Defendant-Interveners (pg 3)

An individual who is not already a party to an existing lawsuit but who makes himself or herself a party either by joining with the plaintiff or uniting with the defendant in resistance of the plaintiff's claims. The voters and backers of Proposition 8 join the defense as the state won't defend the proposition itself, hence Mr. Cooper representing them as the "defendant-interveners," intervening on the behalf of the defense.

 

Gavin Newsom (pg 8)

An American politician. In 2003, he was elected the 42nd Mayor of San Francisco, the city’s youngest in a hundred years. In 2004 Newsom gained national attention when he directed the San Francisco city–county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in violation of the current state law. The ad featured in 8 the Play shows a clip from one of his speeches, posing him in a negative light. Protect Marriage saw him as one of the "enemies" of traditional marriage, as he is allowing gay marriages in San Francisco.

 

Deinstitutionalization (pg 8)

The name given to the policy of moving severely mentally ill people out of large state institutions and then closing part or all of those institutions; it has been a major contributing factor to the mental illness crisis. This term is used in regards to gay marriage as an argument that the state is moving outside of the traditional sense of marriage by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

 

Public Vows (pg 9)

Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation by Dr. Nancy F. Cott. In this book, Dr. Cott explains that marriage is and always has been a public institution. Public Vows is a panoramic view of marriage's political history, revealing the national government's profound role in our most private of choices. In the trial, this book was used against the plaintiffs by Mr. Cooper, siting a passage about pregnancy and birth to argue that procreation is a signifier of legal marriage.

 

Lawrence v Texas (pg 15)

In this case, the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws applying to gays and lesbians. In the 6-3 decision, five justices overturned a 1986 ruling that had given states the right to criminalize sodomy and announced that homosexuals as well as heterosexuals enjoy a fundamental right to conduct their intimate relations without interference by the state.

 

Bowers v Hardwick (pg 15)

A United States Supreme Court decision, overturned in 2003 by Lawrence v Texas, that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.

 

Mr. Olson brought up this case, along with Lawrence v Texas because both instances involved a violation with the due process clause, saying that Proposition 8 should also be found unconstitutional on these grounds.

 

Due Process (pg 15)

A law based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life or liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. Found under the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the constitution, this law is the reason why Proposition 8 was continually struck down in court. Lawyers argued that if gay couples weren’t breaking any laws or harming anyone, they should be able to marry and be protected by the law.

 

Criminal Statute (pg 15)

Also called criminal law, dealing with crimes against the public and members of the public, with penalties and all the procedures connected with charging, trying, sentencing and imprisoning defendants convicted of crimes. In Lawrence vs Texas, homosexual couples were being charged with sodomy laws.

 

Criminal Sanction (pg 15)

A sanction is the punishment for a criminal offense. The criminal sanction for a criminal defendant varies according to the crime and includes such measures as death, incarceration, probation, community service, and monetary fines. Judge Walker stated that unlike the sodomy laws in the Lawrence vs Texas case, same-sex marriage has no punishment under the law.

 

National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) (pg 16)

NARTH is an organization that offers conversion therapy and other regimens for the purpose of changing the sexual orientation of individuals who claim they experience unwanted same-sex attraction. One of the witnesses, Ryan Kendall, was sent to this institution as a teenager and now testifies on behalf of the plaintiffs.

 

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi (pg 16)

An American clinical psychologist, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California. He is also the founder and former president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Nicolosi has advocated and practiced reparative therapy, a practice that he claims can help people overcome or mitigate their homosexual desires and replace them with heterosexual ones. He ‘treated’ Ryan Kendall and other patients, as retold in the trial Hollingsworth vs. Perry.

 

Political Power (pg 22)

An authority held by a group within a society that allows for the administration of public resources and implement policies for society. Power may be acquired as a means of governmental direction or in opposition to a government group. Mr. Cooper was trying to argue that gays and lesbians, a group based on sexual identity in our society, hold power in our government. However, with many rights denied, including marriage, witness Dr. Segura proves they are without political power.

 

"The New York Court of Appeals 2006" (pg 29)

Hernandez vs Robles, five same-sex couples, backed by Lambda Legal, file suit challenging the constitutionality of limiting marriage to only opposite-sex couples. The complaint relied on both equal protection and due process claims. The Court of Appeals issues a 4–2 decision upholding New York's existing marriage statutes and declining to judicially mandate the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York. The Court's ruling states that same-sex partners do not have the right to marry each other under the New York Constitution. Mr. Cooper was using this case as an argument against the plaintiffs.

 

Sociologist Kingsley Davis (pg 32)

American sociologist and demographer who coined the terms population explosion and zero population growth. His specific studies of American society led him to work on a general science of world society, based on empirical analysis of each society in its habitat. Though Mr. Cooper cited his findings in court, he did not testify in court during this case.

 

Equivocal (pg 33)

Open to two or more interpretations and often intended to conceal the truth. Judge Walker was referring to Blankenhorn’s testimony as equivocal because he advocated for both the defense and plaintiffs.

 

Traditional Family Coalition (pg 33)

An American conservative Christian organization that represents, by its estimate, over 43,000 Christian churches throughout the United States. The Traditional Values Coalition has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center along with other social conservative groups: the SPLC states that they spread “known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.” The executive director of this organization, Dr. William Tam, was a witness in the Hollingsworth vs Perry case for the defense, until he disappeared and avoided a subpoena to appear in court.  

 

Subpoenas (pg 35)

An order issued under the authority of a court, commanding a person to appear in court on a particular date, usually to give testimony in a legal case. Dr. William Tam was issued several subpoenas after his deposition to appear in court, however he refused to appear in court after public backlash.   

 

Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (pg 35)

A French anthropologist and ethnologist whose work was key in the development of the theory of structuralism and structural anthropology. As well as sociology, his ideas reached into many fields in the humanities, including philosophy. Structuralism has been defined as "the search for the underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity." Mr. Blankenhorn cited his words to defend the idea that because only an opposite sex union can procreate, they have more rights to children over same-sex unions.

 

"Loving Decision Supreme Court 1967" (pg 40)

Loving v Virginia was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. During this trial, the comparison was consistently made between interracial and same-sex marriages and the legality of the two, the right of a minority to legally wed.

 

"Eleventh Circuit Florida statute gay adoptions" (pg 41)

Referring to the case Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services, a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's ban of adoption of children by homosexual persons. This was to further a claim by the defense that the government has ruled that opposite-sex couples should have parental rights and back their claim of procreation as a legal reasoning against same-sex marriage.

 

Daubert Standards (pg 41)

The Daubert standards provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Judge Walker called the Daubert standards into questions regarding the legitimacy of Blankenhorn’s testimony, as most of his claims he admitted were made by other scholars, not words of his own.

 

The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn (pg 46)

In this book, Blankenhorn explains his views of gay and lesbian leaders that are not asking for marriage with an adjective in front of it, but marriage itself. Therefore, what marriage is and why it matters is what this debate is all about. Mr. Boies used this book against Blankenhorn, as his own findings and words actually promote same-sex marriage and go against what he recited in his earlier testimony.

 

Romer Court (pg 49)

Romer v Evans, is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick. Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Olson cites this case in his final argument referring to legitimate interest, stating that keeping same-sex marriages from happening doesn’t affect procreation. He argued that like in the Romer case, same-sex couples do not harm the institution of marriage or effect straight marriages, and hence should be protected under the Constitution with due process.