Summary of the Prop. 8 Trial

Those of us at United Families International are grateful for the wonderful work of those defending traditional marriage in California. The following is a summary of the trial written by Ron Prentice, the executive director of protectmarriage.com.

The live testimony in the federal trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic court battle over the definition of marriage, finally came to a close yesterday afternoon.

Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us.

For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony was broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast. Even though the US Supreme Court later overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case, it was too late.

The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on our team of defense attorneys to find other ways to get our critical evidence into the record. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, our attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the other side’s witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy. Thankfully, our legal team was extremely successful in this regard.

After weeks of 20+ hour days, our attorneys finally were able to get a good night’s rest. We appreciate your prayers for them and your words of encouragement. Starting today, they will be working for the next 30 days to submit additional briefings to the judge. They will also start preparing to go back before Judge Walker sometime in March to present final closing arguments. And then we will await the court’s ruling.

No matter how Judge Walker rules, all sides agree that this is just the first stage in a much longer journey that will ultimately end at the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter which side wins this first legal test, the case is surely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually to the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even though the live testimony has ended, we must continue our efforts to secure the resources needed for a strong legal defense of Prop 8. Please help us with your own contribution, and forward this email to your friends and colleagues who themselves might make a donation. Our outstanding legal bills are substantial and the ongoing fight will be expensive.

Every person involved in our legal defense has made tremendous sacrifices. Lead trial counsel Charles Cooper and his team from the Cooper & Kirk law firm have done a spectacular job. Special thanks is also due to the excellent attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund who donated literally thousands of hours of legal work as part of the defense team.

In particular, we are also extremely grateful to our own General Counsel, Andy Pugno, whose wife is due to deliver their third child any day now. Not only has he worked tirelessly for months on end and represented us ably in the courtroom, his entire family has paid a price as Andy has been fighting for the institution of marriage. We owe him, and his family, a debt of gratitude.

Below is a statement Andy released to the media late yesterday about the case. It’s an excellent summary of how this show trial unfolded.

Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8′s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.

What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional
marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.

Thank you for your continued help through prayer, financial support, encouragement, and spreading the word. We – all of us – are responsible for the shape of our society when we hand it off to future generations.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Prop. 8 Trial: Final Thoughts

The Prop 8 trial is over, in case you hadn’t heard.

The judge will now take the time to make his decision, one that will likely make no difference at all—it will be appealed.

Meanwhile the rest of us scrape for the facts, some kind of understanding of what happened over the last two weeks in that San Francisco courtroom. Over the course of the trial, I scoured the Internet in search of reliable updates only to be disappointed.

Unbiased news was hard to come by.

There were numberless sites that told me why the homosexual marriage proponents were tearing apart the Prop. 8 defense, and I found a few that described the simple unraveling of the plaintiffs’ main points—none that felt unbiased—until today.

Rare Objectivism

TIME wrote an article that sang the song of true objective journalism. Other than that one article, I’ve been very disappointed. Most of what I heard was editorializing, and I couldn’t help but wonder, “Where are the facts? The statistics?”

I would like to give some statistics that seemed to be left out of the court case, statistics that speak the truth, with no need of editorializing or appeal to authority.

In the TIME’s article, a man was quoted in saying, “There are more than ample grounds to argue that the sustenance of marriage is necessary for the flourishing of human culture. Thus, anything that damages marriage or subverts its place in society is deleterious (harmful) in its effects.”

He continued, “Throughout history, societies have regulated marriage with this danger in mind, recognizing in marriage the privileged status granted to the heterosexual union as the best context for procreation and the raising of children — functions understood to be vital to the society’s well-being.”

The Facts

Here’s a sample of the “more than ample grounds” he referred to that argue the importance of traditional marriage for children (sources found below).

Approximately 18 percent of children from traditional families will be suspended or expelled from school, children living with one biological parent and a stepparent (which is what a homosexual parent would be) has about a 30 percent chance.

Of the children that repeat grades in school, 11 percent live with both biological parents, 21 percent live with a mother and a stepfather (which, as said earlier, is what a homosexual parent would be).

Children raised by one biological parent and a step parent are about three times more likely to end up in jail as adults than children raised by both of their biological parents.

