of the first Supreme Court arguments. CBS went personal March 26 as reporter John Blackstone, during “Evening News,” highlighted a story of lesbian couple Torri and Sunnie. The program showed at least 12 different video or photo clips of gay weddings and quoted two gay marriage advocates – with one traditional marriage supporter.

Tuesday morning wasn’t much better, with four voices advocating for gay marriage, and one counter. Wednesday’s “This Morning” devoted over three minutes to David Boies, an attorney who argued at the Supreme Court against Proposition 8 with no one to offer a counter argument during the segment.

ABC followed suit in the Tuesday evening reports without any counter argument as anchor Terry Moran quoted two separate people whose family members sued for gay marriage. As Moran put it, ““For the two gay couples at the heart of the case … this was their family’s moment.”

NBC reporter Kristen Dahlgren flooded her report with TV gay icons, from Ellen DeGeneres to “Modern Family.” She acknowledged the media’s power on the issue though: “Over the years, television has changed the conversation about American sexuality.” She continued to say, “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” What she left out of her report was her own network’s pro-gay advocacy with the show “The New Normal.”

The one-sided coverage attracted even the attention of the liberal Huffington Post, which published a headline reading, “The Supreme Court May Be Divided On Gay Marriage, But The Media Isn’t.” In it, HuffPo media editor Jack Mirkinson noted major news outlets’ support of gay marriage and said, “Gay marriage is different. It is no longer all that controversial for many in the media.”

It wasn’t like another side to the story didn’t exist. Traditional marriage supporters made themselves hard to ignore March 26 by attending the National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) March for Marriage. According to NOM’s Thomas Peters, 15,000 marchers attended as the networks stood silent even during the next day’s morning shows. The Washington Post decided to cover the event though – even if they did shrink 15,000 attendees into a ‘few dozen.’

When the media decided to cover traditional marriage supporters, reporters didn’t play nice. ABC’s Wednesday “Good Morning America” illustrated the tug-of-war on marriage’s definition as the “21st century social movement” of gay marriage versus the elderly “downright perplexed” justices.

CNN contributor and GOP strategist Ana Navarro sang a similar tune and proclaimed gay marriage opponents must “get into the 21st century.” While urging Republicans to push the hot issue into the background, she lectured opponents that “folks who are in denial about this that have to get out of the closet. They have to wave goodbye to the GEICO caveman and step out gingerly and carefully into the brave new world.”

But then, according to the media, gay marriage already won the hearts of Americans. Just look at the upcoming TIME magazine showcasing two different covers – one of a lesbian couple kissing, one of a gay couple kissing – while advertising an article by David von Drehle titled, “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court hasn’t made up its mind – but America has.” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein, on March 26’s “Morning Joe,” commented on how rapidly the issue of gay marriage changed: “My God, I haven’t seen anything like it … To my kids, it’s just mystifying that anyone would be opposed to it.”

The Washington Post boasted a similar headline to TIME magazine that read “Political debate on same-sex marriage is over.” Writer Chris Cillizza explained, “[N]o matter how the high court rules later this year on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, one thing is already clear: The political debate over gay marriage is over.”

Those who thought the gay marriage debate still exists were in for a brutal media bash. After citing GOP strategist Karl Rove on the possibility of a 2016 Republican presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage, CNN’s Carol Costello asked Alliance Defense Fund’s Austin Nimocks, “Austin, you heard what Karl Rove just said. Are you on the wrong side of history?” CNN zeroed in on traditional marriage supporters as host Piers Morgan and openly gay anchor Don Lemon smashed opponents as “homophobic” and likened them to segregationists.

When asked about fair coverage by social conservative Peter LaBarbera, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer pulled race into the argument and bluntly replied, “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter.”

MSNBC personality Luke Russert unleashed his opinion on FRC’s Tony Perkins during Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” and asked, “What do you fear so much” about gay marriage? When Perkins replied that he didn’t fear anything, Russert challenged, “Then why are you opposed?” He later charged Perkins with equating homosexuality with polygamy, after Perkins stated that the basis of marriage requires more than merely loving someone.

Those who did rally for gay marriage became heroes. New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg showered favor upon Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), and gushed, “Ms. Bonauto is too busy juggling legal briefs, homework and piano lessons to see herself as a woman making history.” During March 27 “World News,” Diane Sawyer praised an 83-year-old lesbian involved in the case against DoMA and explained, “Edith Windsor received a hero’s welcome when she emerged from the Supreme Court, saying it’s time to take a stand for marriage equality.”

That left one to ponder how DoMA ever passed the first place – but the media held the answer to that too. Former President Bill Clinton signed it due to sleep deprivation and pressure from his 1996 opponent Bob Dole, according to The New York Times’ Peter Baker.

