Prop 8’s Legal Team Really Is The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Recently, the Yes on 8 crew (affectionately known as Team Totally Wrong) tried AGAIN to appeal the ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. While the videotapes of the original Prop 8 trial are still closed off from the public, the video of the hearings that occurred last week are fair game, brought to you by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and they are GOLDEN. I’m going to be spending the entire day traveling home for the holidays, and I will have 20 minutes of free (well, “sponsored”) wireless in the airport. I plan on using all of it to re-watch this. Twice. Bonus points if you can tell what Yes on 8 lawyer Charles Cooper is saying in the second video! (Originally via Queerty.) “This is like a music box of joy, it just goes on.” — Autostraddle’s CEO of Ideas, Marie Lyn “Riese” Bernard

Before you go! Autostraddle runs on the reader support of our AF+ Members. If this article meant something to you today — if it informed you or made you smile or feel seen, will you consider joining AF and supporting the people who make this queer media site possible?

Join AF+!


Originally from Boston, MA, Rachel now lives in the Midwest. Topics dear to her heart include bisexuality, The X-Files and tacos. Her favorite Ciara video is probably "Ride," but if you're only going to watch one, she recommends "Like A Boy." You can follow her on twitter and instagram.

Rachel has written 1142 articles for us.


    • Yes, his type of person functions in the world but it at the expense of humankind and, most importantly at the expense of truth, understanding and justice. Charles Cooper I find to
      be a disgusting human being.

  1. That is awesome! Haha! Thanks for the help making OUR case for US.

    You see he tried to have it both ways. If a gay long term partnered judge can’t rule on marriage equality because of his vested interest in the outcome….then neither can a straight married judge or any judge of any faith that generally holds a position on marriage…so he has to argue that it doesn’t work that way in one case while it does in the other. Ooops.

    When will they get they can’t LEGALLY have it both ways.

  2. The bottom-line on homophobia is the assertion that “I am
    better than you.” It’s really about power and there power
    is evaporating before our eyes. It’s about time. So much
    time wasted on the electoral process when the attitude should
    have been – “We will see you in court.”
    One fine day this ordeal will be over.

  3. I’m very confused by his argument. I’m very confused by him in general. And I know I’m not THAT stupid.

    • I think what he was trying to say was that a straight judge wouldn’t be biased because gay marriage wouldn’t affect the straights immediately. But they are still arguing the case because it would affect the straights eventually. Implying that a gay judge would be totally biased because gay marriage would benefit the gays immediately.

      Basically, he’s confusing his argument even more in an attempt to get his way.

      • What I’m getting from this is that he’s saying that it might not affect any individual straight marriage at all, the problem as he sees it would be that the “institution” of marriage would have a sad, because it wouldn’t just belong to straight people anymore and it’s afraid of being demeaned and that maybe people wouldn’t respect it in the morning (or in the next century)once it had all those icky homosexuals in its bed. Because institutions have feelings too.

  4. These people literally have no fucking idea what they’re talking about. It’s a logical merry-go-round. All aboard the crazy train.

  5. “What I mean to say is that individuals won’t be immediately affected.” “So they’ll be affected later?” “Well, no. But the IDEA would be affected, which would eventually…” “Affect straight people?” “Well, yes, but not to an extent that straight people would be influenced in any way.”

    Strong condemnation there. Gay marriage: might eventually maybe slightly effect straight marriages, but apparently not enough for any straight person now to care. DOOM!

  6. The vidoe is so funny! I will surely bookmark it and share it with others. And more, I really want to KISS the person who makes caption for the video. It can be frustrating to watch videoes when most can’t provide captions for the deaf.

    • Aww, yay, glad to hear that! I did the captions for these videos — I know how important accessibility is. The more people who can watch ’em, the better!

  7. Ha, this is golden.

    “I don’t think gay people should be allowed to get married, because it would harm straight marriage.”
    “Here is a gay judge and he says you’re wrong.”
    “Well he can’t be impartial, because this case affects him.”
    “So who should be the judge instead?”
    “A straight person! Because straight people will are not affected by the results of this case.”

  8. Hasn’t anyone ever thought that maybe Judge Walker DOESN’T want to get married to his partner? The assumption that he automatically benefits from his own ruling, positively, is unfounded. If he is like many men, he avoids marriage like the plague. He may have sound personal or financial reasons for NOT marrying his partner.

    But yes, the idea that only a straight person can render a sound decision here is so offensive it’s disgusting. But the straight supremacists are so convinced of their superiority, they don’t understand why others don’t agree with them.

    • I would actually assume he didn’t want to marry his partner. He had the opportunity, certainly knew of the vote yet chose not to marry.

      It’s a huge illlogical leap to assume he wants to marry.

  9. It would have been simpler if he stopped trying to make his argument sound reasonable and simply said how he really feels, that there is no real reason why he disagrees with homosexual marriage other than he just doesn’t like it.

Comments are closed.