In a survey of 272 high school students, thirty-eight percent of teens in step-families reported suicidal behavior, compared to 20 percent of teens from single-parent homes and 9 percent of teens from intact families.

This is not meant to be an indictment of heterosexual step-families, many make a valiant effort and are successful, but the government should not intentionally create situations where children are guaranteed less than the ideal.

I don’t trust biased mainstream media articles that belong on the opinion page.

P.S. If you’ve found more unbiased articles on Prop. 8, please share them with me and other readers.

Find more of the facts in our issues guides found here.

All of this research can be found in the United Families International issues guides, where hundreds of studies have been compiled to help people see the science concerning the family’s crucial role in society.

Wendy Manning and Kathleen Lamb, “Adolescent Well-being in Cohabitating, Married, and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2003): 876-893.Manning and Kathleen Lamb Source: “Adolescent Well-being in Cohabitating, Married, and Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65

Deborah Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53(3) (1991, August): 578.

The Heritage Foundation

Judith Rubenstein, Antonia Halton, Linda Kasten, Carol Rubin and Gerald Stechler, “Suicidal Behavior in Adolescents: Stress and Protection in Different Family Contexts,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68 (1998): 274-84.

Are you ready to give up your freedom of speech?

Lorenzo Hoopes is a 96-year-old man who has spent the last twenty years on the board of directors for the Paramount Theatre of the Arts in Oakland, California. Now, after all his years of service, his current re-election to the board is being protested.

Not because of his age. His re-appointment is being protested by the gay activists because he donated $26,000 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in 2008.

Hoopes’ significant contribution has homosexual activists up in arms about his traditional marriage stance. It doesn’t matter to them that in his past twenty years of serving on the board he has expressed no homophobic tendencies. It doesn’t matter to them that members of the community didn’t have issues with him before Prop 8.  It should matter however that he is being discriminated against for standing up for what he believes.

It is biased to say that he shouldn’t be re-appointed because he voted yes on Prop 8, while other board members are being appointed because they voted no on Prop 8. Oakland has the largest lesbian contingent in the United States, and understandably people want a board that they feel represents them. However, to completely discount all that Hoopes has done for the community because of his religious views shows intolerance. A trait that the homosexual community claims it opposes.

Even journalists in the Bay area are the subject of harassment for writing articles stating that Hoopes’ election shouldn’t be based on his political and religious views, but on his previous work on the theatre board. One columnist made a valid point when she stated, “If Hoopes’ support of Prop 8 makes him unfit to serve on the Paramount board, doesn’t that then disqualify a majority of Californians from holding public office?”

Hoopes should be praised for his decades of work in the betterment of the Oakland community, not withheld from office because he exercised his right to vote for what he believes. He shows no animosity towards those who oppose him, simply stating “”I don’t agree with it, but it’s their prerogative.”

Hoopes’ story is an example of the persecution that many can and will face due to the homosexual agenda. Are you willing to give up your freedom of speech to appease the LGBT community?

The Pro-Life Movement is Gaining Steam

For the first time since Roe v. Wade, the majority of Americans are pro-life. What’s changed? And what will pro-life organizations do now that they have the people’s support?

To find out, make sure to catch the latest installment of Voice of the Nation. We’ll tackle these questions and more with the help of Daniel S. McConchie, Vice President of Government Affairs at Americans United for Life (the first national pro-life organization in the country).

The show will be broadcast live at 2 pm PST, listen here. If you miss it, make sure to listen to the recording here.

Women marrying their careers

For decades we have heard that the world is over populated, having children is bad for the environment and we are running out of natural resources. Culture is pushing our focus to care more about recycling, saving endangered species and having a fabulous career.  It’s easy to get caught up, promising you’ll be content after the next raise, after the new beautiful car you’ll be able to get next month. It’s easy to push back more important life choices until next year. Such as having children.

There is an ever growing trend for women not to have children, not necessarily for the Earth’s sake, but because of their career.  Anastasia de Waal, director of family and education for Civitas said, “These women are marrying their careers, and not marrying and having children.

