We knew this lawsuit in federal court was coming when we the voters affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman and that homosexuals, deserving of the same treatments that civil unions' afford, could not lay claim to an institution that has predated the state itself.
Obviously, a big part of the effort to invalidate Proposition 8 is to somehow show that homosexuals have been the victim of widespread and systemic discrimination. To correct the record, CMC Professor Ken Miller is there to correct the record. From today's New York Times,
The first defense witness, Dr. Kenneth P. Miller, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, said that while the state’s voters had twice defined marriage as between only a man and a woman — with Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008 — they had not invalidated other laws that extended benefits, like domestic partnerships for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender residents.
“It is true that in 2000 and 2008 the L.G.B.T. community, gays and lesbians, lost ballot measure contests” over same-sex marriage, Dr. Miller said. “However, California voters have not used the initiative process nor the popular referendum to repeal or limit the Legislature’s other broad expansions of L.G.B.T. rights.”
During a sharp cross examination, however, David Boies, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, peppered Dr. Miller with questions about discrepancies between his testimony Monday and earlier sworn depositions he had given. At one point, Mr. Boies asked whether Dr. Miller’s knowledge of pro-gay political gains came from his own research or had been told to him repeatedly by defense lawyers.
“Some of them were provided for me by counsel,” Dr. Miller said, “but most of them I found myself.”
. . .
The defense sought to show that claims of bias against gay men and lesbians were overblown. In particular, Dr. Miller testified, gay men and lesbians in California could count on a deep and varied contingent of allies, including the Democratic Party, organized labor, corporations, newspapers, celebrities and some church groups. Some of these groups also contributed heavily to the “No on 8” campaign, Dr. Miller said, which spent $43 million.
“There is no social issue that has ever involved this kind of money,” he said. “This is exceptional.”