On the bright side, gay marriage reportedly benefits the economy. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos cited an 8-year-old study Thursday and stated that legalizing gay marriage “could bring in up to $1 billion a year – so, a net benefit for the Treasury from gay marriage.” He explained, “if gay or lesbian couples are married and they have about equal income, they would actually pay more in taxes than if they were single.” CBS anchor Charlie Rose agreed, saying on Thursday’s “This Morning” that “if it’s [DOMA is] struck down, it may not be a financial windfall for same-sex couples. The case has centered on federal benefits. If they become eligible for the benefits, they would also have to pay higher taxes.”

It was scary enough when NBC’s Reporter Kristen Dahlgren admitted “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” But a more frightening thought is to realize that what happens in the networks – on the news sites – doesn’t tend stay there either.

Defining Marriage: Do Infertile Couples Undermine the “Procreation Argument” One-Man-One-Woman Marriage?

by Peter Sprigg

March 20, 2013

On March 26 and 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases challenging the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, they will consider the constitutionality of the definition as enshrined in the California state constitution by voters in that state when they adopted “Proposition 8” in 2008 (effectively reversing the decision of the California Supreme Court to impose same-sex “marriage” earlier that year). In Windsor v. United States, they will consider the constitutionality of the same definition of marriage being adopted for all purposes under federal law through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In anticipation of those oral arguments, I am offering a series of blog posts with questions and answers related to the issue. Today, we look at the question of whether the fact that not all opposite-sex couples reproduce undermines the argument that the public purpose of marriage is related to procreation.

Are you saying that married couples who don’t have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren’t really married? If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can’t reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

A couple that doesn’t want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

Admittedly, society’s tangible interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple’s privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

There is no reason, though, to extend “marriage” to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable—ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent—of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your “best friend?” The answer is undoubtedly “no”—which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner—just as they are central to the restriction against “marrying” a person of the same sex.

Although not every opposite-sex couple reproduces, most do—and those that don’t are still able to provide both a mother and a father to any children they may adopt. Same-sex couples, on the other hand, can never reproduce as a natural result of their sexual intercourse, and deliberately deny either a mother or a father to any child they may raise. These undeniable and immutable differences provide clear, bright lines which easily justify classifying such couples differently under the law.

Obama Hypocrisy on “Federalizing” Marriage

by Peter Sprigg

February 28, 2013

Press reports indicate that President Obama’s Justice Department will file a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn California’s Proposition 8—the state constitutional amendment adopted by California voters in 2008, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Most people know that President Obama announced last May, for the first time, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” But at the same time, he repeatedly said that this debate should play out at the “local” (presumably he meant “state”) level, and not be “nationalized” or “federalized.”

So is today’s decision hypocritical? Judge for yourself from the following excerpts from President Obama’s May 9 remarks:

Transcript: Robin Roberts ABC News Interview With President Obama

Obama Announced That He Now Supports Same-Sex Marriage

May 9, 2012

… I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue… . Whether it’s no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which— tried to federalize— what [has] historically been state law.

 . . .

At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that— for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that— I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now— I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue. There’s a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue— in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.

 . . .

 … [W]hat I’m saying is is that different states are coming to different conclusions. But this debate is taking place— at a local level. And I think the whole country is evolving and changing. And— you know, one of the things that I’d like to see is— that a conversation continue in a respectful way.

I think it’s important to recognize that— folks— who— feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as— between a man and a woman— many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They’re coming at it because they care about families.

 . . .

ROBIN ROBERTS: I— I know you were saying— and are saying about it being on the local level and the state level. But as president of theUnited Statesand this is a game changer for many people, to hear the president of theUnited Statesfor the first time say that personally he has no objection to same-sex marriage. Are there some actions that you can take as president? Can you ask your Justice Department to join in the litigation in fighting states that are banning same-sex marriage?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I— you know, my Justice Department has already— said that it is not gonna defend— the Defense Against Marriage Act. That we consider that a violation of equal protection clause. And I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that— that move on the part of the Justice Department.

Part of the reason that I thought it was important— to speak to this issue was the fact that— you know, I’ve got an opponent on— on the other side in the upcoming presidential election, who wants to— re-federalize the issue and— institute a constitutional amendment— that would prohibit gay marriage. And, you know, I think it is a mistake to— try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.

I think that— you know, the winds of change are happening. They’re not blowin’— with the same force in every state… .

 . . .

I want to emphasize— that— I’ve got a lot of friends— on the other side of this issue. You know, I’m sure they’ll be callin’ me up and— and I respect them. And I understand their perspective, in part, because— their impulse is the right one. Which is they want to— they want to preserve and strengthen families.

And I think they’re concerned about— won’t you see families breaking down… .

