Ya know, it can be pretty tough for a non-lawyer to follow a case like the Perry Prop 8 case which just concluded here in San Francisco. First there are thousands of pages of briefs, reply briefs, amicus briefs, filings, transcripts, documents put into evidence, and documents submitted for judicial notice. There is public punditry from so far left and so far right that we could circumnavigate the globe with it. Then there are the standards of review: strict scrutiny, rational basis review, and that lovely level of scrutiny for those who can’t make up their minds: intermediate scrutiny, which I suppose, could be both irrational and at a heightened level all at the same time. There are precedent setting cases cited as easily as men at a gay bar might cite a line from a great movie, and the votes in the courts on those cases are remembered like scores from World Series’ of yesteryear.

All that obscurity can’t hide this unmistakable fact: The side opposed to same sex marriage wants to channel you, and indeed you have almost certainly been the recipient of the “channeling function”. And if you could get married to someone of the same sex, they couldn’t channel you anymore. So what IS the channeling function? If you are LGBT, you recognize the “channeling function” immediately when you see it, even without the help of a brilliant attorney.

The channeling function is the latest reason the Defenders of Prop 8 (the Defendant/Intervenors, also known as the Prop 8 Proponents) put forth to explain why we need to keep same sex marriage from ever happening. It was the “rational basis” for Prop 8, if you will, for those of you keeping score of the legal mumbo jumbo. It seems to be the idea the state has an interest in minimizing “irresponsible procreation”. They believe that the ideal place for child creation and rearing is a marriage between opposite sex partners. Society needs more children or it will perish, or so they reason, so we shove folks into these marriages so they will procreate. Responsibly. Kind of reminds me of the admonishments the alcohol industry uses in the fine print at the bottom of their ads. Drink. Procreate. Responsibly.

You know what channeling is, though you may never have called it that before. You’ve probably been exquisitely attuned to know when you are being channeled, or even when you are about to be channeled. Every time a mother has ever asked her son whether he’s found a “nice girl” she is using the channeling function, or when grandma tells her granddaughter that “every woman needs a man in her life”. Or when a bisexual college student is told by her friends, “Don’t you think it’s time you made up your mind.” Or even when, even as children and beyond, we are encouraged to use gender “appropriate” colors and clothing. Because, you know, it’s difficult to channel a guy wearing pink.

The defenders of prop 8 don’t seem to mind the fact that LGBT people who are “successfully” channeled into opposite sex marriages contribute to broken families that increase the possibility of one-parent families. Never mind the fact that each of those God-awkward channeling conversations distances LGBT people from their parents and friends. Never mind the fact that marriage might help same sex couples who raise children provide a better life for their kids. The Proponents of Prop 8 believe that if LGBT people had the option of choosing anything other than an opposite sex marriage, then straight people might not be amenable to the “channeling function”, and might be more likely to engage in “irresponsible procreation”. Never mind the fact that we live on a planet being overrun and destroyed by the human species, as a result of people who, by and large, procreate “responsibly”.

Unfortunately, despite some brilliant lawyering by Ted Olson and his sidekick David Boies – supported by equally brilliant Therese Stewart and others on the Plaintiff’s team – Olson didn’t recognize what the channeling function was, and as a result we missed a crucial opportunity to drive home how insidious this whole channeling function is. To the best of my recollection, the Defenders of Prop 8 only invented the term as an after-the-fact rational basis for voting for Prop 8, in response to the questions that Judge Walker put forth for both sides to answer in preparation for the Closing Arguments. While it does rely upon ideas put forth at trial, the term seems to come out of nowhere., though as I’ve demonstrated it is very much at work in society. Maybe Olson was caught off guard by the terminology, but Instead of dealing with the stigmatizing nature of the channeling function, he poked fun at the notion of channeling by alluding to the psychic version of “channeling”, in which a living person talks to a dead person on behalf of another living person. Unfortunately, Ted Olson, brilliant as he is, seemed to miss the real purpose of the channel function: to reinforce the notion in society that being gay is not an an acceptable path for one’s life.

I believe that in his blistering questioning of Proponent’s chief attorney Charles Cooper, Judge Walker clearly showed his disdain for much of their case. He openly mocked their claim that they didn’t need to show any evidence. He wagged his head at the notion that infertile opposite sex couples who use medical interventions to bear children ought to be treated differently than same sex couples who do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason. He seemed incredulous at the Proponent’s arguments that adopted kids are better off if their parents are prevented from marrying. He seemed to adopt Olson’s contention that opposition to same sex marriage is really sex discrimination as he peppered Cooper with questions. So then, the question is not so much whether the bulk of the ruling will go in our favor, the question is how far will he go, and to what extent the trial itself exposes the nature of our opposition. But regardless of how we fair in the Judge’s ruling, the closing arguments were a crucial teachable moment in the trial, and are among the elements most likely to be remembered in the future.

I am truly elated by how thoroughly the Proponents case crumbled in the course of this trial and during the closing arguments, and can’t help but be impressed that these straight (and in Olson’s case, quite conservative) attorneys stood up for our equality, our dignity, and our right to be live a life free from stigma. Sadly, though, they missed a prime opportunity to straightforwardly attack the lead contention of Cooper’s closing argument, namely to shed light on those awkward channeling moments which divide LGBT people from their families, can result in broken marriages and single parent households, and stigmatize us by a creating a nagging internal sense that we aren’t living up to the expectations of others around us. We don’t need to be able to see through the stacks of legal briefs to recognize the channeling function when we see it.