If they do choose to get married rather than cohabite or remain single, they are waiting longer. A Rutgers University report from 2008 states that the median age for a woman’s first marriage has risen to about 26 from the 1970 median of about 21. Additionally, women who have earned a four-year college degree or higher may not be getting married until nearer the age of 30.

Since single women are almost five times less likely to have children, and those cohabiting are almost twice less likely to have children then married women, the fertility rates are dropping severely.

Since women are getting married later, they are postponing having children by default, or even abstaining completely. “In 1970, 71 percent of married women had a first birth within the first three years of marriage. By 1990, the percentage had fallen to 37. Consequently, married women today spend a greater number of ‘child-free’ years before they become mothers,” the Rutgers study reports.

Women are not as willing to give up the careers they have worked for years to establish to have children. “We have not got the balance right between wanting children in our society and wanting to work.” De Waal said.

The goal is to not eliminate women from the workplace, but to create a society where having children is not looked down upon. Women are better educated and more successful in the workforce then any other time in history, which is not a bad thing. The negative side effect of this is that women believe they have to choose between having a career and having a family.

Studies are showing that lower fertility rates are harming the world economy rather then helping. Countries such as Russia, China and Japan who previously had incredibly strict laws regarding family size are realizing this troubling fact and now trying to reverse the damage. The governments of these countries are now offering monetary compensation for families having more then one child. China is having a bride shortage, as you can read about in this weeks UFI alert in “The Tragedy of China’s “Bare Branches”

Homosexual Men in the Headlines: The Age Gap

Two homosexual couples have made headlines recently. One is reported to be the first homosexual couple to be married in China; the other is two Italian men that have started a hunger strike in Italy, hoping to bring homosexual marriage to the attention of the Italian government.

Besides becoming widely known, these couples have something else in common—a huge age gap.

The couple in China is a 46-year-old man matched with a 27-year-old man. The Italian couple: 38 and 22.

In both cases, one of the men is almost twice the age of his partner.

There may be an explanation for this, as reported by Julie Harren, Ph.D.,

“A common contributor to same-sex attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s view of his or her own gender; that is, his or her sense of masculinity or femininity.

…For males, the relationship between a boy and his father is the initial source of developing a secure gender identity…

When the child reaches the age of five, he begins to face another task, that is, to begin to attach to same-sex peers…Through the relationships he forms with other boys, he continues to gain a sense of masculinity, discovering more about others boys and therefore more about himself as a boy.

Eventually, after many years of bonding with members of the same sex, the boy enters puberty. At this time he begins to turn his attention to the opposite sex…

Conversely, for the child who will develop a homosexual orientation, this process does not happen…Typically, for this child, there is something that prevents him from attaching to the father. Either he doesn’t have a father or a father figure, or he doesn’t have a father who he perceives as safe and/or welcoming.”

Harren concedes, “Of course, there are many children who grow up without fathers and yet do not develop a homosexual orientation…Human development is very complex…”

Family relationships are not the only indicator, but they do play a crucial role in gender identification. Statistics say so.

A study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, done to determine the influence of family factors on sexual-orientation development.

It was done on a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49. Denmark — a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships — was the first country to recognize same-sex unions. The researchers assessed detailed marriage records for all Danish-born men and women marrying a same-sex partner from the years 1989 through 2001.

The study shows:

• “The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage…homosexual [”marriage”] rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence.”

• “Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to [”marry”] homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages.”

• “Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual [”marriage”] than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years.”

• Men who [”marry”] homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships — particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

• Men and women with “unknown fathers” were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.

• Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence “had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father’s death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage.“

Such extreme differences in age makes me wonder. Maybe these two young men are in relationships with older men in hopes to find some sort of father figures in their lives, or maybe to find their own gender identity.

The facts say to me, “it’s a possibility.”

The Tragedy of China’s “Bare Branches”

China’s economy may be booming, but China is facing a shortfall of an essential resource…women.

A new study conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences warns that China will have a bride shortage of 24 million by the year 2020 .

To put it in perspective, that’s the equivalent of all the males in the metropolitan areas of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth and Atlanta not being able to find a woman to marry.

“Bare branches.” That’s how the Chinese refer to these Chinese males who will never have families because they cannot find spouses. It’s an apt metaphor-bare branches-unmarried men who will have nothing attached to them. There will be no wife, no children.