 . . .

I’m not gonna be spending most of my time talking about this, because frankly— my job as president right now, my biggest priority is to make sure that— we’re growing the economy, that we’re puttin’ people back to work, that we’re managing the draw down in Afghanistan, effectively. Those are the things that— I’m gonna focus on… .

An Eternal Perspective on Cultural Disarray

by Rob Schwarzwalder

February 8, 2012

Proposition Eight, the California ballot initiative that declared marriage exists solely between one man and one woman, has been struck down by a federal court. President Obama is planning to compel religious institutions to pay for abortifacients and other contraceptives as part of their health insurance programs. New York City is about to prohibit churches from meeting in public schools.

Is the sky falling? Are the nation’s moral foundations so eroded that they are on the verge of collapse?

For two reasons, I will answer no. In the past year, in states across the country, there have been wonderful wins for the cause of life and family. Ultra-sound bills and abortion clinic regulations have been enacted and polls show that Americans are more troubled than ever by abortion-on-demand. There have even been some Supreme Court judicial rulings (e.g., Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and Spencer v. World Vision) favorable to religious liberty.

These things should inspire us to keep working for faith, family, and freedom in the public square. Although the assaults on the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, the very nature of the family, and the religious and economic liberty we cherish are manifold, not to fight them would be to surrender our biblical obligation to work for justice and stand for the oppressed (Proverbs 31:8-9). For the sake of the Just One Himself, this we must never do.

Second, Jesus Christ is Lord of time and eternity. He is Lord when we rejoice and when we weep. He is the sovereign before Whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:9-11). Who sustains all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:2). And according to the Psalmist, God is unthreatened by the machinations of political man: (Though) the kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed … He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them (2:2-4).

In other words, God is accomplishing His will in ways our limited human understanding might find puzzling but which are fully commensurate with His character and plan for humanity.

The Most High rules in the realm of mankind, we read in Daniels prophecy (4:2). He has called us to stand for righteousness and human dignity in every sphere of life. Whatever external wins or losses we might experience in the moment, these truths should sustain us in our efforts at all times.

Prop 8 Trial Transcript in the Spotlight: Plaintiff Destroys Born Gay, Cant Change Myth (Part 1)

by Peter Sprigg

September 16, 2011

On Monday, September 19, Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded staged reading of a new playone based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown).

The Perry case is the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman which was adopted by California voters in 2008. The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now out) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walkers stunningly biased opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuitbut if upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, it would force the legalization of same-sex marriage on all fifty states (overturning the constitutions of thirty).

The play, titled simply 8, was written by homosexual writer Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar for his screenplay for the biopic Milk, about the murdered homosexual San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. Actors Morgan Freeman and John Lithgow will portray attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, the prominent Democratic and Republican attorneys (respectively) who teamed up to argue the case against Proposition 8. The one-night reading is a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization formed to finance the lawsuit.

Homosexual activists seem convinced that publicizing the transcript of the trial will help persuade the public that Walkers ruling was correct. Yet in truth, there is much in the transcript that directly contradicts Judge Walkers opinion and his spurious findings of fact.

In particular, the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex marriage advocates that gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of who they are. It also directly contradicts Judge Walkers finding of fact number 51: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. In fact, Stiers testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movementthe claims that people are born gay, and that a persons sexual orientation can never change.

As Stier made clear in answering Olsons questioning, she was marriedto a manfor twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not learn that she was a lesbian until she was in her mid-thirties.

Below is the transcript of the beginning of Olsons direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband. Part 2 of this post will go over Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stiers testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

TrialDay 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

Transcript pp. 160-163



THE COURT: Mr. Olson, your next witness.


MR. OLSON: Thank you. The plaintiffs would like to call plaintiff Sandra Stier.


SANDRA STIER, called as a witness for the Plaintiffs herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:




THE CLERK: Thank you. State your name, please?


THE WITNESS: Sandra Belzer Stier.


THE CLERK: Spell your last name?


THE WITNESS: S-t-i-e-r.


THE CLERK: And your first name?


THE WITNESS: S-a-n-d-r-a.


THE CLERK: Thank you.




Q. Ms. Stier, are you one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit?


A. Yes, I am.

Q. Would you describe for us and for the Court your background; where you are from, your age, what you do professionally and your family?


A. Well, I — I grew up in the midwest. I grew up on a farm in southern Iowa. I’m 47 years old. My background is, really, I lived in Iowa for my youth. I grew up going to public schools, attended college in Iowa, moved to California right after college, and I now work for Alameda County — or for a county government as an information system director in healthcare systems.

Q. And do you — you live with Ms. Perry?


A. I do.

Q. And tell us about your family?


A. Well, our family is a blended family with our four boys. We each bring two biological children to our family and each other.

