Language & Economy Impact at Prop 8 Trial

January 20, 2010

 

The Proposition 8 trial continued last week with the use of language and the economic impact of gay marriage coming into the fold.

Proponents of the ban, in place since November 2008 and which prohibits LGBT couples from marrying in California, repeatedly referred to gays and lesbians in dated language, saying LGBT live a “lifestyle” and that homosexuality is a “choice.”

Opponents of the ban employed the terms “identity” and “sexual orientation” throughout the proceedings.

"It’s interesting that the proponents consistently refer to an individual’s ’lifestyle,’" Shannon Minter, an attorney for the National Centre for Lesbian Rights who is attending the trial, told the EDGE Boston. "They seem to consistently be suggesting that being gay is a choice that it’s not a legitimate identity and it’s okay for the government to be prejudiced against being gay."

Rev. Hah-Shing William Tam of ProtectMarriage.com said during the proceedings that once gay rights have been achieved, the gay agenda would next turn to paedophilia.

The claim, Minter said, is "the most vicious stereotypes that gay people are dangerous sexual predators. That’s extremely offensive."

Prop 8 supporters argued that while Californians are generally tolerant and accepting, marriage is where they draw the line.

"That sends send a message that the law does not have to treat people equally; that they are not entitled to full citizenship," Minter retorted.

The economic impact of permitting same-sex marriage for San Francisco, the state of California, and for the country was another issue brought to the fore in an effort to frame gay marriage as beneficial for government interest.

Lian H. Meyer professor of clinical sociomedical sciences at Columbia University argued that permitting same-sex marriage would greatly reduce the mental health impacts of homophobia and save governments more cash. Marriage would also allow spouses to qualify for their partner’s employment health plan and rely less on government funds for health care.

Marriage would reduce social stigma and the majority of the population would view LGBT as “normal.”

"I don’t know if it has any social meaning," Meyer said. "I think it is clear that young children do not aspire to become domestic partners. But they may desire to become married."
 

Image Source: www.calalumnipride.org