Researchers offer some insight into the common characteristics of “bare branches”:

- Belong to predominantly the lowest socioeconomic class
- More likely to be underemployed or unemployed
- Transient with few ties to the community
- Transient males that commit proportionately more violence than non-transient males
- Live and socialize with other bare branches, creating distinctive bachelor subcultures
- Commit more violence-often under the influence of alcohol and certain drugs
- Predisposed to risk taking (Valerie Hudson, 2004 “Bare Branches”)

Read that list again and ponder the impact that 24 million men with these characteristics might have on a society. Some experts go so far as to argue that such a sex ratio imbalance in a population has regional and global security implications.

“The security logic of high-sex-ratio cultures predisposes nations to see some utility in interstate conflict….Conflict is often an effective mechanism by which governments can send bare branches away from national population centers, possibly never to return.” (Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. DenBoer, 2004)

So where did all the females go?

In 1979, China implemented their “one-child policy.” As part of the policy, couples were told by the government when they could marry, that they were to have one child, and that contraception and sterilization would be dictated by the local “family planning” authorities. Since then, sex selective abortion of females and female infanticide (the killing of young female children after birth) has become rampant.

The preference for sons is a widespread problem in many cultures, driven by the belief that a son is integral to one’s future financial and social wellbeing. It is a problem that has existed for centuries and is not unique to just China. But in the process of the Chinese government forcing down the birth rate at the same time ultrasound technology has become widely available, immense cultural pressure comes to bear on Chinese parents to determine the sex of their unborn child and terminate the pregnancy if it is a girl. When the one-child policy meets a cultural preference for boys and widely available ultra sound technology, the result is one of the worst examples of gender abuse in the world.

Was the one-child policy necessary ?

Steven Mosher, a pro-family expert on China, makes the case that it was not.

“I have long argued that the one-child policy, besides being a gross violation of human rights, was demographically unnecessary. Birth rates in China in the late seventies were already falling fast. Even in the absence of the one-child policy, they would have continued to fall-probably to near present-day levels–as a result of China’s urbanization, industrialization, and rising levels of education. And this would have happened without the tens of millions of forced abortions and sterilizations that the state has imposed .”

Using internationally respected data, we at UFI ran the numbers. Note China and the year 1979, the start of the one-child policy. As Mosher points out, the fertility rate of China was already dropping rapidly. The most dramatic decrease in the fertility rate, from 5.9 to 2.9, occurred between 1970 and 1979. Note also the other countries in the region-countries who did not have a one-child policy-experienced similar declines in fertility rate.

Source: UN Demographic Yearbook: Historical Supplement 1997; UN Demographic Yearbook: Each Census 1985-2003; UN World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision Population Database; UN Data: A World of Information; Taiwan: Yearbook Department of Statistics

The destructive mindset and resultant policies continue

China has pledged to keep its one-child policy in place until the year 2050, a policy which it admits is “related” to the large sex imbalances in the country-a sex imbalance that in some areas is as high as 140 males to 100 females.

Over the coming months, the United Nations will be hosting meetings, negotiating conventions and reaffirming treaties that rubber stamp unnecessary population control policies. They will do this claiming that reducing population is crucial to the progress of developing countries-a point that empirical data does not support.

The UN Human Rights Council will continue to turn a blind eye to the gross human rights violations committed against women and their unborn children in China. The UN’s own UNFPA is complicit and openly supports and condones China’s one-child policy.

Feminist organizations worldwide, those who claim to champion the rights of all women to control their bodies, will barely mention and usually flat out ignore what is happening to their fellow females in China. Why? Because standing against what is occurring in China would shine a light on their pro-abortion policies, stymie their efforts to push legalized abortion, for any reason, upon the entire world, and would force them to acknowledge, that for a radical feminist, a desire to “control one’s own body” only moves one direction-towards abortion.

The Good News: We can all help stop this!

With the help of all of our United Families International readers and dedicated supporters, we will have UFI representatives present at upcoming UN meetings. UFI will continue to stand against policies that harm our families and our unborn children. We will work to educate delegations and provide policy makers with relevant and crucial information. The anti-family forces are relentless in their efforts and we will be relentless in our efforts to push for policies that support and protect marriage and families.

