San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Bob Egelko writes about how the Proponents of Prop. 8, who are defending the initiative in court, are distancing themselves from assertions they made during the campaign:

Campaigners for California’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2008 told traditional families they had much at stake: the future of marriage itself and the need to “protect our children,” as one ad put it, from the impact of legalized gay and lesbian unions.

…

In their latest court filing, the measure’s supporters reply that they never promoted Prop. 8 as a benefit for married couples – just for society as a whole.

“Our argument is that adoption of same-sex marriage will likely harm the institution of marriage over time, not that any individual’s existing marriage will be affected,” said Charles Cooper, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage.

…

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for two same-sex couples and a gay-rights group that challenged Prop. 8, said the measure’s sponsors were contradicting their campaign message that heterosexuals needed protection from same-sex marriage.

“It’s a stunning admission that all the arguments they were making before are completely baseless,” he said.

Read the full article >