[Here is the first hint that the plaintiffsboth Kristin Perry and Sandra Stiermay not have always been lesbians. Both brought to their relationship biological children. Unless they were conceived by a sperm donor through artificial insemination, this would suggest that both had been in sexual relationships with men at one time.]

Q. And just their general ages?


A. Well, our two younger sons are in high school. They are teen-agers. And our two older sons are out of high school, young adults.

Q. How would you describe your sexual orientation?


A. I’m gay.

Q. When did you learn that about yourself?


A. I really learned it about myself fairly late in life, in my mid-thirties.

[Usually, when homosexual activists are promoting the born gay, cant change myth, they trot out people who say, Ive known I was gay all my life. Yet their plaintiff in this landmark court case admits that she did not learn that she was gay until her mid-thirties. This is an astonishing admission.]

Q. Had you been married before at that time?


A. Yes, I was married before.

Q. You were married to a man?


A. Yes, I was.

[Here is an important point. Advocates of same-sex marriage say things like, Gay people arent allowed to marry, or, Why should someone be denied the right to marry because of who they are? Not only is Sandra Stier not being denied the right to marryshe has actually been married in the past. Homosexuals, as individuals, already have exactly the same right to marry as any other individualand subject to the same restrictions (no one may marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, orin California and 43 other statesa person of the same sex). The law treats same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples, because a same-sex relationship is not a marriage but all individuals are treated the same in terms of the fundamental right to marry.]

Q. When did you get married and where did you live?


A. I got married in 1987, and we lived most of the — most of that marriage in Alameda, California.

Q. And you had no feeling at that point in time married to a man that you were a lesbian?


A. At that time I did not.

[Another important point. When the subject is raised of people who may experience same-sex attractions choosing to marry someone of the opposite sex, such unions are denounced by homosexual activists as repressing who they really are or living a lie. Judge Walker supported Finding 51 by claiming that for gay men and lesbians, opposite-sex marriage … would compel them to negate their sexual orientation and identity. Stier makes it quite clear that was not the case with hershe had no feeling that she was a lesbian, so her marriage to a man did not negate her sexual orientation and identity.]

Q. And did you have a warm, loving relationship with that individual?


A. Umm, I had, unfortunately, a difficult relationship for most of our marriage, but it did start out with the best intentions.

Q. Well, did you encounter gay people growing up in Iowa? I’m wondering how this evolved, this — your realization of how you characterize yourself these days. Tell us how that evolved from your youth in Iowa?


A. Growing up in Iowa on a farm in the country where the — you know, the small town that I went to high school in had 1500 people and the towns around us were fairly similar. I really had a fairly sheltered upbringing; a good upbringing, but sheltered. We spent most of our time in our home, you know, working with my parents. We didn’t really travel and go to any place that was very different from where I grew up. And I did not know of any gay people. I didn’t even know of gay people or, really, even the concept of a gay lifestyle or sexuality until I was like a teenager.

Q. Tell us when you moved to California?


A. I moved to California in 1985 when I graduated.

THE COURT: Were you married in Iowa before you came to California or were you married after you came to California?


THE WITNESS: I moved here in 1985 and got married in 1987. So that was in California.


THE COURT: And did you meet your husband in California?


THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.




Q. Tell us about that. Did you have a relationship with him for a certain period of time before you got married?


A. Yes, I did. We dated for about a year before we got married.

[Again, her relationship with her husband developed in a way entirely typical of heterosexual relationships and marriages.]

Q. And give us the date, again, of the marriage?


A. November 14th, 1987.

Q. ‘87. And when did the marriage come to an end?


A. The marriage came to an end in 1999.

[Note that the marriage lasted for twelve years. This was not a short, doomed from the start type relationshipit even lasted well past the classic seven-year itch.

Part 2 of this post will go over Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.]

Tony Perkins on CBS’s Face the Nation

by Jared Bridges

August 9, 2010

FRC President Tony Perkins appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday (8/8/10) to discuss the implications of the federal court ruling striking down California’s “Proposition 8.” Here’s a clip of the interview below, followed by links to other media coverage of the interview:


Same-Sex Marriage Decision: “Far From Over” (CBS)

Family Research Council compares Prop. 8 to Roe; says fight not over (The Hill)

Perkins: We hope ‘sanity will reign’ on gay marriage ban (Politico)

Activists Gear Up for Next Round on Gay Marriage (CQ Politics)

Gay-Marriage Ruling Should Be Upheld, Ex-Solicitor General Ted Olson Says (Bloomberg)

Prop 8 attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies say judge’s ruling is ‘constitutionally sound’ (NY Daily News)

Olson backs gay marriage ruling (Boston Globe)