Thank you for taking the time to educate yourself on these issues and please speak up in support of the family whenever possible. Your influence can be felt! The families of the world need you.

Will China’s 24 Million Bride Shortage Have An Effect On The Entire World? Vote here at the bottom right of the home page.

Condoms to the Rescue

Our love, thoughts, and prayers are with the victims of earthquake devastated Haiti.  We encourage all to give of whatever means they have to help those in need.  But this story in The Washington Times, just has to be commented upon.

An earthquake has just decimated your family, your community, and your life.  Your loved ones are still buried beneath rubble; you and your children have no water, food or shelter.  The dead lay all around you and the injured are crying for medical help.  But take heart, Planned Parenthood is coming to your rescue.  Bringing with them…drum roll…. condoms and “reproductive health kits.”

This is the same callousness and misplaced focus that thrives throughout the UN system.  We at UFI deal regularly with people who value “reproductive health services” over clean water, food, and disease control.  When UN negotiations attempt to focus on the real needs of developing countries, the international community is subjected to endless posturing and manipulation on the part of groups like Planned Parenthood.   There is only one agenda–theirs–and just like in Haiti, people continue to suffer.

Every Vote Counts

By now you know that Scott Brown, a Republican, won the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts last week. In one of the most Democratic states in the Union (less then 10% of voters are registered as Republican) the people made their voices heard.

Brown was elected by the little grassroots campaign that could. Despite Obama flying to Massachusetts to support Attorney General Martha Coakley just two days before the election, Brown won. Why?

Brown is a guy you want to be friends with. He’s an attractive older guy (Cosmopolitan Magazine: America’s Sexiest Man 1982) who drives a pick up (area GMC dealers are reporting a spike in sales of trucks) and like any dad, embarrasses his daughters in public (His daughter is single, if you were wondering). Brown is a lot easier to relate to then Coakley and he made sure the people of Massachusetts knew he was willing to represent them with their best interests at heart.

Moderate and Independent voters made this election. With such a small Republican contingent in Massachusetts, Moderates, Independents and unhappy Democrat voters were vital to the success of Brown’s campaign. These voters educated themselves and were able to vote not blindly by political party but by candidate and policies. The rest of the country needs to look to the voters of Massachusetts as an example of what you should do. Educate yourself. On the politician, their policies and their history to make an educated decision for who will best represent you and your family.

Most importantly, every vote counts. No matter where you live and how set in its ways a state may appear, you have to get out and vote. Brown would have never won the election if the people of Massachusetts hadn’t actually gone to the polls to vote. Passion is what drives people to the polls to vote, not political affiliation. Be passionate about making sure the correct people are elected to stand for your beliefs.  There is no point in complaining about elected officials  if you haven’t even made the effort to vote.

There are elections later this year. Be pro-active and be smart. And vote!

Ronald Reagan with a Duct Taped Mouth Wouldn’t Change My Mind

Cindy McCain has been photographed with a duct-taped mouth and NOH8 written on her cheek; she’s officially supporting homosexual marriage. I know what you’re thinking, “If Cindy supports it, I’ve got to support it.”

But cool your jets.

Even though Cindy McCain’s support may “help the tide to turn against proposition 8,” as was said in a recent LA Times article, there are still reasons to hold your ground.

I hope you’ve chosen your side by looking at the facts, not just the faces. If you saw that Ronald Reagan taped his mouth shut and wrote NOH8 on his cheek, you shouldn’t be swayed (except you should probably be scared, since he’s dead). This isn’t a political party issue, it’s a logical one.

The facts are out there.

A stable marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that has the biological potential to both produce children and provide the best and most successful environment in which to rear the next generation. This is not an issue of love, rights, or sexual preference; it is an issue of which activities and unions provide societies with a net benefit and which do not. Our nation has an obligation to protect the definition of marriage.

If you’d like scientific findings on the matter, click here. Or if you want to learn how to debunk the most common arguments, like: “Allowing homosexuals to marry does not harm or negatively impact anyone,” click here.

Look to the facts, not the faces.

I’ll do the same.

United Families International is committed to bringing you the facts about every issue surrounding the family.