Arguing that the case brought by same-sex couples seeking to marry was unlike past gay rights cases where the court struck down anti-gay restrictions and also unlike Loving v. Virginia, in which the court struck down bans on interracial marriage, the proponents of Proposition 8 argue that there is no historic reason "for invalidating marriage as it has existed in California for virtually all of its history, as it was universally understood throughout this Nation (and the world) until just the last decade, and as it continues to be defined in the overwhelming majority of States and Nations."Geidner clips this passage from the brief:
Our Constitution does not mandate the traditional gendered definition of marriage, but neither does our Constitution condemn it. This Court, accordingly, should allow the public debate regarding marriage to continue through the democratic process, both in California and throughout the Nation.Arguments in the case are scheduled to begin on March 26th.
Among the numerous articles listed in the "authorities" portion of the Protect Marriage brief are two essays by homocon writer and marriage equality supporter Jonathan Rauch. From a December 2012 article penned by Rauch for The New Republic:
I tell my gay friends: imagine if the Supreme Court had ordered gay marriage this past June, at the end of its 2011-2012 term. November’s game-changing electoral victories would never have happened. Gay marriage advocates would be forever stereotyped as political losers who won by running to mommy. Our opponents would mock and denigrate our marriages as court-created, legalistic fictions. The country would never have shown how much it has changed. If we have come that far in five years, imagine where we might be in five more. Imagine, then, the opportunities to extend and consolidate support that we will lose if the Supreme Court steps in now. Strange but true: a favorable Supreme Court intervention next year would make us weaker